7843 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

22 BIOLOGICAL REpORT 29 1 Chapter 4. Philosophical Underpinnings of IFIM Certain philosophical principles have guided the development of IFIM and help explain its or- ganization and intended use. These include prin- cipled bargaining, incrementalism, interdiscipli- nary problem-solving, and craftsmanship. In addition, the problem-solving approach, based on ecological theory, guides us in dealing with com- plex and contentious issues and helps us continue learning about ecological systems. Axioms Principled bargaining recognizes and attempts to accommodate the values of every legitimate stakeholder in an instream flow case. This idea also stipulates that the best solution to a problem is derived through mutual agreement of negoti- ated issues. A hard realization of this philosophy is that the methodology is neutral; it can be used equally well to represent a developer's viewpoint or that of a conservation group. However, proper use of the methodology requires that aUlegiti- mate concerns be addressed. IFIM can be used to evaluate a problem from only one perspective, but such an approach carries substantial risk. Failure to incorporate all legitimate concerns in the for- mulation of alternatives may result in a solution that creates more problems than it solves. Such alternatives are likely to be vigorously contested by stakeholders who perceive that they have been left out. Incrementalism is based on the observation that individuals and groups solve problems as they have solved problems in the past. Without a truly traumatic experience, we will not radically alter our value systems, our missions, or the way we assimilate and use information. Changes in these human factors occur in increments. The way we solve the next problem will look pretty much like the way we solved the last similar problem, with perhaps a little movement or flexibility in a par- ticular direction. Incrementalism applies to IFIM through the process of iterative problem-solving. It is almost inconceivable that the perfect solution, optimizing for all legitimate concerns, will be dis- covered on the first try. Rather, solutions are de- rived by starting with a plausible alternative and then tinkering with it until everyone is as satisfied with the outcome as possible. People unfamiliar with instream flow problems or IFIM are often concerned about the acceptance of IFIM by the courts, but IFIM does not stress litigation. Though IFIM has recently been accepted as a legitimate methodology by the U.S. Supreme Court, the vast majority of instream flow problems (we estimate around 99%) are resolved through negotiation rather than arbitration. IFIM is an interdisciplinary tool requiring dif- ferent skills and expertise throughout its imple- mentation. Competence in political science, nego- tiation, and law is crucial when designing studies and preparing for negotiations. Experience in water management and hydrology is crucial in preparing alternatives that are physically feasible to implement. The ability to relate habitat phe- nomena to biological populations is essential to determine whether an alternative will result in a beneficial, detrimental, or neutral outcome. Sim- ply collecting the data and running the models associated with IFIM may require skills in hydrau- lic engineering, biology, temperature modeling, chemistry, and geomorphology. The obvious value of interdisciplinary teams is that one person does not need to know how to do everything. Less obvi- ous, however, is that different disciplines often use different strategies and logic in problem-solving. By incorporating multiple disciplines in a team, the opportunity exists to formulate innovative so- lutions that might not have been considered by a homogeneous group. Craftsmanship refers to the fact that IFIM is a scientific approach to problem solving, but IFIM is not science. Its purpose is to help disparate groups resolve complex, multiple-issue problems in a sys- tematic yet flexible manner. IFIM is based on the scientific method, but also relies on assumption,