A Journey Toward Environmental Stewardship

By Michael Zagata

Raised in upstate New York, Mike earned a BS and MS in secondary science at SUNY-Oneonta and Cornell and then a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology at Iowa State University.  His varied career included an assistant professorship at the University of Maine-Orono’s School of Forest Resources, Field Director for The Wildlife Society, Audubon&rsquo

• Language: English
• Publisher: Michael D. Zagata
• Release date: May 13, 2017
• ISBN: 9780998306476

Book preview

FOREWORD

There are several ways to learn about natural resource and environmental policy—textbooks, courses, and personal on-the-job experience. Some of us learned from the experience of others. For me, it was Aldo Leopold—drawing from his experiences on the Carson National Forest or his cabin in Sand County, Wisconsin, and then developing the foundations of conservation or game management that still inspire and inform us many decades later.

Leopold was a philosopher. The author of this book, Mike Zagata, is an innovator and pragmatist. This autobiographical trip through time gives us insight to the lessons he learned as a professor of wildlife management, a corporate executive, a public servant, and his experiences with non-profit organizations focusing on conserving birds and their habitats.

What makes this book particularly interesting is that the focus of most books dealing with conservation practice and policy clearly reflect the singular perspective of the author. That is, it is usually quite clear whether the author is an advisor to or an apologist for industry, an academic, or a spokesperson and advocate for an environmental organization on a mission. A Journey to Environmental Stewardship moves chapter by chapter through a career of one person that included all of these roles, as well as Commissioner of New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Those starting their careers in environmental stewardship can speed the learning curve by learning from Chapters 13 and14, …What to Do and Not Do. These suggestions may not guarantee success, but they will hopefully prevent you from stepping too close to the edge of a cliff.

Ross S. Whaley, Ph.D.

President Emeritus State University of New York College

of Environmental Science and Forestry

English Setter

Scout interested in a chipmunk hiding in the rocks

CHAPTER 1

WHY THIS BOOK

Ruffed Grouse

I’ve got my eye on you!!

If there is a lesson I would like you to take away after reading this book, it is this: a healthy environment and a healthy economy are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are inextricably bound together. There are numerous examples illustrating why this is the case scattered throughout the book. If, however, you doubt this relationship, consider the difference between the lesser developed, third world countries and the developed nations.

The developed nations have, for the most part, developed a standard of living that allows their citizens to focus on quality of life as opposed to survival. When this happens, people have the luxury of being able to devote capital to protecting the quality of their environment. In the lesser developed countries that is not the case as survival, i.e. being able to stay warm and provide food and water for the family, is the focus. If we wanted to improve the standard of living in some South American countries for example, providing the villages with efficient stoves for heating and cooking would both help protect the rainforest and allow villagers to spend more time doing things to improve their standard of living rather than gathering firewood. However, there likely would be unintended consequences, like population growth.

I used the ruffed grouse for the cover because this book is about environmental stewardship. It is fish and wildlife that tell us if we’re doing a good job of stewarding our environment by acting as barometers of environmental quality. Much like canaries warn miners by dying first when the carbon monoxide level gets too high in the mines, fish and wildlife tell us when something is wrong with their environment or habitat.

Lake trout and bald eagles told us, via their inability to reproduce, when the level of chlorinated hydrocarbons like DDT became too high. That was a warning to us, and Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring spoke of many more such warnings. Since then we have learned that both fish and aquatic insects, such as the mayfly and stone fly—by their very presence or lack thereof—speak to us about the quality of their environment or habitat. It is worthy to note that the State of New York uses the ability of trout to spawn in a given water body to then designate that water body with the highest classification for purity given Cts –—where the ts stands for trout spawning.

The Mayfly, an aquatic insect that is an important part of a trout’s diet, serves as an indicator of clean water.

It may well be that fish species that once flourished in the Charlotte Creek, traversing 28.8 miles through Delaware and Otsego Counties in upstate New York, have sent us another message. As a boy and during my adult life, I fished the Charlotte Creek. It was common to catch brook and brown trout, small-mouth bass, chain pickerel, rock bass and fall fish (large minnow). That is no longer the case. It has been several years since I or my fishing buddies have caught anything other than trout and the vast majority of them were stocked.

During July of 2016 I spent several days electro-fishing with fisheries staff from Region 4 of NY’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). We sampled the entire length of the Charlotte Creek, a distance of about 28 miles, and the only large game fish caught were trout (a small number of bottom feeding white suckers were also caught).

There were no fall fish, small-mouth or rock bass or chain pickerel observed. The $64,000- dollar question is why. What is their absence telling us about the quality of the water in the Creek?

There is another sign that something in the Charlotte Creek has changed. Years ago, when one drove the road paralleling the Creek in May the car’s windshield would become covered with the carcasses of emerging or hatching aquatic insects. That is no longer the case. There is still a hatch in May, but it is much less pronounced due to a lack of emerging mayflies, stoneflies and caddis flies. Could it be that urine containing hormones used in birth-control have entered our water via the septic systems that line the Creek or could it be caused by the invasion of the aggressive Rusty Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)? At this point, one can only speculate.

Plants can serve as both environmental and economic indicators. Purple vervain, willow and sycamore trees, cat-tails, sedges, etc. tell us that where they are growing is wet. Goldenrod, on the other hand, indicates poverty. It invades fields left fallow when a family farm is no longer able to survive the economic hardships associated with farming. Because its roots exude a chemical that inhibits other plants from getting established (allopathy), Goldenrod tends to persist for a long time. Thus, it serves as a constant reminder of failed struggles to survive nature’s onslaught of competing vegetation and the economic pressures associated with changing times. All those fields covered with goldenrod that you observe while taking a Sunday drive represent failed farms.

My purpose for writing this book is simple: I have spent my entire life as an educator, leader and observer in the field of natural resources conservation and environmental compliance. As I matured, and as my responsibilities changed, so did my perspective.

However, my values regarding conservation of both renewable and non-renewable natural resources remained steadfast. I hope the readers will take the time to ponder those changes in perspective as they come across examples that illustrate why a change was warranted and ask themselves how they would have responded.

My career began in 1964 as a biology, algebra, and conservation teacher in upstate New York. After earning Masters and Ph.D. degrees, I taught and conducted research in the School of Forest Resources at the University of Maine-Orono from 1972-75. I then moved to Washington, D.C. where I served as Field Director for The Wildlife Society (professional association for wildlife biologists in the state and federal government, academicians and consultants), Director of Federal Relations for the National Audubon Society and Program Development Officer for the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1980 I was recruited by Tenneco, Inc., a Fortune 50 Company, to help them understand and comply with the plethora of environmental laws and regulations enacted during President Carter’s tenure, and moved to Houston, Texas.

After functioning as Manager of Ecological Sciences for several years, I was promoted to Director of Environmental, Health & Safety (EH&S) for Tenneco Oil Co., E&P (Exploration and Production). When Tenneco was sold in 1989, I moved to Oklahoma to work for an energy company and then back to Houston as VP of EH&S for Transco Energy. In 1995 I was hired by Governor Mario Cuomo to serve as Business Ambassador for NY’s Department of Environmental Conservation. A mere few weeks later Governor Pataki won the gubernatorial election and he appointed me as his Commissioner (CEO) for the Department of Environmental Conservation, a cabinet level position, and I was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Later I became President of the Conservation Alliance of NY and in 2006 was named President and CEO of The Ruffed Grouse Society, an international wildlife conservation organization.

My responsibilities included natural resources and environmental policy development, management, protection/compliance, and proper use. During that period, I had occasion to be proud of what I’ve seen and to feel shame for what I’ve seen. It is not only corporations that have contributed to these emotions; government agencies and conservation/environmental organizations have also contributed.

Protecting the quality of our environment is not a partisan issue. Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats alike share this planet and thus have a vested self-interest in its sustainability. The debate arises when we attempt to address how to best assure we accomplish that goal. There is one criterion that must, in my opinion, be met when determining the how – the solution must be science-based. If it isn’t, or if it’s based on emotion, there is a very high likelihood it will fail in its intended purpose and precious capital will have been wasted.

UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN SOMEONE BECOMES AN ‘ADVOCATE,’ EITHER FOR OR AGAINST SOMETHING, IT BECOMES TEMPTING TO LATCH ONTO ANY INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS ONE’S POSITION AND REJECT THE INFORMATION THAT DOESN’T.

Having been a part of the education and conservation communities, quasi-Federal government entities, state government and corporate America have enabled me to develop a unique perspective about what works and what doesn’t work with regards to conservation and compliance.

Based upon my experience, I have concluded that corporations don’t violate laws and regulations—people do. However, corporate cultures exist that encourage or tolerate doing so. Conservation organizations don’t generally create environmental crises, but may be tempted to ride the wave of emotion associated with them in order to secure funding via donations. People don’t generally oppose energy development de facto, but they may form opinions that drive them to action based upon someone else’s opinion. Opinions are like noses— everybody has one. The immediate availability of opinion-based information on the internet has created scenarios whereby someone with a PhD on a given topic is afforded the same, or in some instances less, stature in a public meeting as someone who googled the topic just prior to the meeting.

Peer-reviewed science is far more likely than is a casual opinion to lead one to the desired result. Unfortunately, when someone becomes an advocate, either for or against something, it becomes tempting to latch onto any information that supports one’s position and reject the information that doesn’t. It reminds me of a discussion with an old friend who, after listening to some credible information, exclaimed Don’t confuse me with the facts.

Some issues may simply be too big to fully understand. Climate change may well be such an issue and yet we’re making policy decisions regarding fossil fuels before we even have a baseline that enables us to tell if the planet is getting warmer, cooler or maintaining a relatively steady state relative to what the unknown baseline tells us it should be. At this point we don’t yet know what the optimum temperature of the planet should be. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to know whether we’re moving closer to it or further from it.

It is important to note that we have been recording temperatures for a little over 120 years—a mere blink in geological time. Geologists tell us that upstate New York was covered by ice over a mile thick a mere 10,000 years ago. It wasn’t the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity or power automobiles that caused it to melt. Is there more to this issue than we understand or are willing to admit? Is there a political agenda afoot?

According to the Obama Administration, 97% of scientists agree that climate change is both man-made and dangerous. However, according to Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter and S. Fred Singer in their 2015 book entitled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus, This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.

A discussion of climate change affords us a rather unique opportunity to take a holistic look at the various ramifications of that debate. It seems that the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, has been targeted as a major culprit in the war against climate change. Thus, there is strong political pressure to reduce the burning of coal to generate electricity. What are the likely outcomes if the US, as a nation, bans the burning of coal?

There are several avenues we could pursue to examine both the intended and unintended consequences of such a ban. The people and groups that oppose the burning of coal would be happy—or would they? Many of those people and organizations have 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plans. The same is true for state and federal agencies, teachers’ unions and labor unions. Those retirement plans are funded via investments in the stock of corporations. Many of those companies, especially those housed within mutual funds, are energy based and several have coal holdings. Do those investors want their investments to drop in value? Probably not.

This creates a conundrum for those engaged in advocacy against coal without knowing whether or not their retirement plans are tied to the value of coal stocks.

If we’re not going to burn coal to generate electricity, what are we going to burn? After all, there must be a source of electricity to support the new wave of electric vehicles that must be plugged in each night to be recharged (right now it is coal-fired plants that are providing that energy). The fuel that seems to offer a bridge until we find a renewable source of affordable energy is natural gas. Natural gas was once considered to be a premium fuel – one used to heat our homes and cook our food. Do we want to burn it to create electricity when we know the efficiency rate of doing so is about 40% and that it is a non-renewable resource? That is a choice we will have to make and it’s important that it be an informed choice.

If the stock value of the coal companies drops is that a good thing for the environment? A superficial examination of that occurrence would indicate that it might be. A closer look, however, reveals that a drop in the stock value of a company means that company has less money available to spend on, among other things, environmental compliance and protection. If the coal markets in this country dry up due to public pressure and the accompanying regulatory burden, the price of coal is likely to drop. That means the company must, in order to generate cash flow and keep its doors open (and, also, protect our investments), produce more coal to generate the same amount of profit and that may equate to an increase in the negative environmental impact associated with surface mining.

Given this scenario, one might ask how a company could produce more coal if there is no market for it. The US is part of a global economy. If the price of coal were to drop to the point where it could be shipped to China for less than China can acquire coal from other suppliers, China would buy that coal. Given that China has recently stated (November 2015 International Conference in Paris on Climate Change) that it does not intend to reduce its air emissions in the forseeable future, there appears to be a market for coal. Based upon the comparative emissions generated by burning a ton of coal according to the air emissions standards in the U.S. versus burning a ton of coal under China’s air emissions standards, there would be an increase in pollution if that coal were burned in China.

Thus, one must ask if the policy we seem to be pursuing is likely to achieve the desired results—a global reduction in the emissions that may contribute to climate change. It would seem that it won’t. In fact, it’s difficult to find any real winners, other than China, if we force this shift without first getting the scientific information to support or refute the claim that the climate is moving in the wrong direction and that man is causing that shift.

It is my hope that by reading this book you, the reader, will gain insights into how to connect the dots with regards to the laws, regulations and policies intended to protect the environment and the organisms that rely upon it for survival—including us. As long as the regulated community perceives those laws, regulations, and policies as being a cost to them, they will be resisted. This is only natural because as a cost they affect profitability. However, if they are perceived as being either revenue-neutral or a profit opportunity, they will be more readily embraced. There is at least one exception, however, to those regulations and policies being readily accepted, and that exception involves regulations and policies where there is opportunity for an honest debate as to their need. At this point in time, climate change is thought to be such an issue.

Two woodcock sharing one worm. What are they teaching us about survival?

CHAPTER 2

GETTING TO KNOW THE AUTHOR

Mike Zagata with his Gordon Setter, Brier

Following a gestation period of about nine months, I was born in Oneonta, New York in 1942. Elephants take much longer but may not be any more stubborn. My parents, like the parents of nearly all Americans, were the offspring of first or second generation immigrants. Likely because the Dutch and Palatine Germans settled the area near Oneonta, NY, my mother’s parents were of Dutch and German descent. My father’s parents came directly from Poland, and my grandfather worked as a laborer for the railroad near Carbondale, Pennsylvania that hauled coal. When the railroad moved out, my grandfather moved the family of eleven—nine of them children—to Oneonta, NY because there was work to be had with the railroad. Oneonta was then home to the world’s largest rail roundhouse. A roundhouse was a building that usually included a turntable