Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 45
6
Management Fragmentation and a Lack of
Coherence
The management of any science-based process has profound impact on the
use of science and adaptive management within that process. The panel was
charged with evaluating the use of science and adaptive management, and there-
fore management of the enterprise falls appropriately within this charge. The
absence of any synthesis in the draft BDCP draws attention to the fragmented
system of management under which it was prepared―a management system that
lacks coordination among entities and clear accountability. No one public agen-
cy, stakeholder group, or individual has been accountable for the coherence,
thoroughness, and scientific integrity of the final product. Rather, the plan ap-
pears to reflect the differing perspectives of federal, state and local agencies, and
the many stakeholder groups involved, as noted in the introduction to this report.
This is not strictly a scientific issue, but fragmented management is a significant
impediment to the use and inclusion of coherent science in future iterations of
the BDCP. Different science bears on the missions of the various public agen-
cies; different stakeholders put differing degrees of emphasis on specific pieces
of science; and different geographical entities require different kinds of science.
The panel concludes that without more coherent and unified, the BDCP’s final
product, like the current draft, will rely on bits and pieces of science that are not
well integrated. Moreover, the lack of coherence in the management of the prep-
aration of the BDCP helps to explain the fragmentation of science and the lack
of synthesis.
The discussion of the implementation structure in Chapter 7 of the draft
BDCP suggests that the fragmented management that characterizes the prepara-
tion of the draft plan is also likely to be a feature of the implementation of the
plan that finally emerges. The appointment of a single program manager and
creation of an Implementation Office, as envisioned in the draft BDCP, are un-
likely―even taken together―to result in a well-integrated, coherent implemen-
tation program. The public agencies that are involved in the planning and im-
plementation of the BDCP are a mix of operating and regulatory state and feder-
al agencies. Moreover, their interests are intertwined with those of the stake-
holder groups, most obviously water-using and environmental groups. These
agencies and stakeholders have differing missions and agendas that are almost
certain to conflict from time to time and yet the BDCP has no formal mechanism
to deal with such conflicts.
Indeed, the BDCP appears to carve out territorial boundaries that make
45
OCR for page 46
46 A Review of California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan
fragmented, and even perhaps antagonistic, management of the plan’s imple-
mentation more likely. Thus, for example, the BDCP states, “The [Implementa-
tion Office] will not be involved in the development or operation of the [State
Water Project] and/or [Central Valley Project] facilities” (draft BDCP, p. 7-5).
Further, the plan states, “No general delegation of authority by [the California
Department of Water Resources] or the [Bureau of] Reclamation to the Program
Manager or one of their employees assigned to the [Implementation Office] will
occur” (draft BDCP p. 7-7). The plan also proposes that agency personnel be
assigned to populate various BDCP implementation committees. This seems to
further ensure that inter-agency conflicts and traditional turf battles will be
strongly internalized in the management arrangements. The plan, then, envisions
that traditional agency missions and turf will be protected, leaving the program
manager to navigate through a maze of conflicting interests without any real
authority or capacity to resolve conflicts and otherwise ensure that the manage-
ment approach is integrated.
There is an important literature on the problem of management fragmenta-
tion in the planning and operations management of large water schemes (Conca,
2005; Feldman, 2011; Scholz and Siftel, 2005). There is additional helpful lite-
rature on network governance (Kettl and Goldsmith, 2004) and collaborative
federalism (Emerson and Murchie, 2010). This work underscores the importance
of collaboration, the sharing of authority and power, and acknowledgment of the
interests of all stakeholders if the large-scale management of water is to be inte-
grated and successful. The panel recommends that the BDCP’s authors give this
matter careful attention.
Development and implementation of large restoration and conservation
programs such as the BDCP often require a complex structure to incorporate
technical, political, and legal realities and the evolving dynamics of both the
physical and organizational environments. The panel recommends that the
agencies responsible for implementing the BDCP review other examples of
large scale restoration programs that have been developed and implemented.
One such example is the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area where
management coordinates through a General Management Plan executed with
several cooperative agreements. Although CalFed dissolved, the former CalFed
institutional structure dealt with some of the same management issues. The
CalFed experience and associated body of literature could be a useful source of
positive and negative lessons.
Another example is the Everglades restoration program (CERP;
www.evergladesplan.org), with which several committees of the National Re-
search Council have been involved for many years (NRC, 2006, 2008, 2010c).
Since its authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the
CERP has necessitated the development of a number of coordination processes,
agreements, and carefully designed planning and implementation efforts (Figure
6 in Box 2 of this report) to incorporate the unprecedented scope and complexi-
ty of the final plan, regulations of the federal and state governments, and stake-
holder interests. However, unlike the BDCP, the CERP’s focus was more on
OCR for page 47
Management Fragmentation and a Lack of Coherence 47
ecosystem restoration than on concerns about endangered and threatened spe-
cies.
Unlike the seemingly fragmented structure for the BDCP implementation,
the authority for implementing the Everglades program lies with both federal
and state agencies with a carefully designed planning process and inter-agency
agreements in each step. The Everglades management system has accountabili-
ty in that the federal and state agencies have a formal agreement on cost-sharing
of the entire restoration program and the authority to execute the restoration
plan. Furthermore, they have coordination mechanisms, such as the South Flori-
da Ecosystem Restoration Task Force which is a coordination mechanism for
many entities involved in the restoration. Specifically, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), in partner-
ship with the lead state agency, the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), are responsible for undertaking the CERP’s implementation. A con-
tinuously evolving Integrated Delivery Plan sets the priority projects that must
be implemented. Central to the planning and implementation of a particular
project is the Project Implementation Report (PIR) developed by a Project Deli-
very Team, which constitutes a multi-agency team with strong stakeholder par-
ticipation (Box 2). Active participation by all agencies with authority and pre-
approved CERP Guidance Memoranda (CGMs) ensure agreement on the plan,
scientific basis, and the expected benefits in the PIR before it is submitted for
approval and authorization for funding (see Figure 3-3 of NRC, 2006). The PIR
includes an evaluation of alternative designs and operations for environmental
benefits, the costs, and the engineering feasibility (NRC, 2006). Once a project
BOX 2
Implementation of Everglades Restoration:
Structure for Inter agency Collaboration and Stakeholder Involvement
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Interior
(DOI), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) are current
ly implementing a planning process that provides significant opportunity for
local, state, federal and tribal governments, as well as public and non
governmental stakeholders to participate in the projects that are being de
signed and implemented. For each project, an interagency, interdisciplinary
Project Delivery Team (PDT) is established. The PDT is led by the USACE and
SFWMD Project Managers and includes members from various local, state, fed
eral and tribal governments. Figure 6 illustrates the typical composition and
entities that provide input and feedback to the PDTs. Although much work is
accomplished in a PDT, additional agency stakeholder and public in
box continues
OCR for page 48
48 A Review of California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan
BOX 2 Continued
put are received at scheduled points in the planning process. Specifically, such
advice is sought as development of project objectives, identification of perfor‐
mance measures, selection of evaluation models, and development and evalua‐
tion of alternative plans. Additional opportunities for governmental agencies,
stakeholders, and the public to provide input and feedback during the planning
process are provided at publicly noticed meetings of the following established
groups (a) Governing Board of the SFWMD; (b) South Florida Ecosystem Resto‐
ration Task Force (SFERTF); (c) South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working
Group; and (d) The Water Resources Advisory Commission (WRAC).
To ensure that the development and implementation of CERP is
based on the best and most recent science available, and to ensure that the
restoration program is implemented with an adaptive management approach,
a multiagency, multidisciplinary science team called RECOVER has been
formed. In addition, the USACE and SFWMD have established an Interagency
Modeling Center (IMC) to function as a single point of service for the modeling
needs of CERP. As the primary organization responsible for regional and sub‐
regional modeling for CERP modeling, the IMC conducts system‐wide evalua‐
tions of CERP implementation plans and updates, and provides modeling sup‐
port for PDTs.
Agency and Stakeholder Involvement
Project Delivery Teams
Corps SFWMD
PM PM
Interagency
Model ing
Center (IMC)
Project Delivery Team
(C omprised of staff fr om Corps and
Stakeholders
SFW MD , as we ll as representatives
& Publi c RECO VER
f rom other Fede ral, Stat e, Tribal
and Local governme nts)
SFER SFER
SFWMD
WRAC Working Task
Governing
Group Force
Board
FIGURE 6. Agency and stakeholder involvement in the project delivery teams (PDT). Figure
courtesy of the South Florida Water Management District
OCR for page 49
Management Fragmentation and a Lack of Coherence 49
is authorized, depending on the funding, a series of technical refinements begin-
ning with detailed designs and ending with construction occurs prior to its op-
eration. Project Cooperation Agreements between the federal and the state part-
ner are obtained prior to the initiation of construction. The current progress of
CERP has demonstrated the need for formal agreement among partners. One
example of such as agreement is the Design Agreement between the USACE
and SFWMD (http://www.evergladesplan.org). Implementation of the agree-
ment is ensured by an interagency unit known as the Design Coordination Team
(DCT), which oversees the schedules and budgets, plans and specifications, and
contractual work.
However, no matter how good the management structure may be, it is no
guarantee of progress; it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Expe-
rience with large restoration projects elsewhere, and especially in the Delta, re-
veals that progress will be affected by lawsuits, economic crises, unexpected
(and expected) environmental events, cost overruns, political changes, and so
on. Yet the literature and examples mentioned here show that management of
complicated systems, where more than one agency has management responsibil-
ities, can be successful as long as there is adequate coordination and clear ac-
countability. Apparently, the new deputy secretary of the California Natural
Resources Agency has the BDCP as his major responsibility, which is an en-
couraging development. The panel recommends that the BDCP’s authors give
this matter careful attention, because an appropriate system of management is
necessary but not sufficient for the use of coherent, synthesized science in future
iterations of the BDCP and a successful adaptive management program.
