Upload
lucinda-mills
View
221
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Adaptive Natural Resource Management: Incorporating Ecological, Social and Economic
Values in New York City’s Catskill/Delaware Watershed
Valerie A. LuzadisFaculty of Forest and Natural Resources Management
Watershed Ecology Course - April 16, 2002
Acknowledgements
• Tim Schaeffer, Director of Science and Policy, Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers
• Katie Goslee, Tamara Steger, Eric Greenfield, Rachel Goldberg, and Dexter Payne
Overview
• Watershed Management Challenges
• Adaptive Management
• Catskill/Delaware Watershed
• Was the NYC Watershed agreement adaptive management?
Watershed Management
• Three keys to watershed management: – Effectively analyze information– Understand fundamental environmental, social
and economic processes and the interactions between them
– Apply the knowledge to specific situations
• (Naiman 1992)
Watershed Management Challenges
• Watersheds Political Boundaries– Yet decision-makers associate with political
boundaries
• Multiple levels of governmental interest
• Local Government Roles– Home Rule– Municipal Activities
Adaptive Management
• An experimental approach to natural resource management in which developing knowledge flows among institutional partners (Holling 1995, Lee 1993).
• Much attention to the ecological components, much less to date on political, social and economic aspects (e.g., MacKenzie 1997, McLain and Lee 1996)
Adaptive Management Themes
• Uncertainty
• Ecological Scale
• Shared Power
• Flexibility
• Information Exchange
• Knowledge-Building
Methodological Pluralism
• “All the aspects of complex systems can only be understood through multiple methodologies” (Norgaard 1989:37)
• The adaptive management approach would appear to be consistent with Norgaard’s methodological pluralism
The NYC Watershed:Recent Political History
• 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule (due to 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974)– Either filter water supplies or– Institute EPA-approved watershed control
measures
• NYC chose management over filtering– $9 billion v. much less (maybe $1 billion)
The NYC Watershed:Recent Political History - 2
• 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)– Signed by NYC, EPA, upstate watershed
communities, NYS, 5 environmental organizations
– Key element of the MOA: Planning and infrastructure programs to curb non-point source pollution while protecting economic vitality of communities
NYC Watershed Basics
• 1,968 square miles in all or part of 8 counties north of NYC
• One of the world’s largest surface storage and supply complexes
• Primary source of drinking water for 8 million City residents and 1 million others
• 3 reservoir networks: Catskill, Delaware, Croton
Catskill-Delaware Watershed Characteristics
• Provides 90% of NYC’s drinking water
• Comprised of 41 towns and 9 villages within 5 counties
• Area drains to 6 major reservoirs
Schaeffer Study 2001Questions
• Are local governments complying with the MOA? Doing more?
• What influences local government decisions to comply?
• Is this an example of adaptive management?
Schaeffer Study 2001Methods
• Semi-structured Interviews– Town & Village supervisors and mayors– County, State, City, Non-profits
• Data Flow Diagrams• Document Analysis
– External Assessments– Internal Reports
• Quantitative Data
Q1: Town & Village Decisions
• Complying With MOA? Yes
• Doing More? Some Municipalities Are Taking Optional
Steps
Q1: Optional Decisions
21Exceed MOA Requirements
11Stream Management Workshops
11Septic Coordinator
5Stormwater Retrofit
2WRDA
25DOS Planning Grant
# of MunicipalitiesDecision
Stormwater Retrofit Grant
Septic System Local Coordinating Agency
Q2: Influences onLocal Decisions
• Legitimacy of NYC Power
• Lack of trust for NYC
• Inconsistency of messages from NYC
• Local experience with MOA
• Spatial Relationships
Technical Assistance and Information Paths Identified by Supervisors and Mayors
DEC
NYC DEP
US EPA
CWC
Other Towns & Villages
Planning
DPW / Public Works
Board of Supervisors
Soil & Water Conservation
District
New York State
County
State Health
Env. Facilities
Corp. Controller Assembly Rural
Resources
US Dept. of Agriculture
Catskill Center
Other Non-Profits
Delaware River Basin Commission
Watershed Agricultural Council
Cornell Cooperative Extension Town
or Village
Other Counties
Mountaintop Supervisors County
Legislature
Health Attorney
Water- shed
Affairs
Real Property
Tax
Coalition of Watershed Towns
Was it Adaptive Management?
• Uncertainty Yes
• Ecological Scale Somewhat
• Shared Power No
• Flexibility No
• Information Exchange No
• Knowledge-Building No
Adaptive Management
• Is it a good approach for incorporating ecological, social and economic values?
Additional Readings in Adaptive Management:
Holling, C.S. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? pp 3-34 in Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (ed.s). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York.
Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC
MacKenzie, S.H. 1997. Toward integrated resource management: lessons about the ecosystem approach from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Env. Mgmt. 21(2): 173-183.
McLain, R.J. and R.G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Env. Mgmt 20(4): 437-448.
Naiman, R.J. 1992. Integrated watershed management: science or myth? pp 5-20 In Adams, P.W., and W.A. Atkinson (ed.s) Watershed resources: balancing environmental, social, political, and economic factors in large basins. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Norgaard, R.B. 1989. The case for methodological pluralism. Ecol. Econ. 1:37-57.
Schaeffer, T.D. 2001. Local government participation in adaptive natural resource management: towns and villages in New York City’s Catskill/Delaware watershed. PhD dissertation, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY