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