A Decision Framework for Managing the Spirit Lake and Toutle River System at Mount St. Helens (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Choosing a Decision Framework and Identifying the Decision Problem
6 Choosing a Decision Framework and Identifying the Decision Problem
Pages 195-222
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 195... ...
. The process of identifying and comparing alternatives to manage both routine and catastrophic risk in the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system is made more difficult due to • Analytical uncertainty resulting from incomplete or outdated information; • Analytically irreducible uncertainty associated with low-probability moderate-intensity events and very low-probability but potentially catastrophic events; • Competing values and interests across multiple interested and affected parties; • Lack of agreement on the appropriate time horizon for planning; • Overlapping decision authorities with separate but interdependent responsibilities and budgets; • Low trust among agencies and the public; 195
|
From page 196... ...
Finally, the decision framework guides the process for comparing alternatives. Decision making as described in the next chapters contrasts sharply with the ways in which management decisions for the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system have been made in the past (see Box 6.1)
|
From page 197... ...
Spirit Lake tunnel; own rivers and harbors to and manage sediment benefit navigation; develop retention structure on flood control projects; the North Fork Toutle plan and implement water River; maintain flood resource development and protection for downstream conservation projects on communities; major waterways. stabilize level of Spirit Lake; operate and maintain Castle Lake and Coldwater Lake outlet facilities; coordinate extraordinary maintenance with the USFS.
|
From page 198... ...
Tribal Cowlitz Indian Tribe and No federally recognized Protect environment and Yakama Nation management natural resources through responsibility. technical expertise; provide housing, transportation, and health services for their peoples as well as spiritual guidance and other cultural resources consistent with their duties as sovereign nations.
|
From page 199... ...
Washington State Manage land in the study Manage trust lands to Department of Natural area, including along the earn income for state Resources (WADNR) South Fork Toutle River.
|
From page 200... ...
, and therefore needs to include the full spectrum of parties, beginning in the early problem-formulation stages of the planning process. Input received by the study committee during its information gathering open session meetings indicates that the number of interested and affected parties and the breadth of their interests are broader than Table 6.1 suggests.
|
From page 201... ...
Recommendation: Adopt a deliberative and participator y decision-making process that includes technical considerations; balances competing safety, environmental, ecological, economic, and other objectives of participants; appropriately treats risk and uncertainty; and is informed by and responsive to public concerns. Dialogue among interested and affected parties and technical experts should be iterative, begin with the formulation of the problem, and continue throughout the decision process.
|
From page 202... ...
An effort to study removal of nonnative fish from below the Glen Canyon Dam did not contemplate any structural changes, but it did involve multiple interested and affected parties, including various government agencies and Native American Tribes (Runge et al., 2011)
|
From page 203... ...
In this report, the committee uses the PrOACT model as the basis for its own recommended decision framework. Major sections of this and Chapters 7 and 8 are named for each of the steps listed above and offer general descriptions of those steps, their importance in the analytical-deliberative process, and the relationship of each step to past or future decisions made in the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system.
|
From page 204... ...
A more precise problem definition may be challenging to articulate; therefore, developing a list of characteristics that describes the decision problem to the extent possible is a critical preliminary step. Each step of the analytical-deliberative process requires iterative discussions among a lead responsible for implementing the decision framework and the participants in the process.
|
From page 205... ...
This effort should also be open and accountable to interested and affected parties involved in management decisions. There are a number of examples of system-level entities, including those that apply PrOACT-like decision frameworks.
|
From page 206... ...
Without the decision framework, agencies will likely decide on and implement actions as they have in the past: with insufficient collaboration with other agencies and minimal engagement with other interested and affected parties. The decision framework is described in this report so that it is neutral with respect to who actually implements it.
|
From page 207... ...
2. The "agency voice" -- a non-neutral role within the core group of decision participants that represents the agency as one of the in terested and affected parties, advocating for the agency's objectives in value-focused discussions.
|
From page 208... ...
Involving interested and affected parties in decisions such as those being addressed by the USFS and the USACE is desirable for other reasons. When conducted appropriately, engagement activities can reveal the values that serve as the basis for decision making, enhance the credibility of the information that is used in making decisions, improve the quality of decisions, increase public trust and confidence in decision making, increase institutional transparency, help to resolve disputes, and gain legitimacy for actions that are subsequently undertaken (Yosie and Herbst, 1998; NRC, 2008; NOAA, 2015; Nuclear Energy Agency, 2015)
|
From page 209... ...
. Based on discussions with USACE staff and other interested and affected parties in the region, the level of engagement with the public by the USACE in the aftermath of the 1980 eruption appears to align with the "Inform" or "Consult" levels in the spectrum.
|
From page 210... ...
TABLE 6.2 The International Association for Public Participation Spectrum 210 Increasing Level of Public Impact Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower Public To provide To obtain public To work directly To partner with To place final Participation the public feedback on with the public the public in each decision making Goal with balanced analysis and/or throughout the aspect of the in the hands of the and objective decision. process to ensure decision including public.
|
From page 211... ...
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower Example Tools • Fact sheets P • ublic comment • Workshops C • itizen advisory C • itizen juries • Websites F • ocus groups D • eliberate committee • Ballots O • pen houses • Surveys polling C D • onsensus building • elegated P • ublic meetings P • articipatory decisions decision making SOURCE: International Association for Public Participation (www.iap2.org)
|
From page 212... ...
The present report recommends a framework that emphasizes deep public participation throughout a decision process. The decision framework described in this report draws on the work of Gregory and others (2012)
|
From page 213... ...
Assigning a small group of participants to address the details of the decision process may result in a sense of lost legitimacy among some of the broader set of interested and affected parties -- in particular, those that expressed an interest in the proceedings but that were not included in the small group deliberations. A deliberate engagement effort is needed whereby conclusions reached by the smaller group can be shared and tested with a broader group.
|
From page 214... ...
Responsible agencies may be better able to identify alternatives that will have widespread support. If the parties involved work through a decision framework and arrive at, for example, a mutually acceptable long-term strategy for flood risk and sediment management, then each party, based on its exiting authorities and responsibilities, is more likely to implement its parts of the strategy.
|
From page 215... ...
Recommendation: Engage in system-wide thinking when making deci sions about management objectives, approaches, and alternatives for the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system. Depending on the issues being considered, the system may include the Cowlitz River or extend beyond it.
|
From page 216... ...
At least some interested and affected parties attending the committee's public meetings, however, did view the Spirit Lake and Toutle River system as a whole and discussed potential system-wide solutions. It is important to have an early and explicit discussion with participants about the scope of the process.
|
From page 217... ...
Interactions with agency representatives and other interested and affected parties during the course of this study revealed a diverse set of views regarding appropriate planning time frames. While those asked during the meetings agreed with the need for long-term planning, their definitions of "long term" varied widely.
|
From page 218... ...
early in the process to carry out the bulk of decision process tasks while the USFS maintains the administrative lead of the process. The expertise contained within the neutral support team could be augmented with expertise found locally: for example, that within agencies such as the USACE and the NMFS.
|
From page 219... ...
These will participate in value-based discussions. Different USACE staff might contribute to the neutral support team, providing unbiased technical assistance to the group of interested and affected parties as deliberations proceed.
|
From page 220... ...
Early on in the process, the decision participants described in Box 6.2 will need to consider time frames associated with the decision process itself (i.e., the time needed to gather necessary information) ; time frames associated with different natural hazards and processes; and time frames asso iated with c infrastructure life cycles.
|
From page 221... ...
• Disturbances "resetting" the system. Establishing planning horizons around the return frequencies of disruptive events large enough to completely "reset" the physical landscape may be appropriate in the Spirit Lake and Toutle River region.
|
From page 222... ...
Chapter 7 discusses the next steps of the decision process, which include identifying and choosing among the various priorities and objectives of interested and affected parties and the generation of potential sets of alternative actions.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.