For more information contact:
Betsy Landre
Water Resources Board
309 Lake Street
Penn Yan, New York 14527
Ph: (315) 536-7488
Fax: (315) 536-1237
Internet: wrb@eznet.net
John Hartig
International Joint Commission
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, Michigan 48232
Ph: (519) 257-6711
Fax: (519) 257-6740
Internet: hartigj@ijc.wincom.net
Design, layout and printing by Communications Services, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY 14456-0462. Cover concept by Bruce Jamieson, Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission.
Linking Local Watershed Management Efforts across the Lake Ontario Basin was the title of the 5th annual conference of the Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FL-LOWPA) held October 18-19, 1996 in Rochester, New York. The conference also functioned as the first public meeting of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) of the International Joint Commission (IJC) under the IJC's revised policy to improve public involvement and consultation in its affairs. The conference was the product of a unique partnership between two water quality entities representing perspectives from different levels - local and basinwide - which saw benefits in meeting together. FL-LOWPA is an alliance of 24 counties in New York's Lake Ontario Basin committed to improving the health of the region's watersheds based on local, coordinated programs. The WQB is the principal advisor to the IJC on all matters relating to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Board is made up of senior program managers from state, provincial and federal regulatory and resource management agencies.
Purpose and Structure
A primary purpose of the conference was to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas pertaining to watershed management between those in government agencies responsible for the development of basinwide management concepts and initiatives, and those working at the local level to implement programs. The conference was intended to provide a rare opportunity for these groups working on resource management at varying levels to discuss how they might reinforce and compliment each other's work to strengthen watershed management in the Lake Ontario basin. Designed to be action-oriented, two additional goals of the conference were to 1) identify priority obstacles to cooperative management of watersheds and 2) identify actions to overcome those obstacles, with commitments from responsible parties to specific actions where appropriate.
The program included:
- a public dialogue between the Water Resources Board, the governing body of FL-LOWPA, and the WQB to share information on their unique roles and identify ways to support each other;
- a public reception with 29 water quality exhibits and an address by U.S. IJC Commissioner Alice Chamberlin on IJC water quality priorities; and
- a public conference featuring speakers, working breakout groups, and an interactive panel discussion. More than 120 people representing a mix of county, regional, state, provincial, and federal regulatory or resource management agencies; local officials; agricultural representatives; academic institutions; New York State legislative offices; environmental organizations; county water quality advisory committees; consultants; and concerned citizens attended the program.
Obstacles to Cooperative Watershed Management
Obstacles to cooperative watershed management were identified through six geographically-based break-out groups. High priority obstacles identified include the following:
- lack of public awareness and commitment to a shared vision among stakeholders
- insufficient funds and resources at the local level
- insufficient leadership capacity at the local level
- insufficient coordination of responsibilities and priority-setting across watersheds
- lack of incentives to facilitate collaboration
- lack of technical guidance and information on which to base management decisions
Strategies to Overcome Obstacles
Actions to overcome these obstacles were identified by the breakout groups and further developed during an interactive panel discussion with audience participation. The panel represented a broad range of expertise and interests, including local, state and federal agencies, agriculture, a non-profit environmental organization, academia, and the New York State legislature.
To increase public awareness and shared commitment among stakeholders, more investment in education and public involvement efforts is needed. Recommendations include:
- increasing funding available for education and public involvement programs
- committing competent professionals to public education, public involvement, and facilitation
- targeting audiences and tailoring education and involvement efforts to their specific needs
- providing equal access to information and decision making processes for all stakeholders
- providing legislators with quantified, technical information to help them justify their support of watershed management activities
- making linkages between a healthy local economy and clean water to underscore the win-win of watershed management
- strengthening interdisciplinary programs at the university level to develop future resource managers and community leaders with the integrative skills necessary for watershed problem-solving.
Representatives from three area universities agreed to take responsibility for the latter.
Strategic planning was recommended as a strategy to address the obstacle of insufficient funding and resources at the local level. Strategic plans emphasize clear, consensus-based priorities; cost-saving alternatives; integration of resources; and a timeline for implementation. Emphasis should be on resourcefulness and efficiency. Requests for funding can be made under a collaborative umbrella and resources can be pooled to implement plans. To assist communities lacking planners or resources for strategic planning, agencies should dedicate staff on a watershed basis to facilitate community-based strategic planning. New York State regional planning boards and county planning agencies may best be able to fill this role.
To address insufficient leadership capacity at the local level, leadership programs should be expanded. Resources for leadership development may be available through local universities, civic organizations and the business sector. Organizations may be able to dovetail efforts to meet mutual goals. Two model programs include Leadership Cayuga and Leadership Rochester. Cornell Cooperative Extension is a statewide resource available for leadership development.
Support of consensus-based, bottom-up watershed initiatives is recommended to help overcome the lack of common priorities and fragmentation of responsibility across watersheds. All organizations and agencies must be involved in a dialogue process to foster mutual understanding of roles and interests, and to develop support for watershed management decisions. Agencies and authorities must be flexible in their roles in a collaborative process in order to include others. Memoranda of Understanding and the organization of a Council of Governments (CoG) are tools that can clarify roles and relationships, and provide incentives for collaboration. Lead agencies (or parties) should be identified for individual projects undertaken by a watershed group.
Sharing of information and expanding monitoring and data collection programs to the watershed unit are means for enhancing the availability of technical information. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Regional Offices can offer technical guidance to communities preparing watershed management plans; DEC Region 8 (Avon office) made a commitment to this action. DEC Division of Water will encourage information exchange between communities with similar interests and concerns. The need for high quality, watershed-based technical information should be better communicated to research institutions, legislatures, and stakeholders.
Recommended Areas for Action
It was the general conclusion of the conference that responsibility for the future health of New York State's watersheds rests mainly with local communities, supported by government entities at multiple levels. FL-LOWPA, in cooperation with its member counties and local, regional, state and federal organizations, can facilitate cooperative watershed management in the Lake Ontario basin by supporting:
- sharing of technical and program information
- public education and involvement forums
- community-based strategic planning
- local leadership development
- grassroots initiatives to coordinate priorities across watersheds
The WQB of the IJC has a strengthened commitment resulting from the conference to help foster communication between basinwide and local entities, including:
- exploring greater use of video conferences
- fostering cooperative learning processes
- distributing lists of resources and experts
- updating and widely distributing reports
The WQB will also help link institutionally separate issues, such as water quality, habitat, and lake levels, to provide a conceptual umbrella to assist local ecosystem-based watershed planning.
Specific Recommendations
The Conference Steering Committee also recommended the following to improve the roles of FL-LOWPA and the WQB in facilitation of cooperative watershed management:
- It is recommended that FL-LOWPA continue
to improve its conference cycle by using the model from the 1996 Lake Ontario basin forum and
applying it to the subwatershed level, including Finger Lakes and river basins. The model
guides a community-based process to stimulate
watershed visions and goals, and to evaluate
strategies for meeting goals. It is recommended
that FL-LOWPA members take ownership of the output from local conferences by 1) using the
output from these forums to continuously improve current watershed management strategies
for the watersheds they represent and 2) ensuring the implementation of specific conference
recommendations where appropriate. FL-LOWPA's five-year conference cycle should
be coordinated with the IJC so that, every fifth
year, the forum is co-sponsored by FL-LOWPA and the IJC's WQB to bring together local and
regional perspectives for a basinwide conference on Lake Ontario (see recommendation 4
below).
- It is further recommended that FL-LOWPA
advocate the use of facilitated processes for community-based, cooperative watershed
management. Recognizing that resources are not
consistently available at the local level for
facilitated processes, FL-LOWPA should provide
training to its membership in the cooperative
watershed management model demonstrated at the
1996 conference and in facilitation methods.
- It is recommended that FL-LOWPA members take responsibility for bringing basinwide
information and perspectives from regional
entities, such as the IJC and the Lake Ontario
Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), to discussion at
the local level. As a starting point, FL-LOWPA
representatives can offer the information in the
October 18-19, 1996 conference report to cooperators involved in grassroots watershed
management and planning efforts.
- It is recommended that the IJC use its review
and evaluation role to convene LaMP, Remedial Action Plan (RAP), fishery management, and
other watershed stakeholders around Lake Ontario
to review progress collectively and promote integration/cooperation. Perhaps the IJC could
convene one such meeting/forum on each of the five Great Lakes during a five-year, iterative cycle.
Advantages of a five-year, iterative review cycle would be: one Great Lake is a realistic scale
to review progress and the need for integration; such a meeting/forum would create
efficiencies for the IJC and state/provincial and federal
governments; it would foster lakewide alliances
(i.e., it could demonstrate the importance and
need for local watershed efforts to achieve
lakewide goals and objectives, and that some
impairments in Areas of Concern like fish consumption
advisories cannot be solved by RAPs alone and will require whole lake action through LaMPs);
and such a meeting/forum would serve as a good mechanism to celebrate successes and
measure incremental progress (using a common set of
indicators) consistent with practical application
of an ecosystem approach and watershed management. FL-LOWPA should be a co-sponsor of
the IJC meeting/forum for Lake Ontario.
- It is recommended that the IJC update or re-release the work of its Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG). Many people felt the PLUARG work is still relevant and timely, considering the current emphasis on watershed planning and management. The IJC could recommend that the federal, state, provincial, and local governments use the PLUARG report as a benchmark to measure progress in restoring waters within Lake Ontario and its basin. Perhaps the IJC could act as a facilitator/resource available to agencies in interpreting and applying the findings and recommendations of PLUARG.
The Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FL-LOWPA) and Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) of the International Joint Commission (IJC) held a joint forum on cooperative watershed management October 18-19, 1996 in Rochester, NY. The WQB is the principal advisor to the IJC on all matters relating to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Board is made up of senior program managers from state, provincial and federal regulatory and resource management agencies. FL-LOWPA is an alliance of 24 counties in New York State's Lake Ontario Basin committed to improving and preserving the health of the region's watersheds. The Water Resources Board (WRB) is the governing body of FL-LOWPA, and is comprised of representatives from county-level resource management agencies. FL-LOWPA has held annual public conferences on local watershed management since 1991. The 1996 forum was a regional event building upon prior local forums; it also served as the first public meeting of the WQB under the IJC's revised policy to improve public involvement/consultation. The title of the 1996 conference was Linking Local Watershed Management Efforts across the Lake Ontario Basin.
The Conference Process
FL-LOWPA's annual public forum is designed to encourage dialogue about the future desired states of water resources within the Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario region, and management strategies to help achieve those desired states. This conference is designed to cycle throughout the 24-county program area, each year focusing on two or more neighboring lake watersheds of interest. It is expected that, every five years, each conference site will be revisited to track progress and reconsider directions in watershed management (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Five-year conference cycle of the Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance.
Target audiences for the conference series are public officials; agricultural producers; recreational users; lakeshore and watershed residents; scientists and researchers; educators; environmental groups; lake associations; developers; resource managers; business owners; and all others who have a stake in the region's water resources. A broad range of viewpoints is sought intentionally to reflect the many interests inherent in watershed management. Each conference devotes a major portion of the program to both facilitated discussion in small groups and whole audience participation to improve communication and understanding among diverse stakeholders.
The focus of the 1994 (Otisco, Owasco, and Skaneateles Lakes watersheds) and 1995 (Canandaigua and Keuka Lakes watersheds) programs was ecosystem and community-based approaches to watershed management. The 1996 conference advanced these notions within the framework of coordinating local watershed management efforts across the Lake Ontario basin ecosystem. The joint sponsorship of the 1996 conference by FL-LOWPA and the WQB was mutually beneficial. The WQB is responsible for developing and reviewing basinwide management concepts and initiatives. The WQB was seeking practical feedback about obstacles and successes in community-based watershed management from those working at the local level to implement programs. In turn, FL-LOWPA sought clarification of basin-level perspectives and priorities, as represented by the WQB, at its annual conference.
Structure of the 5th Annual Conference
The two-day event featured a dialogue on Friday, October, 18 between the WQB and FL-LOWPA. Together, and with an audience of about 50, the two groups grappled with questions about how best to apply basinwide management concepts at the local level and, alternatively, how best to coordinate local programs to result in basinwide protection. Friday's dialogue was followed by a public reception with exhibits from 29 organizations. IJC Commissioner Alice Chamberlin spoke on the IJC's water quality priorities.
Saturday, October 19 was the public conference. In his opening remarks, New York State Senator George Maziarz offered the process of putting together a jigsaw puzzle as a metaphor for watershed management, a theme which was revisited throughout the conference sessions text of speech
Other presentations included an overview of FL-LOWPA and its vision for coordinated watershed management in the Lake Ontario basin, given by James Skaley, Chair of FL-LOWPA's Water Resources Board. Gerry Mikol, Director of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Region 9, gave an introduction to the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and DEC's Basin Team approach to citizen involvement. Bill Muszynski, Deputy Regional Administrator for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II, gave a luncheon address on EPA's community-based environmental initiatives.
An important portion of the Saturday program was dedicated to small, working groups and feedback on their findings. Six breakout groups identified priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management and strategies to overcome those obstacles. The breakout groupings were "nested," in that each represented a distinct, drainage sub-unit of the Lake Ontario watershed, but all were related as a function of being either upstream or downstream of each other and/or by being part of a more comprehensive basin ecosystem.
The written output from each breakout group was displayed during an exhibit and networking session. During this time, a group of facilitators and resource people met to synthesize the sizable output from the six groups into a short list of priority obstacles and recommended actions to be addressed during an afternoon interactive panel discussion. The afternoon panel included representatives from local, state, and federal level agencies (U.S. and Canadian); agriculture; a non-profit environmental organization; the Great Lakes research community; and the New York State Legislature. The panel discussion was professionally moderated, with audience participation.
Expected Outcomes
Some expected outcomes of the conference included:
Clearer understanding of roles and relationships at multiple levels of water resources management (local, regional, state, provincial, federal and international). This was accomplished through: the Friday dialogue and reception with exhibits; presentations from IJC, DEC, EPA, and FL-LOWPA; and the interactive breakout group and panel discussions. New relationships were fostered through opportunities for networking and sharing of ideas.Identification of priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management, as defined by the six breakout groups.
Suggested actions to overcome obstacles, as defined by the breakout groups and developed further through the interactive panel, with commitments to action in some areas.
Recommendations to improve the facilitation of cooperative watershed management in the Lake Ontario basin which can guide FL-LOWPA, WQB, and other organizations with an interest in water resources, into the next century.
The Puzzle of Watershed Management
The Honorable George D. Maziarz
61st District, New York State Senate
George D. Maziarz represents the 61st District (Niagara, Orleans, and a portion of Monroe County) in the New York State Senate. In his opening remarks at the conference on Saturday, October 19, 1996, Senator Maziarz compared watershed management to the process of putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Thismetaphor was well-received and often referenced during subsequent sessions, becoming a thematic backdrop for the conference. The jigsaw puzzle metaphor provided an easily understood framework for discussing obstacles to cooperative watershed management and strategies to overcome them. The appreciation expressed by conference attendees for the jigsaw puzzle metaphor is reflected in the design of this report. Senator Maziarz' remarks are reproduced in their entirety below. The remarks are positioned intentionally in this report prior to the discussion of participatory conference sessions and their outputs so that the reader may have the benefit of the metaphor which informed the conference as a whole.
Good Morning! It's a genuine pleasure for me to be with you this morning and to have the opportunity to welcome you to this conference on Linking Local Watershed Management Efforts across the Lake Ontario Basin. This is the fifth annual conference sponsored by the Water Resources Board and I congratulate the Board on its wisdom and initiative in bringing people together to pool resources, expertise, and experience. I also want to wish the newly expanded and renamed Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance the best of success in achieving the goals that we all share. I also thank all of you for taking a Saturday to devote to planning and problem solving on behalf of the Lake Ontario basin ecosystem and all of us who call it home.
The values of watersheds are no secret to anyone here today. Among many other values, they provide:
- Natural flood and erosion control
- Water quality maintenance
- Groundwater recharge
- Biological productivity and diversity
- Fish and wildlife habitats
- Historical and archeological values
- Environmental and outdoor education
- Agricultural productivity
- Recreational and tourism opportunities
New York State's two largest industries, agriculture and tourism, depend on healthy watersheds. Combined with all these other values, there is no downside to effectively protecting and managing them. Just like all things in watershed ecosystems depend on each other to thrive, so do local communities in a watershed need each other to realize full economic, water quality, educational, and environmental benefits from the watershed. The state and federal agencies and the international programs need the local communities; we're pretty much all in this together; We have to be.
Let me share with you a metaphor, simplistic, perhaps, and not perfect, but I think illustrative of what effective watershed management efforts need to reflect.
I want you to picture yourself doing a jigsaw puzzle. When you're putting together a jigsaw puzzle, you have to do two things simultaneously and constantly, or you'll never be successful in completing the task. First, you have to pay close attention to those individual small pieces to discover how their unique edges fit together, how they compliment each other and where they rub each other the wrong way. Pretty soon, you have these little islands of matching pieces all over the table top, seemingly unconnected to each other except that they're on the same table, but that's okay, because each one of these little growing islands of complimentary pieces gives you a glimpse of the whole image you are aiming for. The payoff is in figuring out how to connect everything to produce that final image, and so you can't leave any pieces out and you have to constantly look for linkages.
How do you do this? You're able to have confidence in this multi-faceted approach only to the degree that you are simultaneously being guided by the larger image, by the understanding of how it's all contributing to the "big picture". Discovering the "fit" of the pieces while being guided by the larger image is the only way you're ever going to complete that complex puzzle.
The management of the Lake Ontario basin sometimes seems like a really advanced jigsaw puzzle, doesn't it? One of those two-sided, 2,000-piece jigsaw puzzles. On one side, the pieces fit together to produce an understanding of the integrated complexity of the watershed ecosystems and the consequences of human activity on them. The more of these pieces that we can fit together, the clearer understanding we'll have of what needs to be done and how to do it effectively and economically.
On the other side, the pieces fit together to reveal the multiple, collaborative and multi-jurisdictional efforts to clean up, manage, and protect the Lake Ontario watershed. Watershed and political boundaries often overlap. Furthermore, different components of a watershed are usually administered by different agencies. Yet restoration of an aquatic ecosystem, for example, requires that the management of all significant ecological elements be coordinated in a comprehensive approach. It may often seem like a frustrating if not impossible challenge to fit the edges of some of these pieces together, but with cooperation, tenacity, and creativity, the fit will be discovered.
An example of a really nice fit is the Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance, now 24 counties strong. With shared resources and a common vision while preserving local decision making on priorities and programs, the Alliance's successful efforts will be multiplied and will serve as a role model for other watershed communities.
Another powerful fit is represented in this room today. Each of us who care deeply about the Lake Ontario basin has different strengths that we bring to the effort to clean up, protect, and manage the watershed. We should celebrate and appreciate them all. For example, probably everyone in this room knows more than I do about the scientific and social aspects of watershed management, and your research is fundamental to any commitment of action. Some of you are experts of the history, details, and implementation of the multiple programs, initiatives, and agreements that attempt to build public participation, consensus and action on behalf of the basin's water quality. Perhaps you were even a player in the creation of these alliances and collaborations. Others of you are community members caring enough to participate in decision making processes at the local level. Others are educators connecting school children with their watershed heritage.
And some are like me, a public servant able to influence, as much as I can, the legislature's awareness, commitment, and support of efforts to complete the watershed jigsaw puzzle. I was thrilled to have been part of the successful effort to secure $1.2 million in this recent budget for the Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance.
Watershed protection and management is a puzzle that takes commitment, cooperation, and collaboration. It makes sense from a health perspective. It makes sense from an economic perspective. And it makes sense from an environmental perspective. It also makes sense from a quality of life perspective because prevention is proactive; remediation is reactive. There is certainly cause for great pride in accomplishing the difficult task of addressing existing problems in the watershed and cleaning them up. There's no getting around engaging these challenges.
In tandem with this, however, we need to be proactive in determining the vision we want for our communities linked by our common watershed and we need to be inclusive in our actions to effectively bring this vision about. If citizens and their communities are involved meaningfully, and efforts are made to integrate everyone's contribution to watershed planning and management, the results will be powerful indeed. The heritage of a community is linked to its past, present, and future relationship with the land - its soils, its waters, its biodiversity, its geology - all of the natural and physical pieces. Is watershed management and protection worth doing? I'd prefer to let our great grandchildren answer that, but I think I know what their answer will be.
Again, let me welcome you and thank you for coming together today to brainstorm and strategize to complete the jigsaw puzzle of Lake Ontario watershed management. It's a puzzle that, together, we can complete. The final picture will be a healthy Lake Ontario basin.
Among the Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance, The Great Lakes Water Quality Board, and Interested Publics
On Friday, October 18, a dialogue was held among FL-LOWPA, the WQB, and interested publics. The purpose of this dialogue was to share perspectives and learn how these different institutions and stakeholders can help ensure that individual efforts are integrated and complementary to other efforts. The dialogue centered on two primary questions:
- What can local watershed groups do to support regional programs?
- What can the WQB of the IJC do to strengthen community-based watershed programs?
Dialogue Process
A secondary purpose of the dialogue was to establish a comfort level between the members of FL-LOWPA and the WQB which would foster open discussion and sharing of ideas during the balance of the conference and beyond. Members of the two groups play important but different roles in watershed management. WQB members are involved in the establishment and implementation of policy or programs at the state, federal, or international levels. FL-LOWPA members implement state, federal and international policies and programs and develop grassroots programs to address locally-defined needs. The two groups are connected in watershed management as one's success (or lack thereof) affects the other's, and yet opportunities to exchange ideas and experiences are infrequent. The dialogue was organized to help "break the ice" between local and basin-level players in Lake Ontario watershed management.
The dialogue was arranged so that participants from FL-LOWPA and the WQB sat in alternating seats at a U-shaped table. Representatives from the New York State Association of Regional Councils (Regional Planning Boards) sat at the dialogue table as well. An audience of approximately fifty people sat theatre style at the open end of the U-shaped formation. The session began with brief introductions to the WQB and FL-LOWPA, and the participants at the table. The 90-minute, moderated dialogue was based on the two aforementioned questions. Notes on the discussion were documented for all to see.
Dialogue Outcomes
All participants felt much could be done to support, strengthen, and integrate watershed programs. In particular, local watershed groups are in the unique position to provide "ground truth" to regional programs and binational institutions. This feedback can be in the form of local watershed needs, priorities, and perspectives. Examples of some actions that can be taken by local watershed groups to support regional programs and binational initiatives include:
- establishing clear local priorities and communicating these priorities to regional and binational institutions (e.g., relative importance of nonpoint source control efforts, sediment remediation, habitat rehabilitation and enhancement, etc.)
- quantifying values and benefits of preservation and rehabilitation initiatives, and communicating them to regional and binational institutions as rationale for program and funding support
- coordinating priority-setting and reaching agreement on key indicators of progress among local stakeholder groups
- ensuring local goals, objectives, and indicators recognize explicitly regional program goals, objectives, and indicators (i.e., ensure that they are complementary and reinforcing)
Regional and binational groups like the WQB are in the unique position to strengthen community-based watershed programs in a number of ways. Specifically, institutions like the WQB can facilitate the exchange of knowledge, ideas, and practical experiences. Participants suggested that the WQB was ideally positioned to foster communication through:
- increasing use of video conferencing
- making more information available through the internet
- convening cooperative learning processes, like habitat and sediment technology transfer sessions
- providing up-to-date lists of available resources and experts
- updating and re-releasing reports of important studies like IJC's Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group
In addition, regional institutions like the IJC's WQB can play a key role in linking institutionally separate issues such as water quantity, water quality, and habitat. The IJC and its Board can help link these issues in regional workshops and conferences. IJC reports from these workshops and conferences could then provide specific examples of how to link institutionally separate issues and where it has been accomplished successfully.
Participants in the dialogue felt that the exchange of perspectives, ideas, and experiences was worthwhile. Additional such dialogues will be necessary to achieve our common goals of watershed and ecosystem-based management of shared resources.
"The programs and work of the participants in this conference in integrating ... local, regional, and basinwide remediation are essential."-U.S. IJC Commissioner
Alice Chamberlin
Obstacles to Cooperative Watershed Management and Strategies to Overcome Them
A Process Model for Cooperative Watershed Management
Watershed management incorporates a process of decision-making regarding land and water uses, and modifications in a watershed. This process can allow communities to 1) balance diverse, and sometimes conflicting, goals and uses for local resources; 2) consider the cumulative effect of current human activities on the long-term sustainability of these resources; and 3) determine how to mitigate unwanted results from these activities.
Watershed management attempts to comprehensively address contaminant (e.g., point and nonpoint sources, contaminated sediment remediation), physical (e.g., flow augmentation, streambank stabilization, habitat modification), and biological (e.g., fish stocking/harvesting, wetland restoration, food web manipulation) management alternatives to achieve management goals. Goals are established based on ecosystem characteristics, public needs, and resources management input. Watershed management provides a framework for integrated decision-making and for identifying and implementing high priority actions in a process of continuous improvement.
Figure 2 represents a continuous improvement model for implementing cooperative watershed management for the Lake Ontario basin, and identifies the aspects of this model covered in the conference. The process outlined in the cooperative watershed management model brings stakeholders together to review and develop watershed visions, goals, and objectives. The watershed is then assessed relative to the agreed-upon vision, goals and objectives. If the goals and objectives consistent with the watershed vision are being met, prevention-based programs are continued to ensure sustainability of resources. If the goals and objectives are not being met, the process proceeds with the 1) evaluation of current management strategies; 2) identification of obstacles; 3) identification of strategies (actions) to overcome obstacles; 4) prioritization of strategies; and 5) implementation of priority strategies in a continuous improvement process until the watershed vision is realized (Figure 2).
Figure 2. A continuous improvement process for implementing cooperative watershed management for the Lake Ontario Basin, including identification of which aspects were covered in the October 18-19, 1996 conference.
Breakout Sessions to Identify Obstacles and Strategies
The breakout sessions provided an opportunity for conference participants to work in smaller groups (12 to 25 individuals) in an effort to identify and discuss key obstacles that inhibit the development and implementation of local watershed plans. The groups were asked to identify possible actions to overcome the obstacles in order to promote coordinated local and basinwide planning efforts. The breakout groups were geographically-based, representing sub-watersheds or portions of watersheds which, when "nested", cover most the New York State Lake Ontario basin (Figure 3). The six groups were:
| Group 1. | Lake Ontario Central and East (including the Black River watershed and nearshore areas east of Rochester) |
| Group 2. | Lake Ontario West (including Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern and tributaries and nearshore areas west of Rochester.) |
| Group 3. | Oswego River Basin - Finger Lakes East (including Skaneateles, Otisco, Owasco, and Oneida Lakes; Oswego and Seneca Rivers; and the Oswego River Area of Concern) |
| Group 4. | Oswego River Basin - Finger Lakes West (including Cayuga, Seneca, Keuka and Canandaigua Lakes) |
| Group 5. | Lower Genesee River Basin (including the Rochester Embayment Area of Concern) |
| Group 6. | Upper Genesee River Basin (including Honeoye, Conesus, Canadice, Hemlock and Silver Lakes) |
Figure 3. Geographical areas represented by six breakout groups.
The breakout groups were comprised of conference participants who live and/or work in the geographical area; two to three members of the WQB; county representatives of FL-LOWPA; a resource person with program experience in the geographical area; and a professional facilitator.
The rationale for the "nested" design of the breakout groupings was threefold. First, the groups could focus on the issues at the local level and perhaps identify promising strategies for cooperation which could be pursued further after the conference. Second, it was expected that upstream and downstream linkages would be made within breakout groupings. Linkages would also be made during the afternoon panel when ideas from each group were shared with all participants. Third, the use of hydrological boundaries to define breakout groups reinforced the concept that the watershed should be the primary management unit for improving or maintaining water quality.
The facilitator guided the group through a process that resulted in a list of key obstacles hindering cooperative watershed planning and management, and a list of potential actions that could be taken to overcome the obstacles. The specific steps of the process were:
- Warm-up: Participants introduced themselves; the resource person presented highlights of current activities and issues faced in the geographical area.
- Brainstorming: The groups identified obstacles to developing and implementing watershed programs in their particular geographical area.
- Sorting and Prioritizing: The groups discussed the list of obstacles, combining those that were similar and clarifying those needing more explanation. A weighted voting process was used to identify three highest priority obstacles.
- Brainstorming: The groups identified possible strategies to overcome each high priority obstacle.
- Clarifying and Prioritizing: The groups identified priority strategies based on the following criteria: greatest chance for success; creative solution; builds on existing efforts; addresses multiple obstacles; improves local and regional planning efforts; level of resources needed; and achievable or "do-able".
- Wrap-up: The group reviewed the process and the resulting list of priority obstacles and proposed strategies.
The work performed in the breakout sessions was synthesized by the facilitators who, together, examined the work of all six groups. A short list of common barriers and proposed actions, and particularly creative ideas, was developed. This summarized information was presented to the afternoon panel for feedback. A discussion of the panel session can be found in the Interactive Panel Discussion section.
Following is a description of each breakout group and summary table of its work. The language used by each group is preserved in the tables so as not to change the meaning of the ideas presented. The breakout groups were considered an integral part of the conference; the work of each group is documented in this report so that readers from the geographical areas represented can consider the information, develop it further, and/or follow up where appropriate. With common concerns identified across the region, readers may also benefit from the ideas presented for other geographical areas.
"The long-term vision of FL-LOWPA is to build a consensus on resolving the upstream-downstream problems of managing water quality to the mutual benefit of multiple parties."-FL-LOWPA Chair James Skaley
Breakout Group 1: Lake Ontario Central and East
Overview
This breakout group discussed obstacles to cooperative watershed management and potential management strategies for the Black River watershed and Lake Ontario nearshore areas east of Rochester, New York. Represented in the group of approximately 12 were local elected officials, county, state, provincial and federal level environmental agencies, academia, and non-profit educational organizations.
Concern was expressed for a general lack of coordinated watershed management in the rural Black River watershed. Key obstacles identified by the group were: 1) lack of a central planning authority; 2) limited motivation at multiple levels of governments; and 3) lack of vision (Table 1). There was agreement in the group that a common vision for the watershed should be established to foster coordinated management efforts at the local level. Communication among local governments, organizations and stakeholders should be improved so that common goals can be developed. County Water Quality Coordinating Committees should be coordinated on a watershed basis; data collection and documentation of problems may be necessary to increase motivation to work cooperatively to address water quality issues.
| Table 1. Strategies to overcome priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management: Lake Ontario Central and East | |
| High Priority Obstacles | Strategies to Overcome Obstacles |
| Lack of central planning authority for watershed |
|
| Limited motivation (local, state and federal entities) |
|
| Lack of vision |
|
1 DEC Division of Water is developing a Watershed Management Assessment Process, a diagnostic tool that can be used to assess the current water quality and quantity management programs in an area, or that can be used as a first step in a watershed management planning process.
Lower Priority Obstacles
Lower priority obstacles identified, but for which strategies were not discussed due to time constraints, included:
- Political boundaries problematic for watershed planning
- Divergence on interpretation of data impedes implementing solutions
- Lack of vision at the individual subwatershed and larger basin levels
- Lack of local funding for water quality projects
- Lack of communication and awareness among local officials and planning boards
- Unwillingness to work together; lack of teamwork (e.g., agriculture and industry)
- Local agencies not seeing the importance of the "water quality connection"
- Reluctance of responsible parties to take ownership of a problem
- Upstream/downstream conflicts and lack of common understanding of the issues
- Lack of understanding about the contributions to the watershed from out-of-basin sources (e.g., air sources)
- Lack of central clearinghouse for Great Lakes and water quality information
"We should not ignore the potential for improvement basinwide by chipping away at smaller sources and problems."NYSDEC Region 9 Director
Gerald F. Mikol
Breakout Group 2: Lake Ontario West
Overview
This breakout group focused on the Lake Ontario nearshore area west of Rochester, New York, including the Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern. The group of approximately 20 included many technically-trained specialists. The group also included a number of individuals who had worked with intergovernmental mechanisms to encourage interjurisdictional cooperation. Representatives in the group came from county soil and water conservation districts and health departments; New York, Ohio and Ontario environmental regulatory agencies; IJC; New York State legislature; Rochester Institute of Technology, Cornell University, State University of New York at Buffalo and the College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse University; Eighteenmile Creek Citizens Advisory Committee; and consulting firms.
Key obstacles to watershed management identified by the group were fragmentation of authority and mandates (forcing agencies to focus on single issues rather than an integrated approach) and inadequate funding and incentives (Table 2). The group suggested using multi-stakeholder planning groups and intergovernmental agreements to deal with fragmented authority. Integration of resources was emphasized to maximize program efficiency, including pooling funding and/or funding requests. Economic and social incentives were recommended to encourage support for, and participation in, watershed management activities.
| Table 2. Strategies to overcome priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management: Lake Ontario West | |
| High Priority Obstacles | Strategies to Overcome Obstacles |
| Fragmentation of authority and mandates forces agencies to focus on single issues |
|
| Lack of funding |
|
| Lack of incentives; lack of creativity in getting help from public officials |
|
1 DEC Division of Water is developing a Watershed Management Assessment Process, a diagnostic tool that can be used to assess the current water quality and quantity management programs in an area, or that can be used as a first step in a watershed management planning process.
Lower Priority Obstacles
Lower priority obstacles identified, but for which strategies were not discussed due to time constraints, included:
- Streams and waterways cross jurisdictional boundaries
- Including private property owners as stakeholders
- Tendency to look upstream as the source of problems
- Historic land use patterns
- Assumptions about regulations impede voluntary improvements by private property owners
- Having to be reactive instead of proactive
- Shifting priorities
- Availability of integrated information
- Science, technology, and management guidance are lagging for contaminated sediments
- Maintaining public participation in county Water Quality Strategies
- Need a champion or leader for Remedial Action Planning in Areas of Concern
- Bureaucratic red tape
- Perceptions and skepticism about watershed planning and issues
"Clearly, we need to integrate our environmental protection efforts so they are as coordinated and mutually-supportive as the natural systems they are intended to protect."USEPA Region II
Deputy Regional Administrator
William Muszynski
Breakout Group 3: Oswego River Basin East
>
Overview
The geographical area covered by this group was the eastern portion of the Oswego River basin, including the Oswego and Seneca Rivers, Oswego River/Harbor Area of Concern, and Skaneateles, Oneida, Onondaga, Owasco, and Otisco Lakes. Water resources in this area range from high quality to severely degraded with significant impairment of resource uses such as drinking water, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife habitat. Regulation of water levels is a related issue of concern in the geographical area. Stakeholders represented in the breakout group of approximately 20 included county health and planning departments, soil and water conservation districts, cooperative extension and environmental management councils; regional planning councils; shoreline residents and associations; scientific consultants; non-profit environmental organizations; state and federal (Canadian) regulatory agencies; local elected officials and citizen activists.
| Table 3. Strategies to overcome priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management: Oswego River Basin East | |
| High Priority Obstacles | Strategies to Overcome Obstacles |
| Community conflict |
|
| Inadequate technical guidance |
|
| Limited resources at the local level |
|
The three high priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management identified by this group were 1) community conflict; 2) inadequate technical guidance; and 3) limited resources at the local level. Strategies discussed to deal with community conflict included documenting economic impacts related to water quality (Table 3). Other strategies to deal with community conflict incorporated public education and involvement, especially enhancing the publics' technical knowledge. Involving experts early in the problem-solving process was suggested to overcome lack of technical guidance. Several strategies were suggested to help communities pressed for resources: seeking local expertise; leveraging funds through sound, technical plans; training grant writers at the local level; using cost-avoidance measures; targeting resources to highest priorities; petitioning local and state officials for support; and promoting successes.
Lower Priority Obstacles
Lower priority obstacles identified, but for which strategies were not discussed due to time constraints, included:
- Agency overkill leading to apathy at the local level
- Political conflicts
- Lack of established priorities
- Decreasing participation in civic activities
- Conflicts between upstream and downstream stakeholders
- Incremental degradation and/or improvements
- Lack of time and people
- Competing agendas
- Poor planning
"Without the buy-in of citizens and local groups, many programs are going to look nice on paper, but are not actually going to achieve much in real life."USEPA Region II Deputy
Regional Administrator
William Muszynski
Breakout Group 4: Oswego River Basin West
Overview
The geographical focus of this breakout group included four Finger Lakes in the Oswego River basin and their connecting channels: Cayuga, Seneca, Keuka and Canandaigua. Participants in this group of about 20 represented individual Finger Lake watershed management programs, county planning departments, soil and water conservation districts, and cooperative extension associations. Also represented were Cornell University; regional planning councils; New York State Federation of Lake Associations and individual lake associations; New York State and federal regulatory agencies; and the IJC.
Priority obstacles identified included 1) lack of a shared sense of responsibility for water problems; 2) insufficient funding and resources for local groups and program implementation; and 3) lack of local capacity to deal with issues (Table 4). Strategies identified to encourage a shared sense of responsibility emphasized public dialogue and education, making linkages clear (e.g., subwatershed to basin and upstream to downstream), and positive media coverage. To overcome insufficient funding at the local level to implement programs, local plans (county water quality strategies) should be up-to-date and have reasonable objectives; legislators and all local partners should be solicited for support; and funds received should be used efficiently. To increase local capacity to deal with issues, the group proposed expanding local leadership development programs; information exchange between local and basin entities; and establishing credibility by building upon past efforts.
| Table 4. Strategies to overcome priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management: Oswego River Basin West | |
| High Priority Obstacles | Strategies to Overcome Obstacles |
| Lack of shared sense of responsibility for water problems (i.e., responsibility is a hard sell and takes a long time to develop) |
|
| Insufficient funding and resources for local groups and program implementation |
|
| Lack of local capacity to deal with issues |
|
Lower Priority Obstacles
Lower priority obstacles identified but for which strategies were not discussed due to time constraints included:
- Turf protection and self-interest, as illustrated by resistance to zoning and the conflict between individual property rights v. the common good.
- Political entities resist the need for, and cost of, studies; perception that models developed elsewhere do not apply locally.
"Power for affecting change in any watershed is at the local level."Doug Dodge,
Great Lakes Water Quality Board and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Breakout Group 5: Lower Genesee River Basin
Overview
This breakout group focused on the Rochester Embayment Area of Concern and Genesee River north of the dam at Mt. Morris, New York. Participants in the group of approximately 20 included several representatives from the Monroe County Remedial Action Planning process for the Rochester Embayment and Genesee River. The group also included representatives from various Monroe County agencies and the Monroe County Water Quality Management Advisory Committee, Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the IJC.
The group identified priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management as 1) insufficient public awareness of water quality issues; 2) insufficient coordination of priority setting across watersheds and stakeholder groups; and 3) insufficient incentives to encourage environmentally-sensitive behaviors and decision-making (Table 5). To overcome insufficient awareness, the group suggested forming a not-for-profit organization and hiring an public outreach coordinator; targeting specific audiences (e.g., inner-city, panning boards, and homeowners); training grassroots advocacy teams; creating personal incentives; developing articulate spokespeople; countering peer pressure messages (e.g., need for green lawns); providing a balanced perspective; and encouraging responsible media coverage of issues.
The group suggested improving coordination of priority setting through dialogues starting at the subwatershed level and building out to the broader basin; identifying win-win situations and making them priorities; and identifying broad issues and the necessary work to address them. To encourage support for, and individual participation in, watershed management activities, incentives that are identified locally and emphasize multiple wins should be promoted. Awards and recognition, compliance assistance, and regulatory approaches can complement volunteer, incentive-based strategies.
| Table 5. Strategies to overcome priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management: Lower Genesee River Basin | |
| High Priority Obstacles | Strategies to Overcome Obstacles |
| Insufficient awareness |
|
| Insufficient coordination of priority setting |
|
| Insufficient incentives |
|
Lower Priority Obstacles
Lower priority obstacles identified but for which strategies were not discussed due to time constraints included:
- insufficient funding
- lack of a common, easily-understood set of environmental indicators
"Without a constituency for the resource - without stewards of the resource - implementing cleanup and protection programs are more difficult for all of us."NYSDEC Region 9 Director
Gerald F. Mikol
Breakout Group 6: Upper Genesee River Basin
Overview
Several small Finger Lakes (Conesus, Honeoye, Canadice, and Hemlock), Silver Lake, and the Upper Genesee River (area south of the dam at Mt. Morris, New York) were the focus of this breakout group. Participating in this group were representatives from the Rochester Embayment/Genesee River Remedial Action Planning process; county planning and health departments and soil and water conservation districts; environmental consultants; New York State Farm Bureau; regional planning councils; state regulatory agencies (New York and Pennsylvania); and the IJC.
Priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management identified by this group were: 1) limited funding for programs; 2) lack of common vision for ecosystem objectives; and 3) political divisions within watersheds (Table 6). To overcome limited funding, the group suggested tapping Great Lakes funding programs and the development of partnerships between agencies and corporations. The group also encouraged public education and better articulation of the link between watershed protection, personal health, and a healthy economy to build more political support for programs. The group asserted that a common vision could be fostered through public involvement and outreach activities, and through a process that highlights common interests of stakeholders while respecting differences. Economic incentives (over regulatory approaches) and using well-recognized political leaders to promote watershed management solutions are two strategies proposed for overcoming political divisions within watersheds.
| Table 6. Strategies to overcome priority obstacles to cooperative watershed management: Upper Genesee River Basin | |
| High Priority Obstacles | Strategies to Overcome Obstacles |
| Limited funding |
|
| Lack of common vision of ecosystem objectives throughout the watershed on the part of the public, agencies, and governments |
|
| Political divisions within watersheds |
|
Lower Priority Obstacles
Lower priority obstacles identified, but for which strategies were not discussed due to time constraints, included:
- Lack of understanding of our impacts on others;
- tendency to blame someone else in the watershed
- Lack of quantification of the problem to generate sufficient political interest and funding
- Land use control is local, but a major tool in dealing with the watershed problem of nonpoint source pollution
- Pennsylvania headwaters are not included in watershed maps or discussion of the watershed
- Not enough data and monitoring
- Lack of institutional memory; information not passed from one local government administration to another
- Lack of time; local concerns take precedence over cooperative efforts
- Not enough information on the positive and negative costs associated with watershed program compliance
- Difficult to convene meetings in a physically large watershed
"The heritage of a community is linked to its past, present, and future relationship with the land..."The Honorable
George D. Maziarz
Strategies to Overcome Obstacles to Cooperative Watershed Management
Overview
The purpose of the interactive panel was to synthesize and provide feedback on ideas resulting from the breakout sessions. Obstacles to watershed management common to several breakout groups were listed by a group of facilitators and resource people immediately following the breakout group sessions. Commonly proposed or creative strategies to overcome these obstacles were also noted. Liaisons to the breakout groups presented the obstacles and/or actions in the form of a question or finding to a panel for further discussion. The panel represented a broad range of perspectives and expertise, including representatives from local, state, and federal agencies (U.S. and Canadian); agriculture; a non-profit environmental organization; the Great Lakes research community; and the New York State Legislature. Panelists included:
- Robert N. Brower, FL-LOWPA and Director, Cayuga County Planning Department
- Thomas Behlen, Water Quality Board and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
- Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director, New York Rivers United
- Renee Forgensi Davison, Director, NYSDEC Region 8
- Joseph DePinto, Director, Great Lakes Program, State University at Buffalo
- Simon Llewellyn, Water Quality Board and Environment Canada
- Sue Senecah, Special Assistant to Senator George Maziarz and Assistant Professor, SUNY College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse
- Kyle Stewart, Assistant Director of Government Relations, New York Farm Bureau
A professional moderator guided the discussion and, when appropriate, asked the question, "Who is willing to be responsible for this action?" Commitments could range from volunteering to initiating a dialogue or meeting on a subject to offering services to facilitate or complete an action. Audience participation was encouraged throughout the session, and notes from the discussion were recorded on a large screen for the audience to view. Following is a discussion of common obstacles, and strategies to overcome them.
Discussion of Common Obstacles and Suggested Actions
Obstacle: Lack of awareness, knowledge, responsibility, and, ultimately, shared vision
Citizens and communities are not "naturally" committed to proactive, comprehensive watershed planning. It is likely that such a commitment must be developed, for often more immediate and backyard concerns occupy our attention. There is also a tendency to look to others as the source of problems in watersheds - those upstream look down, those with septic systems look to barnyards, those in local offices look to state or federal agencies, and vice versa. Commitment to watershed planning implies a sense of responsibility to do one's part to ensure the future health of a watershed. This commitment can be built only after citizens and communities become aware of the importance of watersheds and are knowledgeable about watershed resources and dynamics. Awareness and knowledge precede commitment. The panel offered several suggestions for increasing education and public involvement processes to help develop awareness, knowledge, and, ultimately, commitment to action. These ideas also offer suggestions for shaping a community problem-solving and decision-making process.
Action: Increase public education and involvement efforts
- Target specific audiences and be sensitive to their information needs and concerns. For example, local officials may fear loss of authority in dealing with watershed issues, and so may be reluctant to participate. Local planning boards are a high priority target audience, as they have control over land use decisions in New York State. Local planning boards need training to develop their capacity to play a significant role in watershed planning.
- Identify all stakeholder groups and be sure they have equal access to information. Information is power; all should have sound footing in the process.
- Encourage democratic participation by being receptive to people who perceive they have lower status or less information, and are therefore disadvantaged. Forums should be structured to accommodate working families and family commitments, e.g., by offering child care.
- Expand interdisciplinary programs at the post-secondary level to educate future leaders with broad perspectives in watershed planning and management.
- Educate legislators in Albany and Washington, D.C.; bring technical information in a form legislators can appreciate and use to justify their support.
- Invest in education; granting agencies should offer grants larger than $5,000 for education.
- Recognize the difference between public education, which is the dissemination of information, and public involvement, which involves dialogue and input into decisions. Both are needed. When conducting public involvement, remember to LISTEN.
- Assign a competent professional to the task of coordinating education/public involvement; it is that important! Cornell Cooperative Extension is a resource for education and training.
Obstacle: Insufficient funding and resources
Implementing watershed management plans is usually expensive. In New York State, implementation tends to occur at the local level of government where funds are often most limited. It has become increasingly difficult to fund programs through state and federal sources. Given the competitive fiscal environment, communities should focus on strategic planning, cost-avoidance, creative solutions, and collaborative efforts to 1) increase chances for successful funding in a competitive environment and 2) move forward when funds are not available.
Action: Use strategic planning with good coordination and integration of stakeholders prior to seeking funds
- Do the hard work first by developing a
strategic plan, because good strategic plans get funded.
Strategic plans include:
- clear priorities
- a timeline for implementation and sequence of activities
- cost-avoidance measures and creative alternatives that emphasize efficient use of funds (e.g., Can funds be generated rather than relying on grants?)
- Pool requests under one umbrella; use collaborative requests for funding.
- Develop capacity at the local level to conduct strategic planning through training programs.
Action: Dedicate individuals in agencies on a watershed basis to facilitate community-based strategic planning. New York State regional planning boards and county planning agencies can fill this role.
Action: To increase efficiency, expand existing volunteer-based efforts, such as the Izsak Walton League's stream monitoring program.
- Expand volunteer programs to basin level.
- Coordinate local efforts. DEC Regions and six ecosystem coordinators in Division of Water can assist by steering local programs to each other. County Water Quality Coordinating Committees and groups which conduct monitoring should be involved in coordinated, basin-level efforts.
- Locate and involve local experts in communities.
Obstacle: Insufficient capacity at local level
Many obstacles identified by the breakout groups impair local capacity to undertake and sustain cooperative watershed management initiatives. These include lack of technical and economic resources, shared responsibility and motivation, common vision, established priorities, and planning authority. Other obstacles impairing capacity-building efforts are: community conflict and lack of teamwork, difficulty coordinating meetings in a geographically-large watershed, lack of data on which to base decisions, "institutional memory" not being passed from one town administration to the next, a tendency to be reactive versus proactive, and jurisdictional boundaries and institutional fragmentation. Certainly these problems can be found in all levels of private and public sectors, but the actions listed here are discussed in the context of local governments and communities pursuing watershed management programs.
Action: Create and support local leadership development
- Utilize colleges and universities
- Involve kindred organizations which share
your goals to assist in watershed initiatives. Be
open to unusual and unexpected opportunities. Examples include:
- Virginia Master Gardeners teaches water quality concepts to develop "water-wise gardeners"
- Kelly's Island in Ohio was turned into an eco-tourism center by a bed and breakfast organization
- Historical societies can incorporate watershed concepts into tours and programs
- Communicate effectively with business interests to generate support. Articulate the link between healthy economy and high water quality. Involve Chambers of Commerce. FL-LOWPA and Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association can work together to secure more participation from the business sector for the 1997 conference (goal of at least 5% participants representing business interests).
Who will promote and coordinate leadership programs?
- Use existing models so as not to reinvent the wheel: Leadership Cayuga and Leadership Rochester. Bob Brower, Cayuga County Planning Department and DEC Region 8 are contacts, respectively.
- Coordinate a statewide program through Cornell Cooperative Extension. DEC and U.S. EPA should fund the program. Individual, small grants are not productive.