Click for next page ( 46


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 45
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 45
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 45
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 45
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.