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