WSP01154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'0 i) d 211 ., , , -, been set is. by definition, essentially non-nego- tiable, Standard.setting techniques might be ap- propriate for arbitrated decisions where the ana- lyst feels safe that the standard.setling reflects the best evidence (or the most equitable position), that is, whenever there is a rebuttable presump. tion that the analyst is correct. The problem still arises in the mid-range situations when the ana. Iyst is forced to give a quick answer that will become the subject of negotiation or arbitration. Different technical solutions are appropriate for each of the two potes. on this continuum. On the one hand, inexpensive, straightforward, rule.of-thumb solutions are well.suited to standard-setting tasks, For these tasks. the considerations are certainty that the planning objectives will be met and that the recommendations will be easily communicated to policy makers. On the other hand, incremental problems are likely to require an in.depth knowl- edge of the flow requirements of fIsh and wildlife, recreation, water quality, and other instream uses, as well as the ability to integrate these concerns into plans for a specific project. Much of the debate that surrounds instream flow technology is not about the approaches most suited to these extreme cases but about the best technology for problems that fall somewhere in between. In this mid-range, solutions may have long time-horizons while still leading to identifi. able projects, Ine,'itably, a quick rule-of,thumb method wiJl be found inadequate, followed by a more complicated analysis and demands for com- promise. The chOIce of an instream now technique for mid-range cases is further hampered by the need for low cost and speed in making the first recom- mendation. That first recommendation precedes a period of wrangling over project benefits and then negotiation of more in-depth studies, Finally, these discussions conclude with an expensive technical analysis and hard bargaining over the professional judgements of those making and challenging the never-quite.final recommenda. tions, Other situations can be found or imagined that would also fill this middle ground between long-range planning and specific project negotia. tions, The choice of initial and follow-up technolo- gies in these types of disputes is a balancing act. The first simple technology chosen will be linked through the study design to the final pro- ject negotiation. How well this linkage can be achieved depends on several factors, l.nc\uding statutory authority, fiscal resources, training of 1 , ,~ '! 1 , I . j THE IS-STRE,u,t PLOW INCREMENTAL ME:THOLDOLOGY 9 Table 2.1. The opposite ends of the problem- solving spectrum. Standard-setting Incremental Low controversy project Reconnaissance .level planning Few deCision variables Incxpeniiive Fast Rule-of-thumb Less scientifically ac.cepted Not ,,-'ell-suited for bal"galning Based on histoncal water supply High controversy project ProJect-specific Many decision variables Expensive Lengthy In-depth knowledge required r...lore scientifically accepted Designed for bargaining Based on fish or habitat personnel, and management support for the in- vestigations. Most of all, success in moving from planning studies to hard bargaining depends on whether the analysts guessed correctly about what would happen to their first recommenda. tiOl)s (Olive and Lamb 1984), The range of in. stream flow assessment techniques can be illus. trated both with a summary of these ideas III Table 2,1 and with the example that follows. Standard-Setting Techniques Several techniques are a,'ailable for the long. range planning of instream flows for fisheries. In a low-intensity situation, not much detail is re. quired because the questions are straightforward, Thus, a quick, reconnaissance-level, office.type approach may be used, Most standard-setting occurs in statutory state instream flow protection programs (Lamb and Doerksen 1990). As one analyst observed, "[i]n most statutes, it is difficult to either ascertain legislative intent or determine if a proposed in- stream flow regime would satisfy the legislative purpose" (Beecher 19901. An instrearn flow stand. ard should include the following elements (Beecher 1990): (I) the goal (such as non-degrada- tion), (2) resources (such as fish species), (3) unit of measurement {such as flows in cubic feet per second [crs] or habitat in weighted usable area [WUAJ>, (4) benchmark period (such as a lO-year per\od of record\, and (5) protection statistic (such as the median habitat value for July).