Conference & Workshop Summaries

Multi-Stakeholder Watershed Planning: Getting to Decisions That Make a Difference

Anne Baird (baird.41@osu.edu), Joe Bonnell (bonnell.8@osu.edu)
Ohio State University Extension

Presented at the 4th Natural Resource Extension Professionals Conference, May 16-19, 2004, in Wheeling, West Virginia.

Introduction

This poster describes the structured decision-making approach used in developing a Watershed Action Plan for the lower Alum Creek Watershed.

Alum Creek Watershed

Vital Statistics of the Lower Alum Creek Watershed:

• 257,000 residents
• 13 political jurisdictions
• 17% impervious cover

Sources of Impairment:

• Habitat modification
• Construction site runoff
• Urban runoff
• Point sources (e.g., combined sewer overflows, wastewater treatment facilities)

Stakeholder Groups Represented in the Planning Process:

• Private Citizens
• City Service Departments
• Regional Planning Commissions
• Soil and Water Conservation Districts
• Universities
• State Agencies
• Parks and Recreation Departments

Between January and September of 2003, members of the OSU Extension Watershed Team and the Ohio State University School of Natural Resources, in collaboration with the Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries (FACT), designed and facilitated a series of planning meetings in the lower Alum Creek Watershed. (Alum Creek is a largely urban watershed on the east side of Columbus.) We review the elements of the structured decision-making approach, provide example outcomes from the Alum Creek planning process, and offer conclusions and recommendations.

A Structured Decision-Making Approach to Watershed Planning

The elements of a structured decision-making approach are captured by the acronym PrOACT as a reminder to be proactive in decision making. (Hammond, Keeney, Raiffa, 1999):

Problem Definition
Objectives and performance measures
Alternatives
Consequences
Tradeoffs

Step 1: Problem Definition

Purpose:

• Identify essential elements of the problem.
• Make explicit underlying assumptions.
• Gain new insights.

Discussion questions:

1. What are your assumptions about the problem?
2. What are the initiating forces (triggers) of the problem?
3. What is the connection between the triggers and the problem?
4. What are some linked or related decisions?

Example Problem Definition: Stormwater Work Group

Constructed drainage systems and impervious surfaces increase runoff rates, flooding, channel down cutting, and habitat disturbances. To address this we must address the ecosystem function of Alum Creek through passive and active means and develop ways to manage water quality by addressing the inter-relationship between the stream and floodplain.

Step 2: Objectives and Performance Measures

Purpose:

• Identify a broad range of objectives based on participants’ values.
• Distinguish between means objectives (management options) and ends objectives (endpoints the plan will ultimately achieve) (Figure 1).
• Develop measures for each objective to evaluate effectiveness of alternative action strategies. (Table 1).

Example questions:

1. What matters most to you with regards to the problem? (ends objectives)
2. How would you achieve the ends objectives? (means objectives)
3. How would you evaluate performance on meeting the objectives? (performance measures)

Steps 3 and 4: Alternatives, Consequences, and Tradeoffs

Purpose:

Identify a range of action strategies for achieving objectives.

• Identify consequences (pros and cons) of action strategies to make tradeoffs explicit. (Table 2.)
• Compare action strategies using performance measures. (Table 3.)
• Refine action strategies.

Discussion questions:

1. What alternative actions could be adopted to achieve the objectives?
2. What are the anticipated costs and benefits of these alternative actions?
3. How would you rate this alternative as a means to achieve each objective?
4. How could this alternative be altered to improve its rating on each objective?

Conclusions

Use of the Structured Decision-Making Approach:

• Encouraged participants to share their diverse perspectives on problems.
• Allowed participants to develop alternatives, based on their values, that addressed multiple objectives.
• Resulted in a more complex understanding of water-resource problems through new lines of inquiry.
• Resulted in many new lines of inquiry about problems, related contextual factors, and alternative action strategies.

Recommendations

• Actively recruit stakeholder representatives with decision-making authority.
• Be prepared to address information gaps identified by participants.
• Conduct ongoing analysis of work group out- comes to identify opportunities for collaboration.
• Prepare participants up-front for the significant time commitment required.
• Pursue alternative means to involve key stake- holders who cannot attend planning meetings.

Acknowledgements

We would like to recognize the following individuals for their facilitation skills and intellectual contribution to the Alum Creek Planning Process:

• Heather Doherty, Alum Creek Watershed Coordinator
• Jerry Iles, OSU Extension Watershed Agent
• Rosida Porter, ODNR, Division of Soil and Water
• Joe Arvai, The Ohio State University, School of Natural Resources

We also wish to thank Wenqin Chen, Data Manager with the Ohio State University Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, for her outstanding mapmaking services.

References and Additional Information

Arvai, J. (arvai.7@osu.edu) Environmental Decision-Making Research at the School of Natural Resources on-line at: http://snr.osu.edu/fac_ staff/fhomepage.php

Compass Resource Management LTD. (n.d.). Brunette Basin Task Group Objectives Report. Vancouver, BC.

Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries. (2002). An Alum Creek Resource Sheet. Available on-line at: http://www.friendsofalumcreek.org/ sitev2/docs.php#Action_ Planning

Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries. (2004). Lower Alum Creek Watershed Action Plan. Available on-line at: http://www.friendsofalumcreek.org/ sitev2/action_plan.php

Gregory, R. & Keeney, R. L. (2002). Making Smarter Environmental Management Decisions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38 (6), 1601-1611.

Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa,H. (1999). Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.