conserving forests in the new york city watershed
TRANSCRIPT
Conserving Forests in the New York City Watershed
Tom Pavlesich
Forestry Program Manager
Watershed Agricultural Council
October 22, 2014
Catskill/Delaware Watershed
New York State owns 24%
New York City owns 8%
Private people own 67%
90% Forested
Non Profit Organization
Watershed Agricultural CouncilMission: “To promote the economic viability of agriculture and forestry, the protection of water quality, and the conservation of working landscapes through strong local leadership and sustainable public-private partnerships.”
Why Working Forests?
67% Watershed forestland is privately owned
Private landowners face real ownership costs
Financial pressure is the leading reason for subdivision (Stone and Tyrrell 2012)
– Households with incomes below $50,000/year are more likely to subdivide
– 50% of landowners in Northeast make less than $50,000/year
Working forests can off-set ownership costs
Working Forests are Essential
Unprofitable land ownership (Stone and Tyrrell 2012)
Subdivision (Anderson et al. 2012)
Impervious surface area
Irreversible water quality impacts(Conway 2007, Schiff and Benoit 2007, Dietz and Clausen 2008)
The Tool: Forest Management Plans
WAC pays for plans
Plans address timber, water quality, wildlife and more
Landowners choose a consulting forester
Forester writes plan to WAC specifications.
WAC pays forester
Over 15 years, WAC has paid over $1 million for Forest Management Plans
Created 1,200 plans for 230,000 acres of forestland
Critical Evaluation
Evaluated BMP implementation on 30 properties (Munsell et al. 2006)
Evaluated sustained yield (SYM) management on 50 properties
(Munsell et al. 2008)
Evaluated SYM and BMP implementation on 50 properties
Evaluated SYM and BMP implementation on 74 properties
(VanBrakle et al. 2013)
2003
2005
2009
2011
We evaluated 204 properties over eight years
The Problem
WAC’s free, voluntary forest management plans do not result in water quality BMP’s
(VanBrakle et al. 2013)
WAC’s free, voluntary forest management plans do not increase sustainable harvesting
Why don’t WAC’s forest management plans work?
1. Forest Management Plans do not provide landowners with information they value
2. So why should they value the information the plans contain?
High noncompliance penalties
Reduces property taxes by up to 80%
New York’s 480-a Tax Law
More interest in conserving forestland than statewide 480-a participation indicates
The Opportunity(Schnur et al. 2013)
480-a Enrollment in Delaware and Greene Counties, 2003 - 2010
The Opportunity
WAC’s funding may remove a key barrier to 480-a enrollment – the upfront cost of a forest
management plan.
The Benefit of 480-a
Limits subdivision to greater than 50 acres.
Leaves enrolled acres undeveloped.
Annual re-commitment to an additional 10 years of the above.
High non-compliance penalties
Minimal subdivision and no development
Conserves forests
Strong disincentive for non-compliance and un-enrollment
Annual 10 year recommitment
Over 15 years, WAC paid $256,000 to conserve 40,000 acres through 480-a
$6.40 per acre for 10 years of conservation
End on a Positive Note…
WAC only pays for property enrolled in 480-a
Lessons Learned
Underestimated 480-a as a conservation tool
480-a is another tool in the conservation tool box
More interest in conserving forestland than statewide 480-a participation indicates
WAC’s funding may remove a key barrier to 480-a enrollment – the upfront cost of a forest
management plan.
Questions?
Anderson, N.M., R.H. Germain, and M.H. Hall. 2012. An assessment of forest cover and impervious surface area on family forests in the New York City Watershed. North. J. Appl. For. 29(2): 67-73.
Conway, T.M. 2007. Impervious surface as an indicator of pH and specific conductance in the urbanizing coastal zone of New Jersey, USA. J. Environ. Manag. 85: 308-316.
Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen. 2008. Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and a low impact subdivision. J. Environ. Manag. 87: 560-566.
Schiff, R. and G. Benoit. 2007. Effects of impervious cover at multiple spatial scales on coastal watershed streams. J. Am. Water. Res. Assoc. 43(3): 712-730.
Stone, R.S. and M.L. Tyrrell. 2012. Motivations for family forestland parcelization in the Catskill/Delaware Watersheds of New York. J. For. 110(5): 267-274.
Literature Cited
Anderson, N.M., R.H. Germain, and M.H. Hall. 2012. An assessment of forest cover and impervious surface area on family forests in the New York City Watershed. North. J. Appl. For. 29(2): 67-73.
Scnhur, E.L., S.B. Allred and D.B. Kittredge. A comparative Analysis of Conservation Awareness among New York and Massachusetts Woodland Owners. North. J. Appl. For. 30(4): 175 -183.
Munsell, J.F., R.H. Germain, E. Bevilacqua, and R.M. Schuster. Voluntary Best Management Practice Implementation by Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners in New York City’s Water Supply System. North. J. Appl. For. 23(2): 133- 140
Munsell, J.F., R.H. Germain, I.A. Munn. A Tale of Two Forests: Case Study Comparisions of Sustained Yeild Management on Mississippi and New York Nonindustrial Private Forestland. J. of Forestry December 2008: 431 – 439
VanBrakle J.D., R.H. Germain, J.F. Munsell, and S.V. Stehman. Do Forest Management Plans Increase Best Management PractivesImplementation on Family Forests/ A Formative Evaluation in the New York City Watershed. J. For. 111(2): 108 - 114.
Property wide non-compliance: 2.5 times the tax amount saved, plus interest for the past ten years
Noncompliance Penalties
Partial non-compliance: Five times the tax amount saved, plus interest for the past ten years on the non-compliant acres
WAC Forestry Program
Five core program areas:
1. Forest Management Planning
2. Implementation
3. Education and Training
4. Research and Demonstration
5. Forest Easements