DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario: Exploring a Modified Club Goods Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario: Exploring a Modified Club Goods Approach Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario: Exploring a Modified Club Goods Approach by Brook Coatsworth A Thesis Presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Brook Coatsworth, December, 2012 Abstract WETLAND CONSERVATION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO: EXPLORING A MODIFIED CLUB GOODS APPROACH Brook Coatsworth Advisor: University of Guelph, 2012 Dr. Glenn Fox This thesis is an exploration of a modified club goods approach to wetland conservation in southern Ontario as an alternative to the current policy approach. As the regulatory framework for wetland conservation continues to develop, however, so does an emerging resistance to participate in government conservation programs by private rural landowners protesting regulatory erosion of citizen rights in private land ownership. The modified club goods approach was evaluated as a fair and effective conservation method through a multiple-case study that explored six non-governmental organizations applying a modified club goods conservation model. As non-governmental organizations broaden their economic base to increase their scope of operations, they are susceptible to influence from changing sources of revenue. They must remain accountable and transparent to members and donors in order to receive their continued financial support, rather than depending on government funds which leads to an organization’s evolution away from the modified model. iii Acknowledgements I owe a great debt of gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Glenn Fox, for his invaluable guidance, patience and dedication to my research and for sharing his wealth of academic and professional experiences with me throughout my graduate studies. Dr. Alfons Weersink and Dr. John FitzGibbon also played an integral role in the development of my thesis as members of my trusted committee. I could not have completed my research without their comments, suggestions and words of encouragement. Thank you to the to the professors, staff and students of the Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department who took an interest in my research, offered advice and at times, much needed criticism. To everyone else who helped me, including the various non- governmental organizations that I studied, the landowners who shared their stories and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affaires for funding my research – thank you. To my parents, family and friends, thank you for providing me with an incredible support network and plenty of distractions when they were due. And most importantly my fiancée Catharina, thank you for being a source of inspiration, motivation and an example of hard work. You are truly an amazing woman and without you I would not have accomplished all that I have. iv Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction to Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario 1.1 Background……………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Economic Problem………………………………………………………. 6 1.3 Economic Research Problem……………………………………………. 7 1.4 Purpose and Objectives………………………………………………….. 8 1.5 Chapter Outlines…………………………………………………………. 9 Chapter 2 - Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario: The Policy Approach 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 11 2.2 Southern Ontario Wetland Loss from 1800 until 2002………………. 12 2.2.1 Southern Ontario Wetland Loss from 1800 to 1867: An Alternative Analysis…………………………………………….. 15 2.2.2 Wetland Distribution Across Southern Ontario from 1800 to 2007…………………………………………………….. 18 2.3 A Review of Wetland Policies Guiding Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario………………………………………………………. 21 2.3.1 Canadian Federal Wetland Policy………………………………... 22 2.3.2 Ontario Provincial Wetland Policy………………………………. 23 2.3.3 Regional Wetland Policy in Ontario…………………………….. 27 2.3.4 Local Wetland Policy in Ontario………………………………… 31 2.4 Ontario Provincial Legislative Acts Enforcing Wetland Policies………. 32 2.5 Summary of the Policy Approach to Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario………………………………………………………. 34 2.5.1 Regulatory Takings………………………………………………. 36 2.5.2 Consequences of the Policy Approach…………………………… 39 2.5.3 Evaluating Wetland Policies and the Policy Approach………….. 41 2.6 Conclusions………………………………………………………………. 43 Chapter 3 - Club Goods Theory and the Modified Club Goods Model 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 45 3.2 An Economic Theory of Clubs…………………………………………... 45 3.2.1 Public Goods, Private Goods and Club Goods…………………... 45 3.2.2 The Provision of Club Goods…………………………………….. 48 3.2.3 The Club Goods Model…………………………………………... 49 3.2.4 Applications of Club Goods Theory……………………………… 50 3.3 Differentiating Club Goods from Public Goods…………………………. 51 3.4 Transforming Public Goods to Club Goods……………………………… 53 3.4.1 Club Provision of Environmental Goods and Services………….. 57 v 3.5 Modifying the Club Goods Model ………………………………………. 58 3.6 Non-Governmental Organizations……………………………………….. 60 3.6.1 Operational Characteristics of Non-Government Organizations... 61 3.6.2 Club Provision of Environmental Goods and Services by Non-Government Organizations…………………………………. 65 3.7 Conclusions………………………………………………………………. 66 Chapter 4 - Method of Economic Research and Analysis 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 68 4.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………... 68 4.3 Method…………………………………………………………………… 69 4.3.1 Research Design………………………………………………….. 69 4.3.2 Data Collection…………………………………………………… 73 4.3.3 Data Analysis…………………………………………………….. 76 4.3.4 Wetland Conservation Data………………………………………. 77 4.4 Case Study Protocol………………………………………………………. 78 4.4.1 Overview of the Case Study Protocol…………………………….. 78 4.4.2 Procedures for Conducting Each Case…………………………… 79 a) Selecting Sources of Evidence ………………………………... 79 b) Conducting Interviews ……………………………………….. 80 4.4.3 Gathering Case Study Evidence………………………………….. 81 4.4.4 The Multiple-Case Study and Analysis Plan…………………….. 84 I. Case Studies…………………………………………………….. 84 a) Case Description …………………………………………….. 84 b) Financial Information and Trend Analysis …………………. 85 c) Application of the Modified Club Goods Model …………….. 87 II. Cross-Case Analysis…………………………………………….. 91 4.5 Procedure for Selecting Cases……………………………………………. 95 4.5.1 Six Non-government Conservation Organizations………………. 97 4.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………. 99 Chapter 5 - Six Case Studies Exploring the Modified Club Goods Approach to Wetland Conservation in Southern Ontario 5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 102 5.2 General Procedures for Gathering and Analysing Financial Data………. 102 5.2.1 Assets, Liabilities and Total Net Assets from 2000 to 2010……. 103 5.2.2 Sources of Revenue from 2000 to 2010…………………………. 104 5.2.3 Expenditures from 2000 to 2010………………………………… 106 5.3 Glossary of Financial Definitions……………………………………….. 108 5.4 Case Study: Trout Unlimited Canada vi 5.4.1 Case Description…………………………………………………. 110 5.4.2 Financial Information and Trend Analysis………………………. 111 5.4.3 Application of the Modified Club Goods Model………………… 114 5.5 Case Study: The Delta Waterfowl Foundation 5.5.1 Case Description…………………………………………………. 118 5.5.2 Financial Information and Trend Analysis………………………. 119 5.5.3 Application of the Modified Club Goods Model………………… 122 5.6 Case Study: The Nature Conservancy Canada 5.6.1 Case Description………………………………………………….. 125 5.6.2 Financial Information and Trend Analysis……………………….. 126 5.6.3 Application of the Modified Club Goods Model…………………. 129 5.7 Case Study: The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters 5.7.1 Case Description………………………………………………….. 131 5.7.2 Financial Information and Trend Analysis……………………….. 132 5.7.3 Application of the Modified Club Goods Model…………………. 135 5.8 Case Study: The Canadian Wildlife Federation 5.8.1 Case Description………………………………………………….. 138 5.8.2 Financial Information and Trend Analysis……………………….. 139 5.8.3 Application of the Modified Club Goods Model…………………. 142 5.9 Case Study: Ducks Unlimited Canada 5.9.1 Case Description……………………………………………..…… 144 5.9.2 Financial Information and Trend Analysis……………………….. 145 5.9.3 Application of the Modified Club Goods Model………………… 149 5.10 Analysis of the Multiple-Case Study…………………………………….. 151 5.11 Cross-Case Analysis……………………………………………………… 153 5.11.1 Comparing Levels of Conformity to the Modified Club Goods Model…………………………………………………….. 153 5.11.2 Comparing Approaches to Wetland Conservation………………. 154 5.11.3 Comparing Revenue and Expenditure Trends from 2002 to 2010…………………………………………………….. 157 5.11.4 Comparing Government Influence on Conservation Programs… 160 5.12 Summary of Cross-Case Analysis………………………………………. 162 Chapter 6 - Findings and Conclusions 6.1 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………. 164 6.2 Principle Findings……………………………………………………….. 166 6.3 Implications of Findings………………………………………………… 168 6.4 Limitations of Study and Recommendations for Future Research……… 170 References ……………………………………………………………………….. 263 vii List of Tables Table 2.1 - Provincial Statutes Protecting the Development of Wetlands…………….. 33 Table 4.1 - Case Study Tactics for Four Research Design Tests………………………. 68 Table 4.2 - Four Sources of Evidence for Case Study Research and the Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Source……………………………. 75 Table 5.1.1 - Trout Unlimited Canada Assets, Liabilities and Total Net Assets from 2000 to 2010……………………………………………... 174 Table 5.1.2 - Trout Unlimited Canada Sources of Revenue from 2000 to 2010………... 175 Table 5.1.3 - Trout Unlimited Canada Expenditures from 2000 to 2010……………….. 177 Table 5.1.4 - Trout Unlimited Canada - The Modified Club Goods Model: Financial Influence of Members
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams Technical Report No
    July 2018 State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams Technical Report No. 2018-01 Alexander Kissel, Habitat Technician & Alice Choi, GIS Technician, Ontario Streams ontariostreams.ca Summary Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed are critical to the health of the Lake and its surrounding ecosystem. They cover 18.4% of the surface area around the Lake or 52 847 hectares (ha). About 62.4% of these wetlands have been evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual. The distribution of wetlands vary with fewer and smaller wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine (7.1% of surface area), the Schomberg Clay Plains (5.5%) and the uplands west of the the Lake (10.9 to 12.7%), contrasting with the larger valley and shoreline wetlands in the lowlands around the Lake (25.7%). Small wetlands play an important role particularly in the landscapes where they make up a large portion of the wetlands. A high resolution (15 centimetre pixel) analysis of aerial imagery from 1999/2002 to 2013/2016 for the Lake Simcoe Watershed has shown that many small wetland losses, and the occasional larger ones, add up over this time period to a loss of almost eight square kilometres or 773 ha (1.5% of the total wetland area). This loss is higher than previous estimates using lower resolution (30-metre pixel) satellite imagery which cannot pick out the smaller losses that have a large cumulative impact. The highest losses have been from agriculture (46.4% of all losses), following in descending order by residential (10.5%), peat extraction (10.4%), canals (9.6%), highways/roads (6.6%), industrial/commercial (5.7%), fill (4.6%), dug-out ponds (4.3%), recreation (1.6%) and aggregates (0.3%).
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Conservation Strategies
    11/15/2010 Wally Akins TWRA/NRCS Private Lands Biologist 1 The “Farm Bill” Congressional legislation passed every 5 to 7 years that provides framework and guidance for USDA commodity support, conservation programs, emergency/disaster programs, and other agriculture/food-related programs. Includes intended budget, but actual appropriations decided annually (usually late in federal fiscal year) 2008 Farm Bill = “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008” 2 Farm Service Agency (FSA) • Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) – 32 million acres nationwide; ~235,000 acres in TN • Also handles commodity programs, and emergency and disaster payments to farmers Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • EEinvironmental QQliuality Incenti ves Program (EQIP) • Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) • Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) • Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) • Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) • Farm & Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) 3 1 11/15/2010 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Farm Wildlife Habitat Program Landowner Incentives Program U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Partners for Fish & Wildlife – T&E, at-risk species in all habitats Tennessee Division of Forestry Forest Stewardship Plan Development TWRA, NRCS and Ducks Unlimited Tennessee Partners Project - wetlands 4 Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) WRP provides an opportunity for lldandowners to receive financial incentives to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal land from agriculture. 5 On average, only 5% of the lower 48 states is wetlands and other shallow aquatic habitats. Wetland abundance varies by region: <1% of CA, NV, AZ, NM, UT, KS, MT, and WV Approx. 30% of FL and LA 45% of AK 6 2 11/15/2010 Since the late 1700s, >50% of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quantity Management Goals
    CHAPTER TWO: NFCRWD WATER PLANNING ISSUES This chapter of the NFCRWD Overall Plan identifies the District’s key water planning issues and assesses what resources are available to properly address them. The chapter is broken down into sections corresponding with the District’s four main goal areas: surface and drainage water management (Section A); reducing priority pollutants (Section B); and improving stakeholder participation (Section C) and raising public awareness (also Section C). Section A: Drainage and Surface Water Management (Goal Area 1 in Chapter Three) Drainage Work Group In 2005, the Minnesota Legislature directed the BWSR to conduct an “implementation assessment of public drainage system buffers and their use, maintenance, and benefits”. As part of this assessment, the BWSR convened a Work Group of stakeholders, which met several times over the two-year period, to develop recommendations on how to improve drainage management. The following are the consensus recommendations of the group: o Clarify point of beginning for measuring required ditch buffer strips and width of required buffer strips. o Enhance authority to establish and maintain buffers. o Enhance ditch buffer strip compliance and enforcement. o Enhance establishment of public drainage ditch buffers. o The BWSR should develop and disseminate guidelines for drainage records preservation and modernization. o The Minnesota Public Drainage Manual should be updated, in consultation with the Drainage Work Group, to reflect revisions and clarifications of Minnesota drainage law since 1991. o The Drainage Work Group should continue to develop consensus recommendations to the Legislature, agencies, and other stakeholders for additional drainage issues and topics brought forward by its members.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Distribution and Conversion in Southern Ontario
    WETLAND DISTRIBUTION AND CONVERSION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO WORKING PAPER No. 48 Environment Environnement Canada Canada WETLAND DISTRIBUTION AND CONVERSION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO Elizabeth A. Snell CANADA LAND USE MONITORING PROGRAM December 1987 Inland Waters and Lands Directorate Working Paper No. 48 Environment Canada Disponible en français sous le titre: Répartition et conversion des milieux humides dans le sud de l'Ontario ABSTRACT Concern over the ongoing conversion of wetlands is growing. Information on the location, extent, and quality of remaining wetlands is needed to assist in developing future policy and management actions aimed at retaining wetland values. In addition, knowledge of wetland conversion rates and trends is important in assessing the current status of wetlands. To date, the availability of such information has been fragmentary and inconsistent. This study used available soil and land use data, supplemented by other information, to map southern Ontario wetlands and wetland conversion on 125 map sheets at a scale of 1:50 000. Analysis has revealed that before 1800, 2.38 million hectares (ha) of wetland were widely distributed throughout southern Ontario. By 1982, 0.93 million ha remained and were more prevalent in the northern parts of the study area. The original wetland area had been reduced by 61% overall, and by 68% south of the Precambrian Shield. Wetland decline since settlement has been most severe in southwestern Ontario where over 90% of the original wetlands have been converted to other uses. Areas in the Niagara Peninsula, along western Lake Ontario and in eastern Ontario have less than 20% of the original wetland area.
    [Show full text]
  • A Multi-Criteria Wetland Suitability Index for Restoration Across Ontario’S Mixedwood Plains
    sustainability Article A multi-Criteria Wetland Suitability Index for Restoration across Ontario’s Mixedwood Plains Sally J. Medland 1, Richard R. Shaker 1,2,3,4,* , K. Wayne Forsythe 1,2,3, Brian R. Mackay 2,3 and Greg Rybarczyk 5,6,7 1 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada; [email protected] (S.J.M.); [email protected] (K.W.F.) 2 Graduate Programs in Environmental Applied Science & Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada; [email protected] 3 Graduate Program in Spatial Analysis, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada 4 Department of Geography, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14261, USA 5 University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502, USA; [email protected] 6 The Michigan Institute for Data Science (MIDAS), Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA 7 The Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health, London SW9 7QF, UK * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-416-979-5000 Received: 7 November 2020; Accepted: 24 November 2020; Published: 28 November 2020 Abstract: Significant wetland loss (~72%; 1.4 million hectares) in the Province of Ontario, Canada, has resulted in damage to important ecosystem services that mitigate the effects of global change. In response, major agencies have set goals to halt this loss and work to restore wetlands to varying degrees of function and area. To aid those agencies, this study was guided by four research questions: (i) Which physical and ecological landscape criteria represent high suitability for wetland reconstruction? (ii) Of common wetland suitability metrics, which are most important? (iii) Can a multi-criteria wetland suitability index (WSI) effectively locate high and low wetland suitability across the Ontario Mixedwood Plains Ecozone? (iv) How do best sites from the WSI compare and contrast to both inventories of presettlement wetlands and current existing wetlands? The WSI was created based on seven criteria, normalized from 0 (low suitability) to 10 (high suitability), and illustrated through a weighted composite raster.
    [Show full text]
  • W E Tla N D R Eso U Rce E V a Lu a Tio N a N D Th E N R a 'S R O Le in Its C
    Wetland resource evaluation and the NRA's role in its conservation. Classification of British wetlands Item Type monograph Authors Wheeler, B.D.; Shaw, S.C. Publisher National Rivers Authority Download date 29/09/2021 00:46:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/27297 W etland Resource Evaluation and the NRA's Role in its Conservation 2. Classification of British Wetlands Environmental Consultancy University of Sheffield R&D Note 378 Further copies of this report are available from: EZS Foundation for Water Research, Allen House, The Listons, Liston Rd, Marlow, Bucks SL7 1FD. Tel: 01628-891589, Fax: 01628-472711 Wetland Resource Evaluation and the NRA's Role in its Conservation 2. Classification of British Wetlands B. D. Wheeler and S. C. Shaw Research Contractor: Environmental Consultancy University of Sheffield Edited by: P. Bradley & C. J. S. Routh National Rivers Authority Manley House Kestrel Way Exeter EX2 7LQ R&D Note 378 Commissioning Organisation: National Rivers Authority Rivers House Waterside Drive Aztec West Tel: (01454) 624400 Bristol BS12 4UD Fax: (01454) 624409 © National Rivers Authority 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the National Rivers Authority. The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the NRA. Its officers, servants or agents accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance on views contained herein. Dissemination Status: Internal: Released to Regions External: Public Domain Statement of Use: This document recommends a 'hydrotopographical' classification of British wetlands which should be adopted by the NRA and hopefully other organisations and individuals concerned with wetland resource assessment, management and conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl
    The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl Final Report September 2001 The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited, Inc. National Headquarters Mark Petrie, Ph.D. Jean-Paul Rochon, B.Sc. Great Lakes Atlantic Regional Office Gildo Tori, M.Sc. Great Plains Regional Office Roger Pederson, Ph.D. Southern Regional Office Tom Moorman, Ph.D. Copyright 2001 – No part of this document may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 9, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. The decision reduces the protection of isolated wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which assigns the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Prior to the SWANCC decision, the Corps had adopted a regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” that afforded federal protection for almost all of the nation’s wetlands. The Supreme Court also concluded that the use of migratory birds to assert jurisdiction over the site exceeded the authority that Congress had granted the Corps under the CWA. The Court interpreted that Corps jurisdiction is restricted to navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands that are adjacent to these navigable waterways and tributaries. The decision leaves “isolated” wetlands unprotected by the CWA. These wetlands are very significant to many wildlife populations, especially migratory waterfowl.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Water Level Fluctuations on Algal Communities of Freshwater Marshes Syed Mohammad Hosseini Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1986 The effects of water level fluctuations on algal communities of freshwater marshes Syed Mohammad Hosseini Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Botany Commons, Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Other Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Hosseini, Syed Mohammad, "The effects of water level fluctuations on algal communities of freshwater marshes" (1986). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 8084. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/8084 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note ap­ pears to indicate this.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction and User's Guide to Wetland Restoration, Creation
    An Introduction and User’s Guide to Wetland Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement A Guide for the Public Containing: • Background on wetlands and restoration • Information on project planning, implementation, and monitoring • Lists of resources, contacts, and funding sources Developed by the Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This guide would not have been possible without the contributions of many individuals. The members of the Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration were critical to the document’s development from start to finish: Susan-Marie Stedman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries; John McShane, Lynne Trulio, Doreen Vetter, Mary Kentula, and , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Jack Arnold, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Jeanne Christie, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and now with the Association of State Wetland Managers; and Colleen Charles, US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and now with the US Geological Survey. The Workgroup would like to acknowledge the members of the Expert/User Review Panel for their practical knowledge and valuable input: Alan P. Ammann, NRCS; Robert P. Brooks, Pennsylvania State University’s Cooperative Wetlands Center; Andre F. Clewell, Society for Ecological Restoration (SER); Donald Falk, SER; Susan Galatowitsch, University of Minnesota; Curtis Hopkins, Ducks Unlimited; Mike Houck, Audubon Society; Michael Josselyn, Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies; Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers; Julie Middleton and Leah Miller-Graff, Izaak Walton League; Steve Moran, Nebraska Rainwater Basin Coordinator; Richard P. Novitski, RP Novitzki and Associates; Duncan T.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Wetland Policies and National Trends
    V. Federal Wetland Policies and years. Hoover questioned the expense and overall National Trends public efficiency of these subsidies (Hoover, 1969). The U.S. Department of the Interior conducted a series of studies that exhaustively explored the subsi- Federal wetland policy has evolved over our Nation’s dies’ role in wetland conversion, finding that the sub- history. During the period of settlement and national sidies did promote wetland conversion (USDI, 1988 expansion, incentives for converting wetlands to other and 1994). The Swampbuster provisions of the 1985 uses hastened wetland loss. Direct incentives for con- Food Security Act and changes in the 1986 Tax version remained until late in this century. Gradually, Reform Act largely eliminated indirect government direct and indirect incentives were eliminated and assistance in the form of farm program benefits and policies to conserve wetlands were adopted. With the income tax deductions for wetland conversion adoption of the "no net loss" goal, efforts to conserve (Heimlich and Langner, 1986; Heimlich, 1994). and restore wetlands accelerated. Drainage and Flood Control The Era of Wetland Exploitation Federal involvement in drainage programs dates back In the earliest stages of settlement, farmers bypassed to 1902 when the Bureau of Reclamation was estab- wetlands in favor of dry land with good water and lished to develop irrigation in the West. Drainage was trees. Only toward the end of the 19th century, when required to fully use the new irrigation capacity, pro- easily accessible farmland grew scarce, did farmers viding new Federal involvement in agricultural turn to the previously bypassed wetlands in earnest. drainage programs (USDI, 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphological Assessment of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on the East Holland River
    Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment Geomorphological Assessment of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on the East Holland River Prepared for: The Regional Municipality of York Prepared by: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates DECEMBER, 2013 REF. NO. 050278 (104) 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1 YORK REGION NO. 74270 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7B8 Geomorphological Assessment of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on the East Holland River Upper York Sewage Solutions EA Executive Summary The main objectives of the Geomorphological Assessment of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on the East Holland River are: . To investigate the extent and magnitude of potential impacts of the proposed Water Reclamation Centre clean treated water discharge on erosion and sedimentation processes in the East Holland River and the Queensville drainage ditch1, a tributary of the East Holland River. To identify the probable implications of the proposed Water Reclamation Centre clean treated water discharge on channel morphology and channel processes. Study Area The study area considered for the geomorphological assessment (referred to as the Receiving Water Assessment Area) includes the lower portion of Queensville drainage ditch, from the proposed Water Reclamation Centre Outfall location (referred to as to as the proposed Queensville Sideroad Outfall Discharge Location) to the outlet at East Holland River, the portion of the East Holland River downstream to the confluence with the West Holland River, and the main branch of the Holland River to the confluence with Cook's Bay in Lake Simcoe. This is the area considered for the proposed Water Reclamation Centre clean treated water discharge location and/or the area potentially affected by the proposed Water Reclamation Centre clean treated water discharge.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Research Design
    Supporting Environmental Stewardship and Livelihood Benefits in Ontario’s Greenbelt: Assessing the Potential Contribution of the Alternative Land Use Services Program by Bruce F. Mackenzie A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies in Environment and Resource Studies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2008 © Bruce F. Mackenzie 2008 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final versions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Ontario’s Greenbelt is key to the region’s sustainability and plays an important role in stopping urban sprawl, preserving agricultural land and maintaining ecological goods and services. However, there have been concerns expressed in the literature and by non-government organizations that the Greenbelt legislation, on its own, will not ensure the viability of the farming economy in this region, or ensure adequate ecological stewardship. These concerns point to the need for other programs and policies to complement the Greenbelt legislation, and to help ensure that the goals of the Greenbelt are met. This research study assesses the potential of the Alternative Land Use Services Program (ALUS) as a tool for promoting agricultural viability and associated land stewardship in Ontario’s Greenbelt. An Alternative Land Use Services program would pay farmers for the provision of environmental services in the public interest. Using a qualitative methodological approach based on a literature review, a review of government and non-government organization documents and interviews with key stakeholders, this study compares the potential contribution of the ALUS program with that of other reasonable alternatives currently available to promote farmland protection and farm stewardship.
    [Show full text]