Watershed Assessments in Oregon

1. Watershed Assessments in Oregon Where we are, how we got here and how we can do better Jean fike Advisor, Dr. Craig shinn

2. What are watershed assessments? • Watershed – an area of land that drains to a particular body of water • Watershed assessments describe the ecological condition of a watershed • Are used as the foundation for a host of critical policy decisions like: • How public land is managed • Land use/zoning decisions • Water allocations • Much more

3. Capstone in a nutshell The assessments I looked at all did a good job responding to the needs of each organization individually Collectively they could do more to support a robust and well-informed public policy process The analysis suggested several ways assessments could be adjusted to improve this

4. Why Oregon? The State has a history of highly contentious natural resource policy conflicts The Oregon example includes federally listed anadromous fish, regional players, strong state players, robust local zoning laws Conflicts over fisheries, hydroelectric dams, irrigation water, tribal and private water rights abound We have it all!

5. What did I look at? • Looked at four assessment schemes • US Forest Service • USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service • Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board • NW Power and Conservation Commission

6. How? Read guidance from agencies (statute, regulations, policy) Read examples of completed assessments Interviewed six experts from various agencies and organizations all with extensive experience with assessments (most with several types) Used a “comparative method” (Ragin,1992) from the social sciences for analysis

7. Example of findings • OWEB assessment • Done by watershed councils and other local groups • Methodologically flexible • Tremendous emphasis on stakeholder involvement • NRCS assessment (“profile”) • Done in-house by staff • Methodologically uniform • Zero emphasis on stakeholder involvement

8. Each fits the agency needs well • Stakeholder buy-in • Critical for OWEB- buy-in of local groups is paramount for implementation success; and for political success in Salem • Largely irrelevant for NRCS – success is on individual landowner basis; farm bill politics are national • Methodology • NRCS –Most important reporting is at the federal level (requires methodologically uniformity) • OWEB – No strong driver for rollup of data, local groups have different interests and capacities (requires methodologically flexibility)

9. But collectively they could do more to help us • Understand how watersheds are doing and what effects different management decisions would have • And what we still don’t know about that • Collectively decide what tradeoffs and risks we are willing to make – and how to proceed in the face of uncertainty • Engage landowners, communities and citizens in the enormous challenges of restoration and recovery of listed species

10. It makes sense Agencies are strapped for money and capacity These are complex systems with many unknowns The science is highly contested There are really big stakes on all sides These tools evolved or were developed to meet particular needs in each particular regulatory and political context Nobody has the charge or the luxury to look out for the greater good; the system and process as a whole

11. Specific shortcomings • How is the current “system” not supportive of a robust public policy process? • Data is lost, unusable or unavailable for review • Methods used can obscure genuine scientific uncertainty • Can conflate science with policy => distrust • Parties are not working from a common understanding of condition and tradeoffs • What kinds of adjustments would make it more so?

12. Suggested direction Create greater separation between assessment and policy making Use methods that make the type and degree of uncertainty explicit – provide that information to the policy process along with findings Make findings, methods, data and metadata available for inspection, peer review and use Utilize multi-scale platform to house and convey what we know and do not know about watersheds

13. Why this will/would be difficult (the short list) The ESA and the courts ... Threat of lawsuits using data or information about uncertainty to impede conservation work Data sharing issues (data ownership, landowner confidentiality, sensitive information, turf) Trust is lacking=>change even more difficult It will cost money to build and maintain It could look like (or actually become) an information control structure, decreasing transparency rather than improving it No agency has overall responsibility for improving this “system”

14. And yet IF this resonates with others in the field and AS opportunities emerge to adjust these tools WE as public administrators can lean together toward a system that better supports a well-informed democratic process

15. Because That’s what we do