Watershedplanwebinarv2
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•549 views
Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACs) are at various stages of creating and implementing water and watershed management plans. There are numerous questions about how implementation of watershed plans is best achieved and what policies may be useful for meeting plan outcomes. On October 27th Jason Unger, Staff Counsel at the Environmental Law Centre, presented information on how other jurisdictions have approached implementation and discussed some key aspects of the Alberta approach.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Watershedplanwebinarv2
Similar to Watershedplanwebinarv2 (20)
More from Environmental Law Centre (Alberta)
More from Environmental Law Centre (Alberta) (14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Watershedplanwebinarv2
- 1. Watershed Plan Implementation Implementation of Watershed Plans: Approaches, issues and recommendations Webinar – October 27, 2010 Jason Unger, Staff Counsel
- 2. Watershed Plan ImplementationAbout the ELC Programs • Information and referral • Community outreach • Law reform
- 3. Watershed Plan ImplementationOutline • Purpose of review/analysis • Implementation models – U.S. – Canada • Assessments • Implementing plans: issues and recommendations
- 4. Watershed Plan ImplementationPurpose of review/analysis • Review approaches to implementation • Has implementation of collaborative watershed plans been evaluated elsewhere? – Implementation characteristics? • Validate the approach or recommendations for reform • How is “symbolic policy” avoided?
- 5. Watershed Plan ImplementationContinuum of approaches Increasing statutory or regulatory incorporation of plans Regulatory Binding objectives on existing decision makers Regulatory on a watershed scale Plan binds all watershed activities Voluntary Ad hoc Relies on individual decisions at any given time Policy based Advisory Guides decisions but discretion remains unconstrained Regulatory consideration of a plan is mandated Narrows government’s discretion
- 6. Watershed Plan ImplementationStarting assumptions • What success looks like – substantive change in environmental outcomes vs process or organizational outcomes • The plan has been approved – Recognizing plan development difficulties • That the plan is substantive and measurable • A monitoring and reporting system is in place
- 8. Watershed Plan ImplementationCanada vs. U.S. approach • U.S. – collaborative watershed planning began in the 80s • Clean Water Act – NPDES (permitting of point sources) national pollutant discharge elimination systems – Total Maximum Daily Load • Endangered Species Act – Recovery requirements • Nature of litigation and judicial review – Impetus behind some watershed planning regimes
- 9. Watershed Plan Implementation Policy driven Binding on decision -makers Binding on non- regulate d entities Other signific ant progra ms Washingt on w/ discreti on Oregon Oregon Plan funding Centr
- 10. Watershed Plan Implementation Policy driven Binding on decision -makers Binding on non- regulate d entities Other significa nt program s Ontario Sourc e protecti on plans Manito ba relies on regs.
- 11. Watershed Plan ImplementationWashington • Plan must seek consistency with other planning entities • Limited retroactive application • existing local ordinances • state rules or permits – but may recommend changes ; or • restrict forest practices above current legislative and implementation rules
- 12. Watershed Plan ImplementationImplementation Washington Adopted watershed plan Department Of Ecology Private Entities Counties Government Agencies Change rules Change ordinance Adopt Policies Procedures Rules Agreements Guides Public interest determination
- 13. Watershed Plan ImplementationOregon • Central Oregon Plan • Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) – Multi-agency board administered through Governor's office – Fund administration • Includes stewardship agreements with landowners • Oregon Plan implementation watershed councils & agencies
- 15. Watershed Plan ImplementationOregon • Implementation and monitoring – team driven • Restoration activities and reporting on biannual basis -http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/biennialrpt_05-07/basin_rpts.pdf
- 16. Watershed Plan ImplementationFunding significance • OWEB fund allocation July 1, 1999 to Oct 26, 2007 • $171,723,283 – http://www.oregon-plan.org/OPSW/progress/prog_reps.shtml • 2007 Report(covering 2004-2005) • http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/biennialrpt_05-07/basin_rpts.pdf
- 17. Watershed Plan ImplementationCalifornia • Water allocation & quality regulated for the most parts • Integrated watershed planning ad hoc – focus on non-regulatory aspects of TMDL – led by cross departmental initiative (Watershed Management Initiative ) • seeks partnering opportunities • Plans need to be consistent with the regional basin plans and could be incorporated into municipal legislation
- 18. Watershed Plan ImplementationOntario Watershed plan Source protection plan 1993 policy Led by CA Voluntary Clean Water Act 2006 Significant threats Other considerations Planners and Regulators must “have regard” Binding on planners Prevail over bylaws and plans
- 19. Watershed Plan ImplementationManitoba Watershed plan Regulations Bind prescribed decisions Considered in development plan – zoning must be “generally consistent” Amends Planning Act
- 20. Watershed Plan ImplementationAlberta • “water management plans” must be considered (Water Act) • Watershed management plans – ad hoc implementation – No rules or obligations created – May be incorporated into regional plans under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (and become binding on decision makers) – Implementation funding? ASN?
- 21. Watershed Plan ImplementationAustralia and EU • Examples of binding regional planning authorities • EU -Watershed framework directive • Australia –Water Act, 2007 – Murray Darling Basin Authority – Centralized planning system binding on all
- 22. Watershed Plan ImplementationContinuum of Policy Approaches Policy mandated – Volunteer w/resources Ad hoc volunteer Program based volunteer Legislative facilitation of implementation Structure and process Legislative implementation – mandatory consideration Substantive legislative plans Washington Alberta California Ontario Manitoba Oregon Australia & EU Caveat -approach varies by issue
- 23. Watershed Plan ImplementationAssessments of plan implementation success • Few have been conducted • Based on interviews with participants in planning & collaborative initiatives – i.e., perceptions not substantive outcomes
- 24. Watershed Plan ImplementationNew Sourcebook (2000) • Compilation of 346 case studies of partnerships including planning councils from across the U.S. • “The data we have suggests the performance of watershed initiatives is mixed, not a surprising finding given the diversity of efforts and the various criteria upon which such assessments can be based. This finding is sufficient to encourage continued experimentation, but is not adequate to support any grander conclusions.”
- 26. Watershed Plan ImplementationSommarstrom/Lubell (+) – Neutral forum – Developed trust understanding among council – Agency integration -better cooperation, coordination and communications – Brings community attention to issues – Projects implemented on the ground – Some extended landowner participation (-) – Management practices or watershed issues are avoided (treating symptoms versus causes) – Lowest common denominator decisions (due to perceptions of consensus) – Trust beyond councils is lacking – Plan vagueness – Opportunistic versus planned approach – Belief change doesn’t lead to action change
- 27. Watershed Plan ImplementationCentral issues for implementation Law and policy backdrop Funding Sustained and sufficient Robust/systematic planning Integration of Decisions Implementation
- 28. Watershed Plan ImplementationLegal backdrop: Is a threat of litigation required? • Is an imminent threat of regulation/litigation necessary? • Some U.S. jurisdictions have found that it fosters buy-in into an otherwise voluntary system • Similar system doesn’t exist in Canada • Central question – Alternative avenues to resolve issues – Status quo, i.e., symbolic policy
- 29. Watershed Plan ImplementationSustained funding • Overriding theme from all jurisdictions reviewed is a need for greater funding and capacity • Project/mission creep? – Opportunistic vs. robust plan implementation • Contrast – Can vs. U.S. – Clean Water Act funding – since 1999 ~$200 million – Amts – OR/WS spending millions on restoration efforts
- 30. Watershed Plan ImplementationRobust planning systems • Opportunistic and ad hoc implementation is the result of a voluntary system • Parties assess cost/benefit on case by case basis • Proven success in individual restoration projects • Long term goals and dealing with more intransigent issues remains elusive
- 31. Watershed Plan ImplementationConsistent integration • Three distinct players – government departments, municipalities, and individual organizations/landowners • Agency silos – legislative mandates, institutional memory • Stakeholder silos
- 32. Watershed Plan ImplementationELC Recommendations Watershed Planning and Advisory Council Consensus Watershed Plan Municipal Approval Cabinet Approval Minister of Environment Approval Alberta Land Stewardship Act Regional Plan amendment s Code of Practice amendments Governs discretion under Water Act and EPEA Mandatory consideration by regulatory tribunals Bylaw amendments Statutory plan amendments Governs discretion under MGA
- 33. Watershed Plan ImplementationOther watershed stakeholders • Enable private agreements – Tie to funding of programs • “Leverage point mapping” within planning process – Assess private mechanisms for implementation – Identify barriers to plan implementation – Create programs/funding/regulation
- 34. Watershed Plan ImplementationFunding and robust planning • Systematic planning – Threat assessment – Targeted responses with timelines – Funding & capacity? • Funding – Centralize administration in Treasury Board (or other prevalent branch) – Mandate legislative fund and restoration program – Tie to voluntary fund raising (restoration or stewardship licence plates or other voluntary levies) – Tie to offsets under ALSA
- 35. Watershed Plan ImplementationQuestions? Phone: 780-424-5099 or 1-800-661-4238 E-mail: elc@elc.ab.ca or junger@elc.ab.ca Consistency and Accountability in Implementing Watershed Plans in Alberta: A jurisdictional review and recommendations for reform. http://www.elc.ab.ca/Content_Files/Files/ELCWtshdPlnImp ReviewRecommendations.pdf Web: www.elc.ab.ca Blog: http://environmentallawcentre.wordpress.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/ELC_Alberta To sign up for e-mail updates, visit: http://www.elc.ab.ca/pages/home/Notification.aspx
Editor's Notes
- Water boards deal with , Biosolids ,Dredge/Fill (401) Wetlands , Irrigated Lands ,Land Disposal (landfills, waste piles, etc.) , Non-subchapter 15 (WDR) ,National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (surface water) ,Recycled Water , Sanitary Sewer Overflows , Storm water , Timber Harvest