National Academies Press: OpenBook

New Strategies for America's Watersheds (1999)

Chapter: 8 Planning and Decisionmaking

« Previous: 7 Financing Watershed Organizations
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

8
Planning and Decisionmaking

A key question underlying all watershed planning is: What is an effective process to relate science, policy, and public participation? Watershed planning demands integrated thinking and a coordinated approach. Perhaps the greatest contemporary concern is to provide meaningful public involvement in the process, because experience has shown that top-down planning can create a variety of implementation barriers grounded in the lack of public involvement at key points in the planning process. For instance, the public may oppose environmental regulations that are perceived to be unjust or ineffective. Or they may oppose a particular land use based on their perceptions of the risk involved, which may or may not be accurate. Although public concerns are often justified, at times they are rooted in the lack of accurate knowledge and lack of involvement in the analysis and decisionmaking process. Even when the public is involved in the planning process, it may still be ineffective if other factors are not integrated into the planning process at key steps along the way. One problem often cited is "getting the political process cart before the scientific horse." Naiman et al., (1995) characterize this situation as follows:

Scientists, managers, and politicians are routinely called on to address competing demands on freshwater supplies and ecosystems, but they are increasingly unable to respond at scales commensurate with the issues. Why? Policy development and management activities are frequently undertaken without an adequate empirical foundation; inappropriately short-term, single focus approaches are accepted with little question; human-caused change is often difficult to distinguish from natural variation; and even when relevant data are available to guide decisionmaking, the legal and regulatory framework is inadequate.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Consequently, the criteria for effective management and policy decisions are ambiguous.

This chapter discusses some important considerations regarding the integration of science, policy, and public participation in watershed management. It considers the role of science and its relation to policy, as well as stakeholder involvement. Watershed planning and management is increasingly collaborative, raising questions about the nature of democratic decisionmaking, equity among stakeholders, and the need for the involvement of an informed public. This chapter considers these broad issues, presents six critical points that should be considered in the conduct of watershed planning, and reviews the planning procedures of six federal agencies in terms of these critical points.

Relating Science And Decisionmaking

Improving the interface between science and policy and between scientists and politicians remains one of the major challenges to watershed management. It is difficult enough to manage land and water resources at small spatial and short temporal scales, but to formulate management plans for the larger, longer scales often requires complex systems of governance and advanced science. It is common to hear scientists complaining that their voices are being ignored by policymakers.

Watersheds have taken on increasing importance in establishing a context for federal, state, and local policy. Some objectives are directly related to water, including water supply management, flood control, water quality protection, sediment control, fisheries conservation, navigation, and hydroelectric generation. Others are related but less focused on water, including maintenance of biological diversity, wildlife management, and general environmental preservation. Broader goals like recreation and economic development are also sometimes cast as watershed issues.

Which of these problems can be effectively addressed at the watershed level? Answering this question leads to an important first step in the planning process: defining the problem and setting clear objectives. Science plays an important role at this stage of the planning. The recent National Academy of Sciences report, Understanding Risk (Stem and Fineberg, 1996), provides a cogent summary of the challenge involved in integrating science into environmental management. First, the planning process must get the science right:

The underlying analysis meets high scientific standards in terms of measurement, analytic methods, data bases used, plausibility of assumptions, and respectfulness of both the magnitude and the character of uncertainty, taking into consideration limitations that may have been placed on the analysis because of the level of effort judged appropriate for informing the decision.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Second, the planning process must get the right science:

The analysis has addressed the significant risk-related concerns of public officials and the spectrum of interested and affected parties, such as risks to health, economic well-being, and ecological and social values, with analytic priorities having been set so as to emphasize the issues most relevant to the decision.

Watershed planning and management makes some particular demands of science. To begin with, science must play a major role in creating a robust knowledge base from which problems and objectives can be clearly defined and solutions effectively implemented. Comprehensive solutions also require interdisciplinary collaboration in the analysis and interpretation of watershed data. While this process will yield clear answers to some questions, it may also lead to new questions for which there are no unambiguous answers. When faced with complexity and uncertainty, watershed planning and management must make provisions for ongoing monitoring and basic science research (Stanford and Poole, 1996).

Planning procedures seldom devote adequate attention to the integration of science into the process. For example, as the EPA describes its ''watershed approach," the process sounds analytical and seems well thought out. The watershed management plan emerging from this framework is expected to be founded on "sound science," "efficient public program administration" and "broad participation of stakeholders" (EPA, 1993). The proposed approach, says EPA, will analyze barriers to meeting water quality and quantity goals, define solutions in land use and environmental planning strategies, and monitor progress in order to adjust strategies as needed.

However, the EPA literature offers little definition of what is meant by good science or what the technical requirements are. Nor does the literature tell how the steps in planning are to be applied. The often unspoken message is that in most cases we know what to do—we just need to do it. Watershed management sounds like a world of few trade-offs and no value conflicts other than those that are misunderstandings. Conflict is accommodated by dialogue. Watershed planning exercises sometimes can be described as the accumulation of agreements to support politically conceived projects. As a result there may be little interest in scientific analysis or in the systematic and critical assessment of trade-offs and cost effectiveness in the utilization of limited resources. But these impressions are at best simplistic and at times incorrect. Watershed management is both institutionally and scientifically complex, and there is significant need for new and more in-depth knowledge on both fronts before we can be more effective implementing watershed approaches.

These are critical oversights, for the limited nature of watershed resources cannot be ignored. Decision-support methods will need to be more widely employed to better search out cost-efficient ways to achieve goals. Decision-analysis methods are formal protocols for manipulating and interpreting data in order to

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

provide information on the relationships between any alternative goals. The tools of decision analysis include cost/benefit analysis, risk assessments, and multi-criteria evaluation, but may also include less comprehensive assessments such as cost-effectiveness studies that identify the lowest cost means to achieve an objective, and/or evaluations of a solution's political and legal feasibility.

To make these tools work for decisionmaking, sound science is needed to predict the effects of alternative courses of action and policies on hydrologic, ecological, and social/economic parameters of interest. Whether the interest is in predicting sediment and nutrient transport, hydrologic and hydraulic effects of landscape alterations and restorations, or related problems, there must be attention to building and using predictive models that can address hydrologic, ecological, social, and economic outcomes of particular management actions. However, the incorporation of sound science in policy-making and planning is often easier said than done.

Lee (1993) points out that science and politics serve different purposes:

The spectrum from truth to power places a crucial constraint on civic science: in learning to manage large ecosystems we cannot rely on philosopher-kings. So there must be a partnership between the science of ecosystems and the political tasks of governing. As in any partnership, the relationship between principal and agent is inevitably problematic at some points.

In politics the goal is the responsible use of the power to govern, and in democratic societies "responsible" means accountable to voters. In science the goal is to find truth, and accountability usually rests with one's peers. Figure 8.1 shows how scientists and policymakers are at opposite extremes.

As Lee observes, trouble often begins when one person attempts to play several roles simultaneously, for success is rarely achieved in more than one arena at a time. Attempts to move freely from one role to another often lead individuals away from their areas of expertise—a behavior that ultimately reduces both their knowledge and their power.

Yet it is not inappropriate role-playing alone that leads to management difficulties. Institutions are often not designed to incorporate scientific knowledge in an adaptive way. Table 8.1, adapted from Lee (1993), lists examples of institutional barriers to the principles of adaptive management.

There is increasing awareness of the need for adaptive strategies in the management in complex systems like watersheds. For example, Bella (1997) points out that the organizational systems of technological society are complex, adapting, and nonlinear. Organizational rigidity is often an unintended consequence of organizational functioning. Information that goes against current programs or beliefs, which represents a form of "disorder," tends to be selectively filtered out. The process is shown diagrammatically in Figure 8.2.

Consider how this paradigm might apply to watershed management. Institutional programs are designed, with the help of scientists, to improve resource

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

FIGURE 8.1

The Spectrum from Truth to Power.

SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from Lee, 1993. © 1993 by Oxford University Press.

allocation or to mitigate environmental harm. Governing institutions or agencies fund projects and establish monitoring programs to determine project effectiveness. As long as data support the belief that a program is "working," decisionmakers are happy and scientists continue to be funded. But what happens when data do not support current programs or beliefs? In many cases, appropriate responses (additional studies to verify results, program changes, new management directions) are suppressed in favor of inappropriate responses (ignore the data, terminate monitoring, reassign the investigator). This pattern reflects an inherent institutional tendency to dampen disorder to nondisruptive levels. Bella (1997) suggests that organizational systems tend to be characterized by a dynamic tension between activities that sustain order and those that promote disorder (see Table 8.2).

Most politicians, administrators, and many professional analysts rely on behaviors that sustain order. Most scientists do, too, but sometimes their investigations result in data threatening to the established order. Then they are caught in a dilemma. Suppose, for example, a scientist found evidence that a fish hatchery was contributing to the decline of nongame fishes in a watershed. Further suppose that the scientist's agency was unwilling to accept the evidence or deliber-

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

TABLE 8.1 Barriers to Adaptive, Science-Oriented Management

Adaptive Management Principle

Barriers to Realization

There is a mandate and need to take action in the face of uncertainty.

Experimentation and learning are at most secondary objectives in large ecosystems management. experimentation that conflicts with primary objectives will often be pushed aside or not proposed.

Decisionmakers usually recognize that they are experimenting.

Experimentation is an open admission that there may be no positive return. More generally, specifying the hypotheses that need to be tested raises the risk of perceived failure.

Decisionmakers care about improving outcomes over biological time scales.

The costs of monitoring, controls, and replication are substantial, and will appear especially high at the outset when compared with the costs of unmonitored trial and error. Individual decisionmakers rarely stay in office over periods of biological significance.

We have the ability to measure ecosystem-scale behavior.

Data collection is vulnerable to external disruptions such as budget cutbacks, changes in policy, and controversy. After changes in leadership, decisionmakers may not be familiar with the purposes and value of an experimental approach. Interim results may create alarm or a realization that the experimental design was faulty. Controversial changes have the potential to disrupt the experimental program.

Theory, models, and field methods are available to estimate and infer ecosystem-scale behavior.

Interim results may create panic or a realization that the experimental design was faulty. More generally, experimental findings will suggest changes in policy; controversial changes have the potential to disrupt the experimental program.

Hypotheses can be formulated.

Accumulating knowledge may shift perceptions of what is worth examining via large-scale experimentation. For this reason, both policymakers and scientists must adjust the trade-offs among experimental and other policy objectives during the implementation process.

Organizational culture encourages learning from experience.

The advocates of adaptive management are likely to be staff, who have professional incentives to appreciate a complex process and a career situation in which long-term learning can be beneficial. Where there is tension between staff and policy leadership, experimentation can become the focus of an internal struggle for control.

There is sufficient stability to measure long-term outcomes; institutional patience is essential.

Stability usually depends on factors outside the control of experimenters and managers.

 

SOURCE: Modified from Lee, 1993.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

FIGURE 8.2

Dynamics of organizational change and function. SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from Bella, 1997. © 1997 from Chapman and Hall.

ately chose to ignore it, arguing that the hatchery was politically popular and funding for the hatchery program might be reduced if such findings became public. The scientist might have recourse to other ways of publicizing the data, but doing so might jeopardize his or her job, promote a budget crisis, and upset those in higher positions. In this case the scientist must choose between a course of

TABLE 8.2 Dynamic Tension Between Order and Disorder

Behaviors that sustain order (reinforced)

Behaviors that promote disorder (suppressed)

Securing and distributing funds to support revenue-producing activities.

Undertaking activities not promoting and possibly threatening the funding and support of activities.

Accommodating established arrangements, schedules, assignments, objectives, information channels, and authority.

Departing from established arrangements or schedules, going beyond assignments, going outside of information channels or around authority.

Gaining approval for activities; shaping behavior to performance evaluations.

Acting without and possibly contrary to prior approval; sustaining behaviors not favored by established performance evaluations.

 

SOURCE: Reprint, with permission, from Bella, 1997. © 1997 from Chapman and Hall.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

action that favors order (but leads to continued harm) or one that favors disorder (but puts the individual and program at risk, perhaps leading to additional harm).

Institutions often respond to unfavorable scientific information by placing the burden of proof on the scientist or engineer who produced the data. A good example noted by Bella (1997) was the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger: because engineers could not prove beyond a doubt that the O-ring design was faulty in prelaunch safety meetings, the decision was made to launch even though there was reasonable doubt in the mind of key technical specialists. In many environmental decisions there is a very high level of uncertainty; scientists cannot predict outcomes with a great degree of precision. The result is a "war of scientists" or, perhaps more commonly, a "war of models" upon which scientists base forecasts. In most cases, the burden of proof falls on those challenging the status quo, and when they are unable to prove conclusively that they are correct, the decision is to continue in the current direction.

Providing a more balanced interface between science and policy will be key to better watershed management. Scientists must recognize the legitimate roles of politicians, administrators, and analysts, and maintain a strong loyalty to producing sound, unbiased data. Scientists must also respect the need for institutional stability. Funding for long-term monitoring, so important to adaptive management, depends on this stability. In turn, policymakers must realize that scientists provide the new information that, however uncomfortable in the short-term, yields insight into new policy direction and serves as a check on existing programs. Credible disorder will arise from goals that transcend assignments, incentives, and roles defined by established organizational systems. Watershed management that provides explicitly defined checks and balances between scientists and policymakers is likely to be the most robust over time.

Of course, the planning process must build commitments to action, in addition to providing analyses for selecting among alternatives. Science plays a crucial role in this selection of alternatives. As Stanford and Poole (1996) have noted, scientists offer the synthesis of "a central body of knowledge regarding the system and its components." Science provides data and analysis for watershed management, but ultimately policy is formulated on the basis of some societal values, and scientists must recognize this fact. Societies are diverse aggregations of individuals and groups representing a wide range of values. Experience has shown that watershed planning, and environmental management more generally, must take into account the values of all affected stakeholders. Management efforts that into account the complete range of interests will likely be more successful in avoiding concerted opposition and in soliciting public participation in the plan's implementation. However, it must be noted that not all stakeholders have the same political and economic power, and this complicates the process of reaching a solution that truly respects less powerful interests.

The revival of interest in watershed approaches to environmental management faces important budgetary constraints and this has led to increasing de-

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

mands for interagency collaboration. Local communities are playing a much more central role in watershed management. Greater interest in interagency cooperation and the central role of communities presents the need for greater collaboration in the watershed planning process. We discuss these issues below, pointing out how they are related to broader societal issues like democratic decisionmaking and environmental equity. However, we also note that collaborative watershed planning will be most meaningful and effective if the public is educated about environmental issues and can play an informed role in the decisionmaking process.

Identifying Stakeholders And Giving Them A Voice

Successful collaborative planning requires careful attention to the nature of public participation. The report Understanding Risk (Stem and Fineberg, 1996) again provides us with a useful summary of key issues. According to this report, to be successful the planning process must get the right participation. When this happens, the report explains,

The analytic-deliberative process has had sufficiently broad participation to ensure that the important, decision-relevant information enters the process, that the important perspectives are considered, and that the parties' legitimate concerns about inclusiveness and openness are met.

Second, the planning process must get the participation right; that is, it must

...[satisfy] the decisionmakers and interested and affected parties that it is responsive to their needs—that their information, viewpoints, and concerns have been adequately represented and taken into account; that they have been adequately consulted; and that their participation has been able to affect the way risk problems are defined and understood.

Involvement of relevant stakeholders is complicated by the common lack of corresponding political jurisdiction and watershed boundaries. This raises the question of how a community of interest within a watershed context is defined. When a watershed covers a large area, geographically dispersed and socially diverse groups must be brought together to solve a common problem—yet an institutional foundation to facilitate such community formation may not be available.

The mix of stakeholders may differ depending on specific watershed problems, and the community of interest must be defined on a case-by-case basis. This is a daunting task, given the usually uncertain nature of community formation. However, watershed plans can be effectively implemented only if such community definition and formation takes place. There is increasing recognition that if the watershed planning process is not carried out properly, its measures will fail. Many major, federally funded river system projects completed many

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

scientific studies but resulted in little change in the way land is managed because they failed to take the human dimension fully into account (Moreau, 1994; Weatherford, n.d.). Small-scale issues are usually best resolved at the local level by involving all the relevant stakeholders in planning and decisionmaking.

What is needed is a new way of engaging local governments and involving citizens to take information generated by them and others to make changes that create long-term ecological improvements. Successful examples of this approach seem to be found in relatively small watersheds where the local population is convinced of the need for personal involvement in implementing changes that protect local resources but large watershed examples are rare (National Resources Law Center, 1996). Involvement often includes a long-term financial commitment on the part of local communities to a continuing program of watershed protection. The long-term success of a program may depend on local taxpayers, support. Such support cannot be forced on people, but must be achieved though an ongoing process of community involvement and collective learning. A recent nationwide study of ecosystem management found that personnel in about three-fifths of the cases studied considered collaboration to be a factor in facilitating their project's progress. Collaboration was considered important for progress by more project personnel than any other factor (Yaffee et al., 1996). How can such planning be brought about?

Collaborative Planning, Democratic Decisionmaking, and Environmental Equity

One approach to giving stakeholders voice is collaborative planning. A major focus of the next decade should be to design the institutions of collaboration. A basic feature of this effort is the development of an ethic of "shared leadership." When faced with significant issues, responsible agencies and interests will increasingly need to decide who should participate in a collaborative planning process to address the concerns at hand. The collaborative planning process looks much like the "scoping process" originally contemplated by the National Environmental Policy Act. This process focuses on a pressing issue and addresses related matters, provides for consultation with the affected constituency of interests, explores alternative futures and their impacts with appropriate studies and analysis, and narrows the range of acceptable alternatives to be considered by policymakers.

Collaborative planning involves diverse community interests within the watershed. It is a way of working together that honors a full spectrum of values and assumes that everyone is responsible for the group's success. There is no one leader and no outside expert telling people what is best for them. Rather, it is the collective effort to develop a vision and then make that vision become a reality.

Collaborative planning means bottom-up rather than top-down planning, so it taps collective energy, talent, and inspiration (see Figure 8.3). It means not

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

FIGURE 8.3

Illustrative planning models. SOURCE: USDA Forest Service, 1993.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

waiting for the expert to come to town, but rather getting the stakeholders to take responsibility for their own future. Everyone has a seat at the table and is part of the discussion. It is most effective when community members come together to solve a specific problem.

Collaborative planning begins with trust building. The participants need to educate each other and explore their differences in values and interests to find a common ground. Newcomers and long-time residents can learn what they each see in the area, and that together they can enhance the area and have a greater opportunity to control their own destinies. Through dialogue, collaborators attempt to develop a shared community vision. It may be that not all agree, but all have had a chance to say how they see the world. Then there is often brainstorming or other means of creative problem solving to create an action plan. Recognizing that the future depends on each person's actions, can be empowering. As Margaret Mead is often quoted as saying, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Collaborative and democratic decisionmaking demands that all persons with a stake in the outcomes of political decisions can represent their interests either directly or through duly elected political representatives. However, as noted above and in a National Research Council report (NRC, 1995), in the United States the question of democratic representation has usually been handled by drawing political boundaries based on a number of contingent and often arbitrary criteria. Problems best handled on a watershed scale do not respect these boundaries. The sources of problems may be in one location while the consequences appear in another.

Furthermore, stakes may be only indirectly related to the specific problem under consideration, and thus the range of stakeholders may not be immediately apparent. Thus decision tools used in the planning process must be sensitive to a wide range of possible interests. Relevant stakes may not be limited to costs and benefits directly associated with production and consumption activities. A more comprehensive cost-benefit accounting will identify the stakes involved in sustainable development and in doing so, extend the range of stakeholders. More socially and ecologically informed accounting demands greater attention to the overlap between political and natural boundaries, and will encompass all relevant stakes and stakeholders to establish the basis for effective democratic decisionmaking.

The expansion of the range of interests and values considered in watershed planning is the result of increasing integration of the decisionmaking process and environmental protection in public policy. For example, citizen involvement is an integral part of most major environmental legislation, beginning with the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Some argue that this innovation created a potential institutional base for fundamental social change by encouraging greater citizen involvement in problem-solving (Priscoli, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1978).

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Identifying all relevant stakeholders in watershed planning often creates an intersection of social and environmental concerns. ''Environmental equity" is a term used to describe this convergence. In 1992, the EPA officially acknowledged environmental equity as a issue regarding the disproportionate distribution of environmental risk across population groups. This concern with the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens has further extended the range of stakeholder involvement relevant in watershed planning. All stakeholders, including the poor and minorities, need to be included so that watershed plans create an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens.

However, simply including a complete range of stakeholders does not ensure that all interests will be served. As we noted earlier in this chapter, in a context of limited resources there will be trade-offs and conflicts between competing economic, social, and environmental interests. Decision-support tools must be capable of clearly identifying trade-offs, and watershed planning must include means for dealing with conflicts. Methods of conflict resolution can help stakeholders create an acceptable balance between trade-offs. However, the successful resolution of conflicts requires that stakeholders share a common knowledge base and a grasp of the big picture that unites them in the watershed context. Only then can they reasonably understand the trade-offs involved in any solution (see Box 8.1).

The environmental movement has contributed to the development of an ethic of responsibility by drawing attention to the secondary consequences of private actions (Popovic, 1993). An environmental ethic of responsibility presupposes that individuals are aware of the consequences of their actions; education plays a key role in creating such awareness. The importance of expanding environmental awareness is widely acknowledged as an important element of planning. For example, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development calls for:

. . . the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities . . . States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available (Popovic, 1993).

Education includes not only formal school curricula, but also media coverage and government dissemination of information. At a minimum, meaningful citizen participation is based on access to information, including the simple fact "that information exists and is available" (Popovic, 1993). Of course, education alone will not increase the success of watershed management efforts, but it helps to create a more complete understanding of the consequences of local actions. Accordingly, it contributes to greater acceptance of both the decisionmaking process and the outcomes of that process (Dietz et al., 1989; Popovic, 1993). Given the range and complexity of many problems, public support for corrective policies requires an understanding of the "downstream" environmental consequences of local actions. This knowledge creates the potential for individuals

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Box 8.1 Balancing Water Quality and Rural Community Viability: Management of the New York City Watershed

Management of the New York City (NYC) watershed provides a clear example of linkages between upstream and downstream populations. Interests of the two may be very different, and actions that benefit some may create costs for others. In this case, maintenance of a supply of high quality drinking water for downstream NYC residents might be realized at the expense of viable rural communities upstream. The NYC Watershed Agreement is an attempt to balance the interests of upstream and downstream residents.

Physical Characteristics

NYC collects it drinking water in upstate watersheds covering over 1,900 square miles in eight counties. This surface water supply and storage system is one of the largest in the world. Water is collected from 3 separate reservoir systems made up of 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes connected by tunnels and aqueducts. The system is an engineering marvel that daily transports about 1.4 billion gallons of water to NYC almost exclusively by means of gravity from the reservoirs, some of which are more than 125 miles from the city. The system, with a storage capacity of 550 billion gallons, provides drinking water to more than 8 million city residents from watersheds inhabited by about 235,000 residents living in about 60 rural communities. Drinking water for the rural watershed residents is mostly well water.

This water supply system has been built over the past century as an alternative to drawing water from highly polluted sources like city groundwater and the Hudson River. The system has enabled NYC to avoid filtering about 90 percent of its drinking water supply as would be required under the Surface Water Treatment Rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under authority of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In 1993 NYC's estimates of construction costs for such filtration facilities range up to $6 billion with annual operating expenses estimated at more than $300 million. To avoid filtration, NYC would, among other things, have to develop a watershed protection program to reduce the risks of waterborne diseases. This plan would have to address both

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

cumulative and episodic impacts of pollution originating from environmentally insensitive land use and other behaviors in the watersheds.

Watershed Management Issues and Policy

In an attempt to meet the filtration avoidance conditions established by EPA, NYC began updating its Watershed Rules and Regulations, initially adopted in 1953 under the authority of the New York State Public Health Law. Certain land use restrictions would take effect under the revised Rules and Regulations. These would, for example, call for maintenance of buffer zones around water courses and reservoirs and restrictions on the siting and construction of sewerage and service connections. Such limitations would restrict the construction of roads, parking lots, and storage facilities for hazardous substances and wastes. NYC also considered acquiring watershed land. Under the most extreme scenario, NYC suggested an extensive land purchase program under which "all developable waste land in the entire watershed could be protected from further development by direct acquisition or conservation easements." However, this extreme land acquisition plan was never implemented and implementation of the revised Rules and Regulations was delayed because of strong opposition from the rural watershed communities. When plans to acquire just 80,000 acres were announced by NYC in 1993, the Coalition of Watershed Towns (CWT), representing about thirty watershed communities, filed suit to prevent NYC from implementing its filtration avoidance plans. CWT cited economic burdens on watershed residents resulting from restrictions placed on the use of privately owned lands. The CWT claimed that NYC would benefit almost exclusively from environmental measures imposed in the countryside.

The CWT lawsuit led to an impasse between the city and the watershed towns about a watershed management plan. In April 1995, New York State Governor George Pataki intervened by facilitating negotiations involving NYC, the CWT, EPA, selected county governments, and an ad hoc environmental coalition. In early 1997, the parties signed the Watershed Agreement for a comprehensive watershed protection plan. Under the terms of the agreement, EPA would permit NYC to avoid filtration of the currently unfiltered sources until April 2002, the city would invest up to $1.4 billion to protect its water over the next 15 years, the updated watershed Rules and Regulations would be implemented and enforced, and the city would purchase of environmentally sensitive land.

To balance the interests of upstream and downstream watershed residents, implementation of the revised Rules and Regulations, is accompanied with these important provisions:

(1)  

Land acquisition. NYC agrees not to take land by eminent do

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
  • main, and instead acquire land "through the purchase of fee title to, or conservation easements on, environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land from willing sellers." These targeted purchases will be made at fair market value and the city will continue to pay property taxes on all land acquired. Almost $250 million have been allocated for land acquisition.
  • (2)  

    Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs. About three-fourths of the almost $400 million earmarked for these programs are dedicated to infrastructure investments related to pollution prevention in the rural watersheds including the upgrade of public and privately-owned sewage treatment plants, septic system maintenance and extension of sewer systems to correct existing problems, improved storage of sand, salt and de-icing materials, and stream corridor protection.

  • (3)  

    Watershed Protection and Partnership Council. This forum is intended to aid in long-term watershed protection and the enhancement of the economic vitality of the watershed communities. The council will have no regulatory functions, but will assist in dispute resolution.

  • (4)  

    Catskill Watershed Corporation. Watershed communities west of the Hudson River have also established a special relationship with NYC to carry out the Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs, carry out a comprehensive economic development study and administer NYC's $60 million contribution to the Catskill Fund for the Future. The latter will provide loans and grants for economic development projects that provide both job growth and watershed protection.

to recognize the common good that sometimes conflicts with their particular interests.

Critical Points In Watershed Planning

The purpose of watershed planning is to make practical choices from a full range of options that incorporate relevant economic, social, political, and ethical considerations. Such decisionmaking requires choosing between trade-offs, but informed decisions can only be made when the trade-offs are clearly specified. An accurate accounting of relevant alternatives and their trade-offs requires the systematic observation and analysis provided by science. However, selection of particular options is often driven by values, and these may be in conflict (e.g., economic efficiency versus ethical considerations). To ensure that watershed management decisions are broadly understood and considered legitimate, all interested parties must participate in choosing between trade-offs. Thus, effective

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

watershed management must be based on a planning process that integrates both scientific analysis and public participation.

There is also growing consensus that planning processes should be organized to fit the specific context and problem at hand, and should not be linear or mechanistic, but rather recursive or iterative (Stern and Fineberg, 1996). Most planning models are similar, sharing four key steps: (1) defining the problem; (2) developing goals and finding alternative ways to reach the goals; (3) selecting the best alternative; (4) implementing the plan.

Figure 8.4 illustrates a model of a desirable watershed planning process that incorporates these basic steps. A central message provided by Figure 8.4 is that scientific uncertainty about the theory and tools of environmental management is a persistent concern that establishes the need for an iterative planning process. The success of a particular management plan may not be ensured without experimenting on the watershed to better understand the relationships among features and processes and to secure the data needed to build the necessary models of the system. Recognizing this uncertainty may influence the way plans are formulated and evaluated.

Also, the decisionmaking approach itself may need to be modified to deal with uncertainty. This accommodation has been termed "adaptive management." Adaptive management recognizes the limitations of current knowledge and data as a guide to decisionmaking. Adaptive management makes knowledge creation an objective (Lee, 1993). Adaptive management is akin to the research process, where the purpose of the activity is to cause change and simultaneously learn about relationships among unknown variables. But more than this simple notion of research is applicable, because the very questions being asked will change based on shifts in social priorities and on knowledge gained.

Gaining information through adaptive management means that there will be a watershed planning process that has a long time horizon in which actions will

FIGURE 8.4

Schematic view of an integrated and iterative planning process. SOURCE: Stem and Fineberg, 1996.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

be taken, monitoring will occur, and, based on that feedback and the new insights gained, adjustments to the plan will be made. Adaptive planning and management is a learn-by-doing approach to decisionmaking, and plan formulation and evaluation is affected by this reality.

Adaptive management places a premium on avoiding irreversible decisions. It means more than spending and hoping for some desired outcome. Decisionmaking must respond to new insights about social and economic priorities given by the interplay of interest groups in the decisionmaking process, and by a new appreciation of scientific understanding of watershed systems and new technologies. Numerous authors on policy-making have long advocated this concept of decisionmaking as the best combination of both the possible and the desirable (Simon, 1954; March and Simon, 1958; Lee, 1993; Stern and Fineberg, 1996).

With these general points in mind, there are several specific considerations that should be taken into account in any watershed planning process. Watershed planning should explicitly specify processes for identifying:

  • the watershed problem and objectives for its resolution,
  • the appropriate watershed scale,
  • relevant stakeholders,
  • trade-offs among alternative solutions,
  • shared values guiding selection of alternatives, and
  • best actions to balance among trade-offs.

These considerations provide a set of criteria for evaluating existing watershed planning frameworks.

Defining the watershed problem and objectives for its resolution. As stated earlier in this chapter, for watershed planning and management to be meaningful, the problem must be one that is best solved within a watershed framework. These are typically problems directly related to the use or value of the water resource. Careful statement of the problem to be addressed is essential to gathering appropriate science in analyzing the problem and alternative solutions. The problem should be formulated in such a way that it adequately addresses the concerns of those affected and is conducive to the specification of clearly measurable objectives for its solution (National Research Council, 1992; Shabman, 1996; Stem and Fineberg, 1996). Problem definition is a critical and difficult task that should that involve both scientific analysis and critical feedback from affected parties. Effective problem definition requires inputs of relevant interests and experts. Stakeholders, scientists, decisionmakers, and managers all need to participate in problem definition.

Identifying the appropriate scale. Watersheds can be defined at different scales, and smaller watersheds are nested within larger ones. The appropriate scale for watershed management effects should be selected on the basis of the

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

problem at hand. The attempt to match problem and scale should address questions like the following: 1) What scale is optimal for solving the problem identified? 2) Can managers effectively influence critical areas, given the scale selected? (If the source of critical problems falls outside the watershed boundaries, management within the watershed will be ineffective.) 3) Is the scale selected large enough so that the problem and its solution can be effectively evaluated? 4) Is management at the selected scale politically feasible and economically affordable (National Research Council, 1992)?

Involving the relevant stakeholders. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, top-down planning has been widely criticized. These critiques have been based on normative, substantive, and instrumental grounds. The normative criticism of top-down approaches is based on the democratic principle that citizens have the right to meaningful participation in public decisions. Substantively based critiques of top-down planning note that more extensive public involvement better captures the collective wisdom of society. Thus effective stakeholder involvement helps ensure that problems are addressed more comprehensively and that solutions better address the needs of affected parties. Finally, in this chapter, top-down planning and management has often created in conflict and limited trust in public officials. As noted in Understanding Risk (Stem and Fineberg, 1996), "Simply providing people an opportunity to learn about the problem, the decisionmaking process, and the expected benefits of a decision may improve the likelihood that they will support the decision. Even if participation does not increase support for a decision, it may clear up misunderstandings about the nature of a controversy and the views of various participants. And it may contribute generally to building trust in the process, with benefits for dealing with similar issues for the future."

Specifying trade-offs among alternative solutions. As noted above, science provides a basis for identifying alternative problem solutions. Scientific input provides information for stakeholders to identify trade-offs between alternatives. This task requires the application of engineering, biological, and behavioral sciences to predict or measure the consequences of any of the alternatives under consideration. Economic valuation may be used to estimate the values of those outcomes. Specific accounting methods have been used for particular classes of outcomes. Unfortunately, no widely shared methods for the valuation of nonmarket goods have been developed. This led the Government Accounting Office, in a report on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to conclude, "Given that the costs and benefits of various alternatives could not be fully quantified, we believe that the selection of one alternative over another is essentially a public policy decision in which the value judgements must be made about the costs, benefits, and any trade-offs" (Shabman, 1996).

Identifying shared values that guide the selection of alternatives for problem resolution. Stem and Fineberg (1996) note, "Analysis can gather useful information about which trade-offs citizens as individuals would prefer, but scientists can-

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

not and should not be expected to make decisions that involve societal values." The identification of shared values that can guide decisionmaking raises the difficult question of the relationship between individuals and society. To what extent are individual values an expression of the person's embeddedness in society and its structures, or simply idiosyncratic ideas? If the former, then public hearings and public opinion surveys can be used to determine the dominant social values in the watershed that would make compelling the selection of certain alternatives. In this case, a set of values may constitute a cultural model or a sphere of values widely subscribed to within a particular community.

However, individuals often confront new problems without firmly established values, and only form the relevant values through a process of social interaction. When this is the case, the planning process must provide opportunities for interaction within the affected community. No one form of interaction will create a cultural model for making decisions, rather, a wide range of opportunities for interaction regarding the watershed problem is needed. These might include public hearings, citizen advisory committees, task forces, citizen juries or panels, opinion surveys, focus groups, meetings involving computer-assisted models, environmental education, and media exposure.

Taking action and balancing among trade-offs. Most decisions will create winners and losers. Watershed management can proceed more smoothly and more equitably if it includes some mechanisms to compensate those who suffer significant losses from management decisions. It is important to address the costs incurred by some stakeholders in the watershed management process, because they may serve as disincentives to action. Past research has shown that short-term economic losses outweigh the effects of education and heightened awareness in inducing landowners to solve environmental problems (Napier et al., 1998). Prospects of economic loss can create a foundation for more widespread public opposition, which has been shown to be one of the most important obstacles to progress in ecosystem management nationwide (Yaffee et al., 1996). A number of such compensation mechanisms that may be useful in watershed context have been developed to deal with this barrier to positive changes in environmental behavior.

Over the past two decades, environmental regulation has evolved to better recognize trade-offs involved in the implementation of management plans. Government policies have been under pressure to become more flexible, turning away from "one size fits all" command-and-control regulation to more flexible performance standards, fees and charges as incentive systems, and more recently, watershed-based effluent trading systems (EPA, 1996).

There are different means for dealing with costs and benefits associated with the implementation of watershed plans. At small scales, where financial and opportunity costs are modest, voluntary actions may be motivated by education about watershed conditions and the alternatives available to change those conditions. Basic information may encourage people to voluntarily change behaviors;

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

that is, they will not see making the behavioral change as a cost, because their values are changed by education. However, implementation through education usually needs to be supplemented with other implementation tools.

Acceptance of regulation is often purchased with cash transfers. Also, "voluntary" changes in behavior are often the consequences of receiving cash payment or tax subsidy. Successful transfer payment systems require a measurable environmental goal and a governmental willingness to pay for its achievement.

As a result, securing funds for watershed management has been an important theme in federal policy implementation for much of this century. Financing watershed management for such transfers and for program administration is a central challenge that must be addressed in the face of changing social objectives for watersheds and changing intergovernmental responsibilities.

Programs that fund compensation payments to adversely affected landowners and owners of water fights are promising options for application in watershed management. To preserve an existing land use, blocks of land may be designated as off limits to certain development, with landowners compensated for giving up those development fights. Under purchase of development fights (PDR) programs, landowners are compensated with public funds. Such programs can be very expensive.

To implement such programs without major expenditures of public funds, transfer of development fights (TDR) programs have been developed. TDR programs compensate landowners for lost development fights by assigning a certain number of transferable development credits from land in a preservation area to an area deemed more capable of sustaining high levels of development. Landowners in the designated development areas are required to buy development credits from the preservation area, and in return are allowed to develop properties at densities exceeding the limits set by current zoning restrictions. The market price of development credits times the number of credits held by each landowner determines the level of compensation. Unlike a PDR program, the buyer of development fights (credits) is not a public agency. Instead, payment for the development credits is secured through the market created for these development credits. Thus when specifying a growth area, TDR administrators must ensure that adequate demand will exist for development credits. Also, program administrators must ensure that each landowner in the preservation area is issued an acceptable number of development credits. Finally, program administrators need to overcome transaction costs or other factors inhibiting free negotiations. For instance, the administrators might ensure the legal legitimacy of development credits or facilitate buyers' and sellers' contacts and subsequent negotiations through a central TDR bank. Although not yet widely used, the TDR concept has been used in many habitat conservation plans under the Endangered Species Act recently, and in some state-level environmental preservation programs as well (Pfeffer and Lapping, 1994).

An alternative to regulating land use and creating "losers" is to create posi-

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

tive incentives for land use change. The promotion of new markets for nontraditional watershed services, such as hunting leases, to encourage and reward habitat protection is one example. Finally, trading in various "rights" (e.g., development rights or effluent allowances) can provide a means of minimizing losses suffered by any particular party as a result of watershed management decisions. Box 8.2 describes the importance of collaborative decisionmaking in an ecosystem management context, as well as other elements considered essential to effective planning and implementation.

Planning Protocols of Selected Agencies

Federal agencies have historically played a central role in watershed management (Adler, 1995). Even with the current explosion of local watershed management efforts, federal agencies continue to play an important role in these collaborative planning processes (Kenney and Rieke, 1997). At least six federal agencies are likely to have a continuing involvement in watershed management (the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Tennessee Valley Authority), and their planning protocols are described here.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advocated a watershed approach to water quality and more general environmental protection since 1991. In contrast to earlier top-down regulation, EPA' s more recent watershed planning attempts to deal with environmental management on a community- or watershed-specific basis. This approach is intended to best address specific watershed needs in context. EPA intends watershed planning to be comprehensive, incorporating a complete range of scientific expertise and a full range of interests, or stake-holder concerns. The "watershed approach framework" advocated by EPA addresses most of the critical points in watershed planning identified above.

EPA has identified a set of coordinated management activities to identify watershed problems and objectives for their resolution. One of these activities is "problem prioritization and resource targeting," which takes into account stake-holder concerns within the relevant watershed unit. Closely related is "goal setting," which ideally begins with established water quality standards but reviews and (if appropriate) revises those standards to better meet expectations within the local watershed. These activities are informed by data that accurately assess the watershed's aquatic resources; baseline parameters and evaluative standards are based on existing water quality goals. These data are provided by a comprehensive monitoring program that maintains an up-to-date record of local conditions, but which inventories references of already existing key data.

EPA attempts to base the geographic scope of management units on hydro-

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Box 8.2 Effective Ecosystem Management

There are significant similarities in the philosophies behind watershed management and ecosystem management, and current thinking about ecosystem management has lessons to offer to watershed managers. A major document outlining the principles of ecosystem management (Keystone Center, 1996) noted six elements that the workshop members believed would help promote the success of ecosystem management initiatives:

  • Use a collaborative decisionmaking process.
  • Use an adaptive process.
  • Make the best use of science and data.
  • Incorporate regional and national interests into locally driven initiatives.
  • Emphasize market-based incentives.
  • Use an ecosystem-based approach when developing on-the-ground management strategies.

According to the group, collaboration among the organizations and individuals involved in the initiative is critical to success because it allows all parties' concerns to be aired and potentially resolved. The report contains a detailed discussion of the collaborative process, but some of the elements of effective collaboration include: that participant roles and authorities be clearly defined, trust built among participants, and leadership promoted; that participants approach the process with an open mind and willingness to learn; that organizers recognize limits on participants' time and resources; and that cultural differences and power imbalances be addressed.

Regarding the use of adaptive management, the group notes that it is a mechanism for allowing informed decisionmaking and addressing uncertainty by structuring initiatives as experiments in which the results are used to continually correct course. Active adaptive management results in a faster rate of learning and greater accountability to management goals. Science and the information it generates are also integral to effec-

logical considerations, although the agency considers other factors such as political boundaries as well. Although EPA acknowledges that watersheds may be defined at different scales and that the scale identified has implications for the roles of political authorities and relationships between stakeholders, it does not explicitly link problem and scale identification. EPA seems to be most concerned

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

tive management because credible, objective, relevant information helps support decisionmaking. Comprehensive monitoring, too, is essential as support for adaptive management.

The stakeholders involved in planning are likely to hold disparate views, including sometimes a collision of national interests (as expressed through law, regulation, or agency action) with the economic and lifestyle interests of the local communities. The report suggests ways to integrate local and nonlocal interests. It notes that not all participants will see consensus solutions as the goal, so the group must be broadly representative and convinced that its course is appropriate to keep divisive outside influences to a minimum.

The report recognizes that regulations have a role in motivating change, but stresses that they may not always be the most effective way of proceeding. The workshop participants see increased emphasis on market-based incentive approaches as having significant potential to reduce conflict and provide landowners and members of the business community with reasons to contribute to solutions. Such incentives might include programs to support conservation banking, forest certification, and forest stewardship. Tax reductions for open space can encourage protection of priority resources and changes in property appraisal procedures (to not tax on the highest potential use) can remove disincentives to retaining open space. Effluent trading in watersheds can be used to achieve economic efficiencies while still meeting national water quality standards and local water use goals.

Finally, the report addresses using an ecosystem-based approach when developing on-the-ground management strategies. It notes that ecosystem management builds on traditional multiple use and sustained yield principles but goes further in considering how commodity and noncommodity resources are used.

In addition to discussing elements of effective ecosystem management, the Keystone report provides a significant overview of the emerging field, addressing definitions, steps for implementation, participation, the collaborative process, and policy recommendations.

SOURCE: Keystone Center, 1996

with the identification of ''geographic management units," that is—spatial units within which watershed policies are implemented and monitored.

The importance of broad stakeholder involvement in the planning process is heavily stressed by EPA, which urges that watershed planning and management partnerships include representatives from all levels of government within the watershed's boundaries as well as representatives of conservation districts, public

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

interest groups, industries, academic institutions, private landowners, concerned citizens, and any others with an interest in the management of the watershed. Effective stakeholder involvement, according to EPA, should create not only environmental protection, but community building and lasting solutions as well.

Sound management relies on scientific inputs in problem identification and goal setting as well as in the development of solutions. The EPA encourages watershed partnerships between stakeholders to develop plans that are consistent with applicable regulations of relevant levels of government and the needs and concerns of all stakeholders (EPA, 1997). Any effort to incorporate such a broad array of parties is likely to encounter conflicts of interest in the development of management plans.

EPA does not acknowledge this problem, however, and offers no procedures for identifying trade-offs between different options. This omission implies that an optimal and mutually acceptable solution can be developed and that a common set of values will lead to a conclusion. This assumption leads EPA to understate the need for compensation tools to address unequal burdens shouldered by some interests in the implementation of watershed management plans.

Forest Service

The Forest Service is mandated by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to give comprehensive notice and allow for comment on forest planning and project-level decisionmaking. The products of this process are approved "Land and Resources Management Plans (LRMPs)," or "Forest Plans." These plans consist of ten steps: (1) identifying purpose and need; (2) planning criteria; (3) inventorying data and information; (4) analyzing the management situation; (5) formulating alternatives; (6) estimating effects of alternatives; (7) evaluating alternatives; (8) recommending preferred alternatives; (9) approving the plan; (10) monitoring and evaluation.

The NFMA requires the Forest Service to continuously monitor, evaluate, and adjust these plans. The plans establish broad multiple-use goals and objectives for administrative units. The LRMPs are comprehensive plans that establish the direction for future management of forests. More specific problems, goals, and objectives are established under particular projects that are carried out within the framework of LRMPs and the National Environmental Policy Act.

LRMPs must comply with site-specific requirements associated with federal environmental laws like the Clean Water Act (CWA). Watershed management provides a means by which the Forest Service addresses CWA provisions for nonpoint source pollution control. Watersheds are considered one of the multiple uses of forests in addition to outdoor recreation, range, timber, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. Thus the identification of the watershed scale is a secondary consideration subsumed under the multiple-use goals and objectives of Forest Service administrative units, and there are no provisions for watershed scale

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

assessments. Doppelt et al., (1993) note, "Planning for nontimber surface resources including riparian and flood plain management, is to a large degree determined by limitations on timber production—despite the fact that the NFMA repeatedly directs that the forests be managed for 'multiple use' of renewable resources."

The Forest Service planning process solicits public comment on proposed plans and projects through standard NEPA procedures (e.g., environmental impact statements). But stakeholder inputs are also solicited as a first step in the planning process, as well as in the EIS draft review. In response, about 1000 administrative appeals and 20 to 30 lawsuits are filed annually in response to Forest Service timber plan decisions and NEPA compliance. Consequently, the courts provide an important mechanism for identifying trade-offs between alternative courses of action, as well as the means for selecting final actions (U.S. Forest Service, 1997).

Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has developed a guidebook, Achieving Efficient Water Management (U.S. BOR, 1996), which details a five-step planning process. This process begins with problem definition and information gathering. The guidebook emphasizes that these activities go hand-in-hand and are intended to uncover information gaps and uncertainties about problems. This phase of the process considers the physical setting, water rights, permits and contracts, lands and crops, district operation and operating policies, water pricing and accounting, the inventory of water resources, other water uses, and existing water management and conservation programs. Goals and priority are closely related to problem identification in the BOR planning process, and are intended to chart a direction for water management and to establish yardsticks by which to measure progress in meeting goals.

The BOR planning process does not address the issue of appropriate watershed scale. BOR water management is centered around districts, not watersheds. This organizational artifact diverts BOR planning from addressing watershed issues directly. BOR planning guidelines do, however, stress the importance of stakeholder involvement in creating effective and credible plans. BOR seeks to include water users, local community leaders, state and federal agency staff, and representatives of various interest groups in the planning process. According to the BOR, stakeholder involvement: (1) seeks to build credibility, (2) identify and understand the diverse concerns and values of parties potentially affected by the plan, and (3) develop a consensus among divergent interests.

A critical evaluation of alternative solutions is the third step in the BOR planning process. This phase considers such factors as costs, water savings, flow and use patterns, environmental impacts, legal and institutional considerations, and political acceptability. At this stage the acceptability of certain solutions

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

should be considered, as well as possible revisions of the candidate solutions. The BOR planning guidelines state explicit criteria to consider in the selection of alternatives. The list of criteria provided suggest alternative values to be considered in the selection of particular solutions. The suggested criteria include relative implementation costs, ease of implementation, costs and benefits of water saved, environmental effects, and the extent to which proposed measures complement or conflict with other measures already in place. While the BOR planning guidelines acknowledge potential conflicts or trade-offs associated with the implementation of a particular plan, they provide no compensation measures in conjunction with plan implementation. Implicit in the guidelines is the assumption that a plan can be developed and implemented that avoids unacceptable trade-offs between different interests.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides conservation planning and technical assistance to individuals, groups, and units of government and lays out basic planning guidelines in its National Planning Procedures Handbook (U.S. NRCS, 1996). These procedures are intended to assist in the development of plans based on ecological, economic, and social considerations. NRCS presents a three-phase planning process with nine steps. The process is intended to be used in a dynamic, iterative mode. It can be used for a number of planning purposes, one of which is the development of "area-wide conservation plans" for watersheds.

The first phase in the NRCS planning process (containing four steps) is data collection and analysis. The initial step in this phase is to identify resource problems, opportunities, and concerns in the watershed. Once the problem has been identified and clearly defined, the next step is to determine specific objectives. These objectives should incorporate the needs of watershed stakeholders and their values in the watershed's management. The third step in the planning process is to collect natural resource, economic, social, and other relevant data on the watershed. Analysis, the fourth step, is intended to provide a basis for the developing and evaluate alternative solutions. NRCS calls for a scientific approach in this step, which establishes cause-and-effect relationships related to the problem under consideration. Results of this analysis may be used to redefine the problem.

The collection and analysis of data in the first phase is intended to provide a benchmark for subsequent analysis of progress in problem resolution. Missing, however, is explicit consideration of the appropriate watershed scale related to the problem identified. The failure to directly address this issue might be because the National Planning Procedures Handbook is a generic document that was not written specifically for watershed management. It would seem that explicit consideration of the appropriate watershed scale could be incorporated into Step Four, "analysis," and into the problem reformulation emerging from the analysis.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

NRCS labels the second phase of its planning process, "decision support." This phase begins with the critical fifth step of "alternative formulation." The purpose of this step is to "develop alternatives that will achieve the objectives of the . . . stakeholders, solve identified problems, take advantage of opportunities, and prevent additional problems from occurring (U.S. NRCS, 1996)." The NRCS explicitly calls for the development of multiple alternatives that allow for choices based on various criteria that address the cultural, social, ecological, and economic conditions of the watershed. These criteria are identified by means of active stakeholder involvement that includes the public, special interest groups, and state and federal agencies. To this end, NRCS advocates "coordinated resource management,'' a collaborative, nonadversarial decisionmaking process. According to NRCS (1996), "A guiding principle of coordinated resource management is that those who live, work, and recreate on a given piece of land are the people most interested in and capable of developing plans for its use."

Step six is the evaluation of alternatives. This evaluation considers trade-offs between the alternatives taking into account social, economic, and ecological factors. The seventh step in this phase of the planning process is decisionmaking.

According to the NCRS handbook, decisions are taken by the responsible party after public review and comment are obtained. Implicit in the NRCS planning process is the assumption that an alternative can be found that does not disproportionately burden any stakeholders with costs. Consequently, the NRCS planning process does not explicitly discuss compensation measures. NCRS does acknowledge the need to carefully consider social and economic considerations in the planning process. For example, NRCS (1996) notes, "Some social and ethnic groups have land use ethics that may conflict with some NCRS conservation practices." However, the NRCS planning handbook gives the impression that merely taking these factors into consideration will ensure success.

Once a plan is chosen, the process enters Phase Three, "application." The two steps in this phase are plan implementation and evaluation. According to NRCS, the plan is to be evaluated upon implementation to determine if it is meeting objectives. Plans are adjusted based on the results of evaluation. Such evaluation is expected to be an ongoing process.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has long-standing planning procedures. These consist of four principal elements. The first of these elements is problem definition and the statement of planning objectives that will establish both the desired direction for change in the watershed and measurable criteria of that change. This element of the Corps' planning procedures recognizes that clear statement of objectives is essential to the formulation of alternative solutions. The Corps does not explicitly state procedures for identifying appropriate

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

watershed scale. Instead it uses general planning procedures, which can be applied to watersheds.

The second element in the Corps' planning process is the formulation of alternatives, which seeks to consider all measures available for addressing the planning objectives. The formulation of alternatives is followed closely by another element of the planning process, the measurement of the effects of alternatives on the planning objectives. Measurement of these outputs provides data for the final element in the USACE planning process, formal valuation of the alternatives.

Like all federal agencies the USACE uses the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983). This protocol is intended to summarize measured effects of the adoption of a given alternative in four accounts: 1) national economic development, 2) regional economic development, 3) environmental quality, 4) other social effects. The Principles and Guidelines protocol provides an interesting mechanism for systematically considering different values and identifying a shared understanding of their relative importance. The Corps' planning process does not, however, specify a process for balancing the trade-offs involved in implementing of a given alternative. Shabman (1996) explains the importance of the Corps' planning process in providing support to decisionsmakers: "In the future, . . . planning will be focused as much on building external agreements on the 'value' of the preferred alternative as on documenting value through computation called for by the agency budget authorities."

Tennessee Valley Authority

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) launched its Clean Water Initiative (CWI) in 1992. The CWI is a programmatic alternative to regulatory and enforcement solutions to water quality problems (Poppe and Hurst, 1997). This alternative focuses on integrating local residents, businesses, and government agencies in watershed protection efforts. The key organizing feature of TVA's watershed planning approach is the River Action Team (RAT). This organizational feature won praise from Water Quality 2000's Model Watershed Committee. In evaluating TVA's CWI, the committee concluded, "The River Action Team concept should be expanded, promoted and replicated in other watersheds (Model Watershed Committee, 1994)." RATs are multidisciplinary teams made up of water resource experts like biologists and environmental engineers as well as community specialists and environmental educators. Team members ideally serve long-term assignments to specific watersheds to allow them to work closely with stakeholders building trust and to gain a deep knowledge of resource conditions in the watershed. The watershed is the RAT's fixed geographic area, and it may transcend various political boundaries. Watersheds are conceived of on a large scale (e.g., river basin) by TVA, so RATs have a high degree of flexibility

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

in identifying the appropriate scale for dealing with particular problems. However, the variation of watershed scale to address specific problems in not dealt with explicitly by TVA's CWI guidelines.

RATs are expected to be able to deal with problems as they evolve. To do so, RATs muster resources (funds, staff, and expertise) and stakeholder support. TVA strongly emphasizes the latter point, stating a strong commitment to include all stakeholders—critics as well as supporters—in the watershed planning process. At the same time, TVA stresses development of partnerships to solve watershed problems. These partnerships are important tools in the leveraging of resources.

Problems are identified with help from continuous resource assessment based on TVA's ecological monitoring program. These assessment data are analyzed and used to identify specific problems and measurable objectives and to prioritize problems for treatment. These data and analyses drive TVA's use of a project selection matrix to prioritize projects. In making such analyses, TVA takes into account trade-offs made in selecting some projects over others. While the same principles could be applied to the selection of alternative solutions to a particular problem, TVA does not discuss this type of analysis. An implicit assumption is that there will be an unambiguously best solution to any problem. However, TVA does recognize that not all stakeholders will be equally informed about watersheds, and that lack of awareness and understanding of the functioning and value of aquatic ecosystems is an important source of environmentally harmful behaviors and lack of support for watershed management. CWI strives to involve stakeholders in watershed projects as a means of increasing knowledge, changing behavior, and revealing shared values regarding the environment and the need for watershed management. However, as noted earlier, even widely held values are unlikely to be held by everyone in a community or watershed. And while many interests may be served by a given plan to solve a watershed problem, other interests may suffer. Like the other agencies reviewed here, TWA has not specified mechanisms by which those adversely affected by watershed plans will be compensated (Ungate, 1996; Poppe and Hurst, 1997).

In concentrating this review of watershed planning guidelines on major governmental institutions, we have not addressed the most profound development in the past decade, the growing number of local, often voluntary watershed organizations. One study identified 76 ongoing watershed efforts in just 11 of the western states, these efforts all had significant local citizen involvement (Natural Resources Law Center, 1996). Such organizations are found nationwide, and their numbers have increased substantially in the past decade. This trend closely parallels the growth of grassroots environmental organizations since the early 1980s (Freudenburg and Steinsapir, 1992). While much of the grassroots movement has been concerned with environmental contamination, local watershed initiatives are focused on "resource management problems related to the allocation, use, or quality of water" (Natural Resources Law Center, 1996).

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Because of a lack of comprehensive data on local watershed initiatives, this report cannot evaluate their planning procedures. Depending on the type of local watershed group and its mission, planning activities may be more or less formal. In any case, the critical points regarding the watershed planning procedures of the more formal agency efforts described above can serve as useful guidelines to more informally operating groups. And formal planning procedures are of direct relevance to watershed initiatives led by government agencies or working closely with them. Increasingly, local watershed initiatives involve multiagency collaboration. Kenney and Rieke (1997) conducted case studies of a dozen local watershed initiatives in the western United States and found that most had active involvement from some federal government agency. Most of the 76 local watershed initiatives in the West mentioned above also had significant federal involvement (Kenney and Rieke, 1997).

Given the importance of federal involvement in watershed management, it is useful to review critical points in planning addressed by the agencies reviewed above. Table 8.3 shows how these agencies addressed (or failed to address) critical points of watershed planning. All the agencies' planning procedures gave substantial attention to identification of the problem and objectives for its resolution. Tying the problem to the appropriate watershed scale was a weak point for all the planning procedures. This weakness may be overstated, however, because the agencies follow planning guidelines issued for general purposes and not specifically for the treatment of watersheds. Nevertheless, watershed scale is not typically treated as a variable component in the planning process. The importance of involving stakeholders in environmental planning has received increasing attention, especially given the growth of NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) opposition to the siting of environmental hazards and property rights protests against environmental regulation. Our review shows that agencies generally are aware of the importance of stakeholder involvement, and that planning procedures increasingly include explicit mechanisms for it.

Some planning procedures include very strong mechanisms for identifying trade-offs associated with solutions to watershed problems. Most of these rely heavily on scientific analysis. In marked contrast, some protocols fail to address the distribution of costs and benefits associated with alternative solutions—a failure that stems from the assumption that widely accepted solutions are the norm. This shortcoming may lead to an inability to recognize sources of conflict embedded in any particular alternative. Recognizing that some stakeholders may disproportionately bear the costs of watershed management practices and developing mechanisms to address such inequalities can help avert or resolve such conflicts.

It is extremely difficult, however, to account for costs and benefits associated with watershed management, because many "goods" are incommensurable (Anderson, 1993). To reach agreement on who bears the greatest burden and who reaps the most benefits, there must be some agreement on the applicable accounting unit. Most commonly this accounting is done in monetary terms, but such

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

TABLE 8.3 Critical Points in Watershed Planning As Addressed by Selected Agency Planning Protocols

Clearly Specified Processes for Identifying the:

EPAa

FSb

BORc

NRCSd

USACEe

TVAf

(1) Watershed problem and objectives for its resolution

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

(2) Appropriate stakeholders

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

(3) Involvement of relevant stakeholders

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

(4) Considerations trade-offs among alternative solutions

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

(5) Shared values to guide selection of alternatives

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

(6) Best actions to balance costs and benefits among trade-offs

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

a EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

b FS: Forest Service

c BOR: Bureau of Reclamation

d NRCS: National Resources Conservation Service

e USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

f TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority

accounting is not preferred or accepted under all circumstances. While the agency planning procedures review did provide some mechanisms for identifying of shared values that might help select solutions, these mechanisms were weak and may not provide adequate guidance for determining the relative importance of different values in the decisionmaking process.

Even if there is agreement on the relative importance of different values, and decisions are made based on such consensus, some stakeholders may still bear a disproportionate share of the costs. None of the planning procedures addressed how appropriate compensation could be considered and then carried out. Given growing concern with environmental equity and the development of compensation mechanisms, it is surprising that agency planning procedures give so little attention to this point.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Conclusion

This chapter began by posing a key question in watershed planning: what is an effective process in relating science, policy, and public participation? One key conclusion is that science play a prominent role in any watershed planning process. Planning on a watershed basis and demands robust, interdisciplinary scientific inputs that not only answer key questions, but offer insights into the limitations of our understanding of watershed processes. Acknowledgment that knowledge is incomplete establishes the need for continuing scientific inputs in an adaptive, or recursive, planning process. Sound science provides the basis for establishing realistic limits on what can be accomplished and identifies trade-offs associated with different alternatives. However, the choice of particular solutions to adopt is ultimately a political one. The role of science is to respond to the information needs of policymakers and the public, and to inform the formulation of watershed management policy. Thus, there are clear roles for scientists and policymakers. Watershed management plans that provide explicitly defined checks and balances between scientists and policymakers are likely to be the most robust over time.

Science provides information, but it cannot determine which values should guide watershed management policies. These values must emerge from the watershed planning process through public participation. Contemporary watershed planning increasingly involves a broad array of stakeholders. However, meaningful stakeholder involvement is often difficult to achieve within existing institutions. Political representation often is organized in jurisdictions where the boundaries do not correspond to those of watersheds. Thus established mechanisms of political involvement may be ineffective in a watershed context, and planning must therefore be seen as part of a process that strives to create a watershed community. In the long run, effective watershed management will encourage changes in personal behaviors and land management practices that threaten the local resource base.

Creating a sense of community in a watershed can be a difficult task, but there are some important approaches and considerations that can increase the likelihood of success. One approach is collaborative planning, which consists of bringing together all the interests in the watershed and working together to come up with the solutions. The basic idea is asking not how you should change to accommodate me, but how I should change to accommodate the others in the group so that we reach our goal. Effective collaborative planning acknowledges that solutions to watershed problems do not affect all interests equally; some benefit and others incur costs. Effective collaboration in watershed planning acknowledges these disparities in order to reach just and equitable outcomes. Collaborative planning works best when all those affected have a reasonable understanding of watershed problems, alternative solutions, and the trade-offs involved in choosing some solutions over others. Thus, education about watershed

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

processes, legal and institutional constraints, and opportunities is an important element in collaborative planning. Education about the watershed should promote and support the integration of science, policy, and public participation. Sound, integrated policy can only be achieved when the education about the watershed assures that watershed management decisions are broadly understood and considered legitimate by the public. It is also necessary that all parties participate in making the choices between trade-offs, and that those trade-offs are fully understood and supported.

Watershed planning may be organized in a variety of ways to address these issues. But whatever the organizational form chosen, the planning process should address six critical points: 1) the identification of the watershed problem and objectives for its resolution; 2) the appropriate watershed scale; 3) involvement of stakeholders; 4) trade-offs among alternative solutions; 5) values guiding the selection of alternative solutions; 6) best action to balance among trade-offs.

As indicated above, current federal agency planning procedures are strong on many of these critical points. All have clear procedures for identifying problems and objectives for their solutions, most pay careful attention to stakeholder involvement, and most consider trade-offs involved in selecting between alternative problem solution. However, the agencies need to better match the watershed problem being solved to the appropriate watershed scale for intervention, and all agencies should give more attention to the identification of different values held by watershed stakeholders that can lead to conflicts over possible solutions. Many of the planning procedures seem to assume that general consensus about the preferred solution already exists or can be easily achieved. This assumption seems unrealistic. Failure to acknowledge fundamental differences in values can undermine the search for an acceptable means to address these differences. This point is closely related to another shortcoming in agency planning procedures: the identification of mechanisms to compensate those who bear a disproportionate share of the costs associated with the implementation of a watershed management plan. None of the agency planning procedures provided a means by which compensation could be considered and then carried out. By addressing these weaknesses, agencies could greatly strengthen their planning procedures and move watershed planning to a higher level of sophistication.

References

Anderson, E. 1993. Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.


Bella, D. A. 1997. Organizational systems and the burden of proof. Pp. 617-638 In Stouter, D. J., P. A. Bison, and R. J. Naiman, (eds.) Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. New York: Chapman and Hall.


Dietz, T., P. C. Stern, and R. W. Rycroft. 1989. Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum 4(1):47-70.

Doppelt, R., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save America's River Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

Freudenberg, N., and C. Steinsapir. 1992. Not in our backyards: The grassroots environmental movement. Pp. 27-38 in American Environmentalism. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.


Kenney, D., and B. Rieke. 1997. Resource Management at the Watershed Level: An Assessment of the Changing Federal Role in the Emerging Era of Community-Based Watershed Management. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado, Natural Resource Law Center.

Keystone Center. 1996. The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management: Final Report. Keystone, Colorado: The Keystone Center.


Lee, Kai N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.


March, J. G. and H. A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Model Watershed Committee. 1994. Evaluation of a Watershed Approach to Clean Water: A Site Visit to the Tennessee Valley Authority and Evaluation of Their Clean Water Initiative. Alexandria, Va.: Water Quality 2000.

Moreau, D. H. 1994. Watershed Planning—What's New? What's Old? The Wayne S. Nichols Memorial Lecture. Ohio State University, November 17.


Naiman, R. J., J. J. Magnuson, D. M. McKnight, J. A. Stanford, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Freshwater ecosystems and their management: A national initiative. Science 270:584-585.

Napier, T. L., S. M. Napier, and J. Turdon. 1998. Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs: Successes and Failures. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 1995. Criteria for Watershed Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Natural Resources Law Center. 1996. The Watershed Source Book: Watershed Based Solutions to Natural Resource Problems. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center.


Pfeffer, J. J., and M. B. Lapping. 1994. Farmland preservation, development, rights and the theory of the growth machine: The views of planners. J. Rural Studies 10(3):233-248.

Popovic, N. A. F. 1993. The right to participate in decisions that affect the environment. Pace Environmental Law Review 19(2):683-709.

Poppe W., and R. Hurst. 1997. TVA's clean water initiative: A partnership approach to watershed improvement. WQI March/April 1997:39-43.

Priscoli, J. D. 1978. Implementing Public Involvement Programs in Federal Agencies. Pp. 97-108 in Langton, S. (ed.) Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art. Lexington, Ky.: Lexington Books.


Rosenbaum, W. A. 1978. Public Involvement as Reform and Ritual: The Development of Federal Participation Programs. Pp. 81-96 in Langton, S. (ed.) Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art. Lexington: Lexington Books.


Shabman, L. 1996. Environmental Restoration in the Army Corps of Engineers: Planning and Valuation Changes. Manuscript.

Simon, H. A. 1954. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan.

Stanford, J. A., and G. C. Poole. 1996. A protocol for ecosystem management. Perspectives in Ecosystem Management 6(3):741-744.

Stern, P., and H. V. Fineberg, eds. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


Ungate, C. D. 1996. Tennessee Value Authority's Clean Water Initiative: Building Partnerships for Watershed Improvement. Journal of Planning and Management 39(1):113-122.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. the Power of Collaborative Planning: Report of the National Workshop.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Overview of Forest Planning and Project Level Decisionmaking. Internet: http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/decisionm/index.html.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. The Watershed Approach. Annual Report 1992. EPA840-S-93-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading. EPA 800-R-96-001. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. The Watershed Approach. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wa1.html.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. National Planning Procedures Handbook. NRCS 180-vi-NPPH, Revision 1. Washington, D.C.: USDA.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weatherford, G. D. N.D. From Basin to Hydrocommons: Integrated Water Management Without Regional Governance. Western Water Policy Project, Discussion Series Paper, No. 5. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, School of Law.


Yaffee, S. L., A. F. Phillips, I. C. Frentz, P. W. Hardy, S. M. Maleki, and B. E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×

There is a need to stabilize, enhance, and restore to some degree the nation's aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and particularly to restore more natural discharge regimes and ensure habitats for native species. One step toward these goals is to reduce pollution and protect riparian zones with ecologically sound management practices such as these contour buffer strips in Iowa. Credit: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"8 Planning and Decisionmaking." National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America's Watersheds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6020.
×
Page 268
Next: 9 Conclusions and Recommendations »
New Strategies for America's Watersheds Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $85.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Emergence of a toxic organism like pfisteria in tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay has focused public attention on potential hazards in our water. More importantly, it has reminded us of the importance of the entire watershed to the health of any body of water and how political boundaries complicate watershed management.

New Strategies for America's Watersheds provides a timely and comprehensive look at the rise of "watershed thinking" among scientists and policymakers and recommends ways to steer the nation toward improved watershed management.

The volume defines important terms, identifies fundamental issues, and explores reasons why now is the time to bring watersheds to the forefront of ecosystem management. In a discussion of scale and scope, the committee examines how to expand the watershed from a topographic unit to a framework for integrating natural, social, and economic perspectives as they share the same geographic space. The volume discusses:

  • Regional variations in climate, topography, demographics, institutions, land use, culture, and law.
  • Roles and interaction of federal, state, and local agencies.
  • Availability or lack of pertinent data.
  • Options for financing.

The committee identifies critical points in watershed planning to ensure appropriate stakeholder involvement and integration of science, policy, and environmental ethics.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!