Applied Science, Faculty of
Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of
DSpace
UBCV
Tyler, John Dawes
Master of Science in Planning - MSc (Plan)
University of British Columbia
Watershed restoration has in recent years received a great deal of attention from policy makers and other stakeholders in British Columbia. Two hundred twenty seven watershed restoration projects were approved for funding by Forest Renewal British Columbia during the 1995-1996 fiscal year, with an approved budget of $22.2 million dollars. Despite this attention, there is no clear agreement on what watershed restoration is or how it should be evaluated. There is a pressing need for a watershed restoration evaluation process to be developed and implemented at the program level. The purpose of this research is to develop an evaluative framework for watershed restoration initiatives generally, and apply it to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project as a means of testing and improving the framework. In the process an evaluation of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is conducted. The methods used to conduct this research included: (1) a comprehensive review of project reports, proposals and other relevant literature, (2) the design and application of a structured evaluative framework and (3) informational interviews with individuals representing legitimate interests in the case study. The evaluative framework appeared to be successful at measuring the performance of the case study, and may have great potential as a program evaluation tool. Application of this evaluative framework to other watershed restoration initiatives may help advance the goals of ecological restoration and sustainable development through investment in natural capital. It is recommended that future initiatives could benefit by: • Utilizing an ecosystem approach to natural resource management, one that emphasizes investment in natural capital, the establishment and maintenance of self sustaining social and ecological systems. • Utilizing a commonly recognized definition of ecological restoration, as promoting: (1) ecologically and socially desirable ecosystem values; (2) identifies functional and structural elements essential to self-sustaining systems; (3) facilitation of ecosystem recovery. • Applying the principles of decision analysis, and the use of the fundamental objectives that have been developed as a part of this work throughout the different phases of the project. • Incorporating the principles and practice of Adaptive Management. • Incorporating a collaborative approach to problem solving and, decision making when appropriate.
7861531 bytes
application/pdf
AN EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVES, AS APPLIED TO THE SQUAMISH RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT by John Dawes Tyler M.Sc. University Of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, 1995 B.Sc. Lewis and Clark College, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES SCHOOL OF C O M M U N I T Y A N D REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standards T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A March, 1997 © John Dawes Tyler ( / fpr In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Watershed restoration has in recent years received a great deal of attention from policy makers and other stakeholders in British Columbia. Two hundred twenty seven watershed restoration projects were approved for funding by Forest Renewal British Columbia during the 1995-1996 fiscal year, with an approved budget of $22.2 million dollars. Despite this attention, there is no clear agreement on what watershed restoration is or how it should be evaluated. There is a pressing need for a watershed restoration evaluation process to be developed and implemented at the program level. The purpose of this research is to develop an evaluative framework for watershed restoration initiatives generally, and apply it to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project as a means of testing and improving the framework. In the process an evaluation of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is conducted. The methods used to conduct this research included: (1) a comprehensive review of project reports, proposals and other relevant literature, (2) the design and application of a structured evaluative framework and (3) informational interviews with individuals representing legitimate interests in the case study. The evaluative framework appeared to be successful at measuring the performance of the case study, and may have great potential as a program evaluation tool. Application of this evaluative framework to other watershed restoration initiatives may help advance the goals of ecological restoration and sustainable development through investment in natural capital. It is recommended that future initiatives could benefit by: • Utilizing an ecosystem approach to natural resource management, one that emphasizes investment in natural capital, the establishment and maintenance of self sustaining social and ecological systems. • Utilizing a commonly recognized definition of ecological restoration, as promoting: (1) ecologically and socially desirable ecosystem values; (2) identifies functional and structural elements essential to self-sustaining systems; (3) facilitation of ecosystem recovery. • Applying the principles of decision analysis, and the use of the fundamental objectives that have been developed as a part of this work throughout the different phases of the project. • Incorporating the principles and practice of Adaptive Management. • Incorporating a collaborative approach to problem solving and, decision making when appropriate. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS A B S T R A C T T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S LIST O F F I G U R E S LIST O F T A B L E S A P P E N D I C E S C H A P T E R 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Context 1 1.2 Investing In Natural Capital 2 1.3 Thesis Research Question 3 1.3.1 Problem Statement 3 1.3.2 Research Question 3 1.4 Brief Description of Methods 4 1.5 Organization Of The Thesis 5 C H A P T E R 2: Developing A Framework For Evaluating Watershed Restoration 6 2.1 Context 6 .2.2 Clarifying Basic Concepts Of Watershed Restoration 6 2.3 Watershed Restoration Techniques And Procedures 8 2.4 Decision Analysis 11 iii 2.5 Program Evaluation 12 2.6 Structuring Objectives 13 2.7 Creating Alternatives 20 2.8 Evaluating The Alternatives 23 2.9 Developing Measures 23 2.10 Substantive Objectives 24 2.10.1 Substantive Objective #1: Promotes Ecological Health. 24 2.10.2 Substantive Objective #2: Is Cost Effective. 29 2.10.3 Substantive Objective #3: Promotes Adaptive Management. 31 2.10.4 Substantive Objective #4: Increases Benefits To Resource Users. 32 2.10.5 Substantive Objective #5: Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property. 33 2.10.6 Substantive Objective #6: Promotes Human Resource Development. 35 2.11 Procedural Objectives 35 2.11.1 Procedural Objective #1: Promotes A Planning Framework. 36 2.11.2 Procedural Objective #2: Promotes A Decision Making Framework. 39 2.11.3 Procedural Objective #3: Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests. 41 2.11.4 Procedural Objective #4: Values Equity And Fairness. 42 2.11.5 Procedural Objective #5: Is Respectful. 43 2.11.6 Procedural Objective #6: Uses, Knowledge, Local And Scientific Effectively. 43 2.11.7 Procedural Objective #7: Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures. 44 2.12 Conclusion 46 iv CHAPTER 3: Case Study: The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project 48 3.1 Context 48 3.2 Description Of The Watershed Restoration Program In British Columbia 48 3.3 The Squamish River Watershed 51 3.3.1 Trends in Abundance of Fish Populations Over the Last 20-50 Years 54 3.4 The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project 55 3.4.1 Sharing The Vision, By Touring The Watershed 57 3.4.2 The Squamish River Habitat Task Force 58 3.4.3 Funding 60 3.4.4 Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation 61 3.4.5 Completed Projects Of The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project 62 CHAPTER 4: Methods 66 4.1 Context 66 4.2 Interview Process 66 4.2.1 Respondents 67 4.2.2 Instrument Design 67 4.2.3 Substantive Fundamental Objective Interview Questions 68 4.2.3.1 Scales 69 4.2.4 Procedural Fundamental Objective Interview Questions 70 CHAPTER 5: Results 71 5.1 Introduction 71 5.2 Detailed Results Of The Substantive Objectives 74 5.2.1 Substantive Objective #1: Promotes Ecological Health 74 5.2.1.1 Biodiversity 74 v 5.2.1.2 Productivity 75 5.2.1.3 Amount Of Habitat 76 5.2.1.4 Overview Of Ecological Health Results 78 5.2.2 Substantive Objective #2: Is Cost Effective 78 5.2.3 Substantive Objective #3: Promotes Adaptive Management 79 5.2.4 Substantive Objective #4: Increases Benefits To Resource Users 81 5.2.4.1 Total Number Of Salmonids Returning To The Watershed 81 5.2.4.2 Quality Of The Sport Fishing Experience 82 5.2.4.3 Industrial Forestry Activity 83 5.2.4.4 Impacts To Wildlife 84 5.2.4.5 Overview Of Benefits To Resource Users Results 85 5.2.5 Substantive Objective #5: Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property 86 5.2.6 Substantive Objective #6: Promotes Human Resource Development 88 5.2.6.1 Participants In Training Programs 89 5.2.6.2 Number Of Jobs Created 90 5.3 Detailed Results Of Procedural Objectives 90 5.3.1 Procedural Objective #1: Promotes A Planning Framework 90 5.3.2 Procedural Objective #2: Promotes A Decision Making Framework 91 5.3.3 Procedural Objective #3: Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests 92 5.3.4 Procedural Objective #4: Values Equity And Fairness 94 5.3.5 Procedural Objective #5: Is Respectful 94 5.3.6 Procedural Objective #6: Uses Knowledge, Local And Scientific Effectively 95 5.3.7 Procedural Objective #7: Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures 96 5.4 General Conclusions 97 vi C H A P T E R 6: Evaluative Framework Assessment 98 6.1 Intorduction 98 6.2 Assessment Of The Evaluative Framework Performance 98 6.2.1 Promotes Ecological Health 98 6.2.2 Is Cost Effective 99 6.2.3 Promotes Adaptive Management 101 6.2.4 Increases Benefits To Resource Users 102 6.2.5 Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property 103 6.2.6 Promotes Human Resource Development 104 6.2.7 Promotes A Planning Framework 105 6.2.8 Promotes A Decision Making Framework 106 6.2.9 Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests 106 6.2.10 Values Equity And Fairness 107 6.2.11 Is Respectful 107 6.2.12 Uses Knowledge, Local And Scientific Effectively 107 6.2.13 Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures 108 6.3. General Discussion Of Evalautive Framework Performance 109 6.4 Recommendations For Improving The Evaluative Framework 111 6.4.1 Promotes Ecological Health 111 6.4.2 Is Cost Effective 112 6.4.3 Promotes Adaptive Management 113 6.4.4 Promotes Human Resource Development 113 6.4.5 Promotes A Decision Making Framework 114 6.4.6 Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests 115 6.4.7 Values Equity And Fairness And Is Respectful 115 6.4.8 Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures 115 vii C H A P T E R 7: Discussion And Recommendations 117 7.1 Introduction 117 7.2 Discussion Of Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project Results 117 7.3 Recommendations For The General Application Of The Research Findings 120 7.3.1 Ecosystem Approach To Natural Resource Management 121 7.3.2 A Common Definition Of Ecological Restoration As A Starting Point 122 7.3.3 The Application Of Decision Analysis As A Guiding Principle 123 7.3.4 Incorporate Adaptive Management 124 7.3.5 Collaboration Of Legitimate Interests In The Process 125 B I B L I O G R A P H Y 126 A P P E N D I X ( 135 MffJW 2- 111 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure #1: The Three Stage Process Of Structuring Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program. 16 Figure #2.1: Substantive Fundamental Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program. 18 Figure #2.2: Procedural Fundamental Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program. 19 Figure #3: Means Objectives Diagram, Fundamental And Means Objectives Of A Watershed Restoration Program. 21 Figure #4: Influence Diagram. 22 Figure #5: The Relationship Between The Procedural Objectives Of A Watershed Restoration Program. 38 Figure #6: Map Of The Squamish River And The Tributaries. 52 Figure #7: Shovelnose Creek Habitat Restoration. 65 Figure #8.1: Informational Interview Results, Objectives By Alternatives Matrix 72 Figure #8.2: Informational Interview Results, Objectives By Alternatives Matrix 73 ix LIST OF TABLES Table #1: The Watershed Restoration Program Of British Columbia: Program Goals And Program Objectives. 15 Table #2: The Current Principles For Funding Under The Forest Renewal British Columbia. 46-7 Table #3: Salmonids Inhabiting The Squamish River And Its Tributaries. 54 Table #4: Stakeholders. 59 Table #5.1: Rules Of Engagement. 60 Table #5.2: Objectives Of The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 60 Table #6: Phases Of The Shop Creek Project. 63 Table #7: Activities Designed To Rehabilitate Shovelnose Creek. 64 Table #8: Rules Of Engagement. 91 Table #9: Summary Results Of The Evaluative Framework Application Assessment. 100 Table #10: The Seven Pillars Of Ecosystem Management 122 Table #11: Definition Of Ecological Restoration. 123 x A P P E N D I C E S Appendix #1: Structured Informational Interview Questions: An Evaluative Framework For The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 135 Appendix #2: Structured Informational Interviews. Informational Interviews. And Telephone Correspondence: 144 Structured Informational Interviews. 144 Informational Interviews And Telephone Correspondence, Listed Chronologically. 145 xi C H A P T E R 1: Introduction. 1.1 Context: Watershed restoration is a form of ecological restoration. Here in British Columbia, watershed restoration activities are considered by the lead funding agency, Forest Renewal British Columbia as land based activities most often concerned with rehabilitating damaged fisheries habitat It is anticipated that watershed restoration activities may help restore depleted populations of fish, primarily salmonids, to levels that better approximate historic conditions. Two hundred twenty seven watershed restoration projects were approved for funding by Forest Renewal British Columbia under the Watershed Restoration Program during the 1995-1996 fiscal year. The approved budget for these activities was $22.2 million dollars, although only $12.7 million was actually spent during this time period (pers. com., L . Palou, Nov. 25 t h , 1996). In recent years watershed restoration has received a great deal of attention from policy makers and other stakeholders in British Columbia. The ecological consequences of decades of resource extraction, that has consisted primarily of forest harvesting, are not fully understood. There is a growing recognition that in order to be good stewards of water resources and the ecosystems they support, it will be necessary to better understand the interactive ecological processes at the watershed scale. And, accordingly, to develop new perspectives for watershed management. These perspectives should balance long-term ecological, economic and social stability with cumulative environmental change. "As a result of increasingly severe environmental and social disturbances, the people of the Pacific Northwest are gradually realizing that a grand experiment involving the entire region inadvertently has been set into motion without the means to monitor the results or alter the outcome" (Naiman, 1992). There is no clear agreement on what watershed restoration is or how it should be evaluated. Despite these uncertainties, watershed restoration initiatives, designed to repair, rehabilitate, mitigate and compensate for past damages have been initiated. 1 Even though the Watershed Restoration Program has been operational since 1994, there is still no clearly identifiable means of evaluating these efforts, and only a vague indication that these projects and the program may be achieving their goals. There is an obvious need for an evaluation and monitoring process to be developed and implemented at the program level to assist the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia as it strives to achieve the best results possible, and continues to develop over time. 1.2 Investing In Natural Capital: Underlying watershed restoration is the theory of sustainable development. It is defined as development that would "ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Natural capital investment is an important and practical means of moving towards the goals of sustainable development. There are at least two ways of investing in natural capital. One is through the protection and preservation of pristine wilderness areas that have not been impacted by human endeavor. The other is through the process of ecological restoration, a form of natural capital investment that is aimed at speeding the process of recovery in areas that have been impacted by human activity. Many ecologists consider the practice of ecological restoration to be the definitive benchmark for the success of the applied science of ecology. It has been suggested "that the purpose of ecological restoration is to provide society with many of the sustainable benefits produced by a restored ecosystem more quickly than would be possible under a natural recovery process" (Wyant, et. al. 1995). Because this is an emerging field, the definitions, standards and techniques of ecological restoration continue to evolve over time. A critical element of natural capital investment is watershed restoration. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding what is meant by watershed restoration, what it is trying to achieve and how it should be evaluated. Developing an evaluative framework for watershed restoration would provide useful information and insight. Gaining a better understanding of 2 how watershed restoration initiatives perform, will also provide meaningful information for expanding the current state of knowledge regarding natural capital investment. The results of this research could eventually be beneficial to many different disciplines and fields of study. 1.3 Thesis Research Questions: The purpose of this thesis is twofold. The first purpose is to develop an evaluative framework for watershed restoration initiatives based on relevant information found in the literature, previous experiences and the opinions of informed individuals. The second purpose is to apply this framework to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project as a means of testing and improving the framework. In the process an assessment is made of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project has been selected as a case study for this research because it is one of the most established of its kind in British Columbia with a substantial history for evaluative purposes. The Squamish River Habitat Task Force is the organization that is responsible for the creation and implementation of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The following problem statement and research question define the scope and scale of this research. It is anticipated that this work will help to establish practical and effective ways of conducting successful watershed restoration projects and programs in British Columbia and across North America activities using the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project as a case study and an example. 1.3.1 Problem Statement: Watershed restoration programs and projects are being implemented without clearly defined criteria to evaluate these efforts. 1.3.2 Research Question: What are the most appropriate criteria for evaluating the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project? 3 This research will evaluate The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project at a program level to determine if it has been able to achieve the goals and objectives it established for itself. The methods, techniques and procedures used by the Squamish River Habitat Task Force, will be compared to the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration project as identified in the conceptual and analytical framework that was created to conduct this research. The results of this analysis will indicate how the work that has been done on the Squamish relates to the ideas, concepts and procedures as identified in the conceptual and analytical framework. 1.4 Brief Description of Methods: Qualitative research incorporates an array of research methods and techniques in an attempt to produce meaningful results and useful insights. However, the discipline, or field of qualitative research is one that continues to evolve over time. "The combination of multiple methods, empirical materials, perspectives and observers in a single study is best understood, then, as a strategy that adds rigor, breadth, and depth to any investigation" (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). The qualitative researcher recognizes that "objective reality can never be captured" (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). The choice of research methods and practices depends upon the questions that will be asked, and the context within which they will be presented. In general there are three interconnected activities that define the research process, they are: theory, method and analysis. Specifically, the researcher approaches the research topic with a set of ideas, and a theory or conceptual framework that specifies or defines a set of questions that are applied to the research topic. Finally the material that is gathered is analyzed and written about. A variety of techniques and approaches can be combined in a single study. The methods that have been selected for this research are a program evaluation, a comprehensive literature review, informational interviews and discussions with knowledgeable and informed individuals, as well as a review of project and program proposals, progress reports, 4 unpublished records and other relevant sources of information and data when and where these were available. Informational interviews were used as a means of clarifying the fundamental objectives of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project because the important objectives in any planning context should reflect the underlying values of those making the decisions, as well as those affected by them. "The best way to begin clarifying objectives for a decision or planning process is through discussion. By asking individuals what is important from their perspective, in making the decision at hand, it is possible to build a composite of the full range of relevant values. These values can be structured into an objectives hierarchy (which specifies what the various fundamental objectives mean) and an objectives network (which separates the fundamental ends to be achieved from the means available for achieving them)" (Keeney, R.L. and T. McDaniels, 1994). A fundamental objective of this research is to compare the values and objectives of individuals representing legitimate interests in the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project with the fundamental objectives identified by the water resource specialists involved with this research. Both the substantive and procedural aspects of the case study and the fundamental objectives of the water resource specialists will be compared. Differences in the sets of objectives will provide the basis for evaluating the case study. 1.5 Organization Of The Thesis: This thesis is presented in six chapters. They are: Chapter 1: Introduction. Chapter 2: Developing A Framework For Evaluating Watershed Restoration. Chapter 3: Case Study: The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Chapter 4: Methods. Chapter 5: Results. Chapter 6: Evaluative Framework Assessment. Chapter 7: Discussion And Recommendations. 5 Chapter 2: Developing A Framework For Evaluating Watershed Restoration. 2.1 Context: Evaluation of any program or activity always begins with the question "as compared to what?", so the evaluation process must first establish the basic objectives or criteria that an activity is intended to achieve, and then compare the process of getting there to accepted or at least different benchmarks. This approach is often referred to as the conceptual framework. This chapter develops a conceptual framework for watershed restoration generally. It also draws on accepted approaches of program evaluation and other related literatures. The product of this chapter will be an evaluative framework that will later be applied to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study. This chapter begins by clarifying the basic concepts of watershed restoration. This is followed by sections on program evaluation, structuring objectives, creating alternatives, evaluating alternatives, creating measures for the objectives and finally ends with a conclusion that summarizes the main findings of this chapter. 2.2 Clarifying Basic Concepts Of Watershed Restoration: Three key terms relevant to this research are: watershed, ecological restoration, and watershed restoration. Watershed: Watershed is a surface that sheds water ... a topographic divide that sheds water into two or more drainage basins. Drainage basin is a watershed that collects and discharges surface streamflow through one outlet or mouth (Hewlett, 1982). A watershed is a distinct and specific geographic area. The boundaries of a watershed are defined by a topographic divide. For the purposes of this research, a watershed also includes the ecosystems, any creatures, including humans that reside in or require the use of this specific area during any segment of their life cycle. The ecosystem for instance, could 6 include salmon, bear, deer, mountain goat, raptors and other wildlife that might reside in or rely upon the geographic region that is defined by the boundaries of the watershed. The field of ecological restoration has been developing for many decades, and as a result, the definition of "ecological restoration" has been evolving as it strives to encompass the changes occurring in the discipline. Early restoration efforts concentrated on reclaiming lands that had been impacted by human activities, primarily logging and mining by converting them from a disturbed state to a restored one, based on historical vegetation (Berger, 1990). Many of the current definitions of ecological restoration also imply a return to a historical state or condition. Ecological restoration theory recognizes that the "historical state" is not a static condition, because "an equilibrium state does not occur in nature and the selection of a specific historical condition is not necessarily desirable or even an achievable goal for ecological restoration" (Wyant, et. al, 1995). A comprehensive definition of ecological restoration that will be used for the purpose of this research is: Ecological Restoration: "Ecological restoration includes: (1) the identification of ecologically and socially desirable ecosystem values, goods and services as determined through a number of scientific and public-input mechanisms; (2) identification of the functional and structural elements essential to a self-sustaining system that will provide those values; and finally, (3) facilitation of ecosystem recovery to a self-sustaining state by manipulation of the physical, biological, chemical and even social or cultural elements of the system" (Wyant, et. al. 1995). Another purpose of ecological restoration is to provide society with the many sustainable benefits produced by a restored ecosystem more quickly than would be possible under a natural recovery process. Watershed restoration is a form of ecological restoration that is specific to the area defined by a watershed. Accordingly, for the purposes of this research watershed restoration is defined as: Watershed Restoration: The application of ecological restoration techniques, procedures and practices to the geographic location defined by the watershed boundaries. 7 2.3 Watershed Restoration Techniques And Procedures: As the field of restoration science continues to evolve over time, the available knowledge regarding the factors that contribute to the survival and health of Pacific salmon stocks continues to grow and shape the design and application of restoration procedures and techniques. This section presents a brief overview of watershed restoration techniques that have been designed and applied to streams, rivers and watersheds that host populations of anadromous Pacific salmon, salmonids and other species of native fish. As wildlife management established as a science, the manipulation of habitat was one of the last techniques to be recognized and developed as an important tool for the wildlife manager. The techniques for modifying and rehabilitating damaged habitat have been in use by wildlife, fisheries and resource managers for over 50 years. These techniques have been applied across the continent of North America, but they have been applied in a relatively small degree to the habitat and management of Pacific salmon and other anadromous stocks within this region (Reeves, et. al, 1991). Even though large programs of stream rehabilitation and watershed restoration have been implemented, many of the techniques and procedures that have been employed have not been evaluated or proven to be effective. "We find little evidence of increased abundances of salmonids associated with these massive expenditures" (Reeves, et. al, 1991). It is widely recognized that the most successful method of watershed restoration and rehabilitation is protection. Protection is less expensive and more successful than restoration activities. The ecosystem approach to watershed restoration also suggests that stream rehabilitation programs and projects will not be effective unless the watershed is protected (Reeves, et. al, 1991). Ecosystem management plans without ecosystem reserves are ones that fail to address what is know about the state of the environment and current management capabilities (Stanley, 1995). One of the goals of resource managers and restorationists should be to protect and maintain the integrity of instream habitat and streamside zones. It is important to recognize that restoration techniques and practices cannot be relied on to 8 mitigate poor management practices. Preventing degradation before it happens, alleviates the need for restoration activities in the future should be the mantra of the restorationist and resource manager alike. Significant factors that contribute to the survival and reproductive success of these fish are water conditions and suitable habitat. "Care must be taken to identify aspects of habitat that limit production, and attention must be focused on improving those elements. The timing of life history events is also an important consideration. Increasing the quantity and quality of some aspects of habitat that limits the abundance of fry will generally be of little use if a critical shortage of cover or some other resource occurs at a later stage in the life cycle" (Reeves, et. al, 1991). Habitat requirements for fish can be found in areas both instream and in the riparian zone that borders the stream channel. Restoration techniques and practices have been designed to manage and modify these areas. Large Woody Debris (LWD) is probably the single most important factor governing stream diversity in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwestern in the United States because it helps to decrease water velocity and promotes the development of pools (Beschta and Platts, 1986). In a coastal Oregon study, Robert House and others (1991) found that the reintroduction of LWD into stream channels increased the pool and off-channel habitat that should increase the conditions for anadromous salmonids. Many restoration techniques center around instream structures or as in the study cited from Oregon the placement of LWD within the stream channel. Other methods include creating or building structures that modify channel flow in an attempt to manipulate the conditions in and around the stream channel in an attempt to increase the productive of the habitat. Popular methods for this include the use of natural materials such as root wads, trees, rocks and boulders that are strategically arranged as well as the construction of gabions and weirs designed to modify habitat. Primary to the health and survival of salmonids and other native fish is the availability of a constant supply of clean, cold and oxygen enriched water. Without this vital component, fish cannot survive. Although the criteria for adequate or suitable water supplies 9 for fish survival differs between species, in general clean water that has a low temperature and contains adequate amounts of dissolved oxygen are necessary for all fish to survive, grow and develop (Brown, 1991). A major factor contributing to reduced water quality can be the introduction of sediment or other suspended solids. Road building activities are identified as a major sediment source for many of the watersheds in British Columbia and other areas where industrial forestry or mining require that extensive road systems be built to access the resources. Stabilizing roads is a means of stabilizing and restoring fish habitat because in many cases it can reduce the input of sediment to water courses (Harr and Nichols, 1993). Sediment can adversely affect many components of the ecological cycle that are needed to create favorable fisheries habitat. Gravel found in streams plays an important role in the life cycle of the salmonid. It is necessary for successful spawning and rearing because salmon require clean gravel of a particular size for establishing their "redd". The redd is the nest where the female salmon deposits her eggs. The male salmon fertilizes the eggs, and then they are covered with gravel for the purposes of protecting them from predators and to keeping them from washing downstream. It is important to maintain a flow of water through the redd during incubation because this allows for the removal of waste matter produced by the embryos. When the salmon fry hatch and emerge from the gravel as free swimming juveniles, they need to have access through the gravel in order to make their ascent to the mainstream channel. In some areas where salmon populations have been negatively impacted by sedimentation, restoring the gravel by cleaning it has lead to significant increases in the size of salmon populations. This is a direct result of greater availability of suitable spawning and rearing habitat (Reeves, et. al, 1991). Other techniques that have been employed in coastal British Columbia to restore and modify fisheries habitat have been the development of off-channel habitat. In some cases off-channel habitat has been created by creating side channels that are groundwater-fed (Bonnel, 1991). This study suggests that groundwater channels constructed in British Columbia 10 provide a more stable environment for spawning and rearing salmonids than surface flow. The construction of the side channels lead to an increase in Chum salmon populations within the study area. Although there have been a multitude of habitat restoration projects that have been designed and implemented to improve the productive capacity of areas that have been impacted by human behaviors and activities, there is still controversy regarding the effectiveness of these projects. "Large and costly projects continue to be planned and implemented by federal and state agencies with little or no analysis of their effectiveness" (Frissell and Nawa, 1992). Despite the controversy regarding the effectiveness of restoration efforts and specifically restoration techniques and procedures the trend of increasing numbers of restoration activities, projects and programs continues. 2.4 Decision Analysis: The analytical approach that has been chosen for this research is a form of multiple objectives analysis, or "decision analysis". Watershed restoration activities invariably involve complicated issues with conflicting or contradictory objectives as well as a high degree of uncertainty. The term "decision analysis" refers to a conceptual framework and a set of applied procedures that have been developed to gain insight into complex decision problems (Raiffa, 1968; McDaniels, 1992). The process of decision analysis includes: 1) Identifying and structuring objectives 2) Creating alternatives 3) Estimating the impacts of each alternative 4) Clarifying the trade-offs associated with each alternative 5) Evaluating the alternatives Decision analysis is used in this work as a decision framework. It is not a theory, nor does it provide predictions. It is merely a way of organizing information. There are many applications of decision analysis and several guidebooks are available on this subject (Keeney, 1992; von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986). The decision framework can be used to 11 determine where information is lacking, and can assist in identifying where and whether or not further research and information is needed. 2.5 Program Evaluation: Program evaluation is the process of generating information used to describe what a program is doing and how well it is doing it. At the beginning of any program evaluation it is crucial to isolate what the program is attempting to accomplish and how it is proposed to accomplish it. The evaluator must then gather relevant information on the program, analyze and interpret this information in a reasonable, objective and thorough fashion (Krause, 1996). Program evaluation provides accountability because when appropriate procedures are properly applied, it becomes possible to discern what steps have been successfully taken to further the goals and objectives of a particular program. In this manner, the actions can be judged and the responsible party identified. It should be noted that not all programs will have tangible results, at least not in the generally accepted use of the term. In these cases it can be difficult to assess the program. For example, a program that has been implemented with the objective of ensuring environmental health or increasing biological integrity can be very difficult to analyze because the end products of those types of programs are intangible and may not easily lend themselves to being measured from a traditional or practical perspective. The results of a program evaluation are ultimately a critique of an individuals or of an organizations efforts, because it provides practical information on how to identify activities that are inefficient, redundant or impractical. An example could be the identification of critical gaps in data. Once identified, this problem could be rectified, allowing scarce resources to be put to better use. At the same time the results of program evaluation may help identify new techniques or methods that could prove to be useful. There are three underlying principles of any program evaluation that should be emphasized. They are: 1) A program evaluation involves human beings and human interactions. This means that explanations will rarely be simple, and interpretations cannot often be conclusive. 12 2) The primary purpose of a program evaluation is to isolate the effects of a given programs activities. This means that evaluators should not extend their analysis in too many directions. 3) A social program is only part of an individual's social life. A program may have many effects, but it is not the only or seldom even the most important influence in an individuals life (Krause, 1996). There are two types of program evaluations; exante and expost. An exante evaluation takes place during the planning phase of a project or program to evaluate how effective the program will be at achieving its goals. This is a proactive approach to identifying potential problems and predicting how a program will perform based on the selection of planning methods, techniques and procedures. An expost evaluation is retrospective, focusing on events that have already taken place. Using evaluation questions, the basic steps of the decision making and planning process can be critiqued by applying the expost program evaluation framework. This research will utilize the expost program evaluation method to evaluate the progress of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The evaluation will be used to determine how effective the project has been at achieving its established goals, and to evaluate the different stages of the original planning process. The evaluation will focus on a comparison between the accomplishments of this program and the scenario of taking no actions to help accelerate the repair, rehabilitation and remediation of the impacted areas and ecosystems within the Squamish River Watershed. Both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the case study will be analyzed. 2.6 Structuring Objectives: Identifying and structuring objectives is an important step in any planning and decision making process. Often times it is not awarded the attention it deserves. Values provide the foundation for interest in any decision making situation, and identifying objectives is an effective means of getting people to express their values (Keeney, 1992). Getting people to identify objectives provides an opportunity to better understand what they 13 care about. Structuring objectives refers to the process of identifying the fundamental ends that are important in any decision making context (McDaniels, 1992). 1) Objectives provide a basis for evaluating potential options; 2) Objectives provide the basis for developing innovative new strategies that are more attractive than the conventional alternatives; 3) Objectives provide a basis forjudging what information is needed to do a thorough, responsible analysis of the potential options (Keeney, 1992). Structuring objectives in an environmental decision making context can be challenging. There are many complex systems such as, ecological, social and jurisdictional systems that must be adequately addressed. The inherent lack of information and knowledge regarding many of these systems creates uncertainty. Environmental issues usually involve a wide range of values and these can be contradictory. All of these variables combine to complicate the objective setting and decision making process. It is extremely difficult to make decisions that are ecologically sound, meet with public approval, and last. Incorporating a comprehensive approach to structuring objectives and applying the principles of decision analysis, can be one means of ensuring that a high standard of quality decisions are made. The importance of ecological restoration is evident in the spectrum of social, scientific, and legislative mandates to recover sustainable production of the natural goods and services from ecological systems. However, deciding among the myriad choices of restoration goals remains problematic. Weighing alternatives and ultimately choosing among trade-offs is fundamental to the process of goal-setting for ecological restoration in a pluralistic society (Wyant, et. al. 1995). The process of structuring objectives of an effective watershed restoration program for the purposes of this research was divided into three phases. First, relevant information and literature were identified and reviewed. Second, a brainstorming exercise involving three water resource specialists from the University of British Columbia was conducted. And finally stakeholders who were knowledgeable and informed about watershed restoration 14 initiatives and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project were identified and interviewed. The results of these activities resulted in a list of fundamental objectives for an effective watershed restoration program (see Figure #1). The Program Goals and Program Objectives of the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia, (see Table #1) provide one of the more relevant sources of information regarding the goals of watershed initiatives in a British Columbian context. They describe what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to achieve it. This information was identified during the literature review. Table #1; Watershed Restoration Program Of British Columbia: Program Goals: • restore, protect, and maintain fisheries, aquatic, and forest resources adversely affected by forest harvesting practices, that, without intervention, would require decades to recover naturally • bring areas harvested under previous (pre-Forest Practices Code) standards up to Forest Practices Code standards • provide community-based employment, training, and stewardship opportunities throughout the province (FRBC, 1995). Program Objectives: • restoring and protecting fisheries, aquatic and forest resources in watersheds through partnerships with the forest industry, aboriginal organizations, other government agencies and community based groups, by implementing assessments, prescriptions and rehabilitation measures; • restoring, maintaining and enhancing habitats that contribute to fresh and saltwater sport, commercial and aboriginal fisheries values, in cooperation with fisheries management agencies; and, • providing province-wide demonstration watershed restoration projects for training workers, and that advance the concepts of protection and prevention of theFPC (Forest Practices Code) (WRP, 1994). More information regarding the institutional context of watershed management in British Columbia and the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia will be presented in the next chapter. The Program Goals and Program Objectives of the Watershed Restoration Program influenced the formation of the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration program that were created as an evaluative tool for the this research. 15 Figure #1: The Three Stage Process Of Structuring Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program. S t a g e # 1 : S t a g e # 2 : Identify and review relevant literature on watershed restoration and other related topics. This included the Program Goals and Program Objectives of the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia. Brainstorming exercise with "The Three Wise Men" Anthony Dorcey, Scott Hinch, Timothy McDaniels and the researcher John Tyler. S t a g e # 3 : Informational interviews with knowledgeable and informed individuals. The interviews helped to qualify stages #1 and #2 as well as providing new information. "The Fundamental Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program" (see Figures #2.1 and #2.2) 16 watershed restoration program that are set forth in this research. The second step in structuring the objectives was a brainstorming exercise involving three water resource specialists from the University of British Columbia. During the brainstorming exercise, the participants provided their opinions on what should be included in an effective watershed restoration program. The result was the identification of nine fundamental objectives representing two subject areas including substantive and procedural objectives. Other interviews were conducted both in person and over the telephone with additional knowledgeable individuals. These included Bruce Ward, a Fisheries Research Scientist with the Provincial Fisheries Branch; Brian Klassen, Project Manager of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project; and finally Scott Hinch, Assistant Professor Westwater Research Centre and Fisheries Centre/Forest Sciences at the University of British Columbia. These interviews lasted anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour and a half. The interviewees were asked to provide their opinion on the following questions: 1) What factors are important when designing a watershed restoration program? What are the fundamental objectives? 2) What are watershed restoration projects trying to achieve? 3) What are some of the means of achieving these goals? The interviewees responses were recorded. When they felt that they had adequately addressed each of the questions, they were provided with the list of nine fundamental objectives created during the brainstorming exercise with the participants from the University of British Columbia. The interviewees were then asked if they had anything to add or subtract from the list. The results of these interviews led to an expansion of the original list of nine fundamental objectives to a total of thirteen. There are six substantive objectives, and seven procedural objectives (see Figure #2.1 and #2.2). The objectives are not listed in order of priority or importance. 17 Figure #2.1: Substantive Fundamental Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program The overall substantive objective is to select the best possible Watershed Restoration Program. The best possible program is one that: 1) Promotes ecological health. diversity productivity integrity Through: employment training stewardship 2) Is cost effective. 3) Promotes Adaptive Management. 4) Increases benefits to resource users. economic - fish - timber - other, i.e. tourism non-economic - wildlife - tourism experience cultural - traditional - local/community - Provincial / National 5) Avoids adverse effects to private property. individuals organizations - First Nations - other, industry etc. government 6) Promotes human resource development. employment training stewardship 18 Figure #2.2: Procedural Fundamental Objectives Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program The overall procedural objective is to select the best possible process for watershed restoration initiatives. This is one that: 1) Promotes a planning framework that helps structure problems, define alternatives and weigh trade-offs before choosing a desirable course of action. 2) Promotes a cooperative decision making framework (i.e. principled negotiation, consensus or collaboration). 3) Represents a wide range of legitimate interests. 4) Values equity and fairness. 5) Is respectful. 6) Uses knowledge, local and scientific, effectively. 7) Is consistent with existing governance structures. - The Watershed Restoration Program Of British Columbia - Forest Renewal British Columbia 19 Next, these objectives were used to create a set of questions that were administered to informed and relevant stakeholders in the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project during structured informational interviews as a means of collecting information and data about the case study. There are two types of fundamental objectives that have been identified in this research, substantive and procedural. Substantive fundamental objectives identify issues that need to be addressed at a the program level. Procedural fundamental objectives define how and in what fashion these issues will be addressed. There are similarities between the substantive and procedural objectives and means and ends objectives. It is possible to have means and ends objectives for both the substantive and procedural objectives. Means objectives are the actions that a program intends to take in an effort to achieve the fundamental objectives. The ends objectives identify the goal that the means objectives intend to accomplish. Figure #3, the Means Objectives Diagram, Fundamental Objectives Of A Watershed Restoration Program displays the relationships between the substantive, procedural, fundamental and means objectives. Figure #4, an Influence Diagram shows the range of influences that contribute to the state of ecological health within a watershed. This diagram identifies three separate but interrelated categories of conditions and impacts that influence the ecological health of a watershed. These include: global environmental conditions, local environmental conditions, human and industrial impacts. Many complex factors influence the environmental health of a watershed. By reviewing this diagram the reader will get a better understanding of the intricate relationships and interdependencies between these different components. 2.7 Creating Alternatives: Focusing on the available alternatives is a common, but limited way of working through a decision problem. An alternative means of decision making is to identify values as the initial step in a decision making process, and use these values as a guide in creating 20 Figure #3: Means Objectives Diagram, Fundamental And Means Objectives Of A Watershed Restoration Program Means Objectives For Watershed Restoration Programs Funding for the implementation and completion of the project Increase Accountability Conservation and preservation of functioning ecosystems, and non-impacted areas Enforce existing and new regulations,codes, guidelines and standards 4 > I Minimize loss of existing environ-mental values Means Objectives For Watershed Restoration Planning Processess Promotes in-volvement of a diverse range of legitimate interests Adaptive Management policies designed as experiments Efficient Process, Proactive and Collaborative decision making and management Equity fairness between legitmate interets X Substantive Fundamental Objectives Select the best possible water-shed restoration program. This is one that: Promotes ecological health. ' Minimizes cost. • Promotes Adaptive Management. • Increases benefits to resource users. • Avoids adverse effects to private property owners. • Promotes human resource development. Procedural Fundamental Objectives Select the best possible process for watershed restoration initiatives. This is one that: Promotes a planning framework. Promotes a decision making framework. Represents a wide range of legitimate interests. Values equity and fairness. 1 Is respectful. 1 Uses knowledge, scientific and local effectively. 1 Is consistent with existing governement. 21 Figure iff 4: Influence Diagram "Geographic Location Of The Site Ecological Health Of A Watershed 22 alternatives that satisfy them. The application of "value-focused thinking" can significantly improve the decision making process (Keeney, 1992). There are two obvious alternatives that should be evaluated in any watershed restoration decision making context. The first alternative is that watershed restoration activities could be implemented in areas that have been impacted by human activities such as timber harvesting and resource extraction, to try and speed the process of recovery. The second alternative is to do nothing, and allow these areas to recover naturally over time without the application of restoration efforts. Using these two alternatives as a basis for comparison, it becomes possible to analyze the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project and the decisions that were made, in terms of restoration versus no restoration. 2.8 Evaluating The Alternatives: Relevant information is needed to evaluate alternatives if informed decisions are going to be made. The fundamental objectives that appear in Figure #2.1 and #2.2 help structure the socioeconomic, ecological and environmental objectives of an effective watershed restoration program in a manner that allows for them to be measured and explored in a meaningful and useful fashion. The risks and tradeoffs associated with each of the two alternatives in the Squamish River context, restoration activities versus no restoration activities need to be weighed appropriately. In the Squamish River context it is important to understand the potential consequence of the two alternatives, and the risks associated with each them. Presenting these risk and tradeoffs in a well defined manner, makes it easier to structure policy decisions and management interventions by properly weighing the tradeoffs associated with each alternative. 2.9 Developing Measures For Evaluation: It is important to develop measures for objectives that precisely communicate what the objectives mean. Measures provide a basis for determining whether the objectives are 23 being met. One way of obtaining measures for objectives is to ask people who are likely to be impacted by the results of a decision. They may be able to provide or suggest sensible ways of measuring and communicating the potential impacts of a given decision (Keeney, et. al, 1996). It may be easier to obtain measures for some objectives as compared to others. For example, measuring financial expenditures is a more straightforward process than measuring relative ecological health within a watershed. The specific measures for each of the fundamental objectives that have been selected for this research will be defined and validated in this next section of this chapter. Each of the objectives will be related to other work that has been done on similar topics or within relevant fields of study or disciplines. Based on the information that has been collected from these sources, criteria will be selected for the purpose of measuring and analyzing each of the fundamental objectives. The objectives will be researched in the order that they appear in Figure #2.1 and #2.2. There are six substantive objectives followed by seven procedural objectives. 2.10 Substantive Objectives: The overall substantive objective is to select the best possible Watershed Restoration Program. The best possible program is one that: 2.10.1 Substantive Objective #1: Promotes Ecological Health. Ecological health is difficult to define. It is a very broad topic involving a variety of complex issues. The attributes of ecological health are difficult to identify and measure. For the purposes of this research, it may be useful to incorporate an indirect or a proxy attribute to provide a relative measure of ecological health, the first substantive fundamental objective. The proxy attribute provides a value based on a perceived relationship with the fundamental objective. In this manner it provides a relative measure of the fundamental objective (Keeney, 1992). Recognizing that this research is specifically interested in how watershed 24 restoration efforts have impacted aquatic ecosystems (fisheries resources) located within the Squamish River watershed, measuring and evaluating aquatic ecosystem variables as proxy attributes may provide the best indication of how watershed restoration activities have influenced the relative ecological health of the watershed. For the purpose of this research, the terms diversity, productivity and integrity are defined as: Diversity: The number of different species, and their relative abundance, in an area. Diversity is a measure of the complexity of an ecosystem, and often an indication of its relative age. Newly established communities are often low in diversity; older more stable communities usually have higher diversity Art, 1993). Productivity: The rate of production, biomass created in a given area or ecosystem, over a specified period of time (Art, 1993). Integrity: The notion of ecosystem integrity is rooted in certain ecological concepts combined with certain sets of human values. The relevant normative goal of human-environment relationships is to seek and maintain integrity of a combined natural/cultural ecosystem which is an expression of both ecological understanding and an ethic that guides to search for proper relationships. A living system exhibits integrity if, when subjected to disturbance, it sustains an organizing self-correcting capability to recover toward an end-state that is normal and "good" for that system. End-states other than the pristine or naturally whole may be taken to be "normal and good" (Regier, 1993). Selecting an appropriate proxy attribute for measuring the health of an aquatic ecosystem can be a challenge. In this circumstance fish are an obvious candidate. Before selecting fish as the proxy attribute, it must be understood that there are many different species, and each can provide a different measure of ecological health because of the unique and individual characteristics of their life cycle and behavior. In general, salmonids are not the best indicator of ecosystem health because they are very resilient and migratory. Other 25 fish species may provide a more accurate indication of ecosystem health. For example, the Mountain whitefish that inhabits the Fraser River watershed spends its entire life within the same freshwater environment (Northcote and Burwash, 1991). These fish are constantly subjected to the changing conditions within a given watershed. Therefore they may provide a better indication of ecosystem health in comparison to salmonids at least for some dimensions of ecosystem health. Salmonids require suitable conditions for successful spawning and rearing within their freshwater environment. Therefore all other things remaining equal, they provide a good measure of ecosystem health trends within a watershed. In her 1994 publication, Willa Nehlsen argues that as a result of changing environmental conditions within the Columbia River watershed, the survival rate of many salmonids species has declined significantly. Many populations are threatened with, or have become extinct. These indicators represent a strong warning sign that the ecological conditions within the Columbia River watershed have changed dramatically in a short period of time, rendering them unsuitable for salmonid survival. Although there is a high degree of uncertainty on what effects human behavior have on salmonid survival, there seems to be a high correlation between salmon survival and the degree of human impact on the freshwater environment that these fish require. For example, early research indicates that temperature changes induce by logging were predominantly harmful to salmonids (Lantz, 1971). More recent findings, from Carnation Creek experiment on Vancouver Island in British Columbia suggest that under certain conditions changes occurring after logging, specifically temperature increases lead to accelerated development of coho salmon embryos, and earlier emergence of juveniles. Temperature increases also lead to a prolonged growing season for the young salmon, but increased the risk of downstream displacement during winter freshets (Hartman et. al, 1987: Holtby, 1988). Salmonids have very specific biological requirements that must be met throughout the different stages of their life cycle or they will not survive, it is for these reasons that salmonids have been selected as the proxy attribute for measuring ecological health for this 26 research. The spawning and rearing requirements of these fish are very specific, and even slight variation in environmental conditions can dramatically affect the success or failure of spawning and rearing (DFO, 1990). Most fish, especially salmonids are subjected to a variety of threats either through predation or environmental conditions that can affect their survival. Because salmon spend significant portions of their life in both fresh and saltwater environs this makes the task of determining what and how each of these threats influence salmon survival especially difficult. The migration of Pacific salmon encompasses many diverse ecosystems, extending hundreds to thousands of miles from their upriver spawning grounds and nursery areas to the rich pelagic pastures of the north Pacific Ocean. Restoring systems capable of sustaining healthy populations of Pacific salmon implies a restoration effort of unprecedented scale (Bottom, 1995). Most of the restoration activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project have centered on freshwater habitat manipulation and improvement, in an attempt to provide suitable spawning and rearing habitat. Without suitable freshwater habitat there is virtually no chance of salmon survival in the Squamish or any other river. It is difficult to determine if the instream efforts in the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project are having a positive impact on the salmonid populations because the number and magnitude of other influences exerted on salmonids throughout the different stages of their life cycle, make it virtually impossible to distinguish how or to what degree watershed restoration activities have affected their survival rate. However, there is no doubt that the salmons' freshwater environment must be suitable for salmon populations to survive. Adult salmon escapement may not be a realistic, predictable or reliable means of determining how watershed restoration activities have influenced salmonid survival. It has been demonstrated that the number of spawning salmon was an insensitive measure of changes in survival and production in an Alaskan watershed that had been extensively logged (Pella and Myren, 1974). It has been further documented that spawner-recruit relationships were also insensitive measures of large scale changes in salmon populations as a result of 27 water development projects (Resenbichler, 1989). A recent study using escapement data from the Cheakamus river, a main tributary of the Squamish River attempted to determine if greater instream flows would translate into healthier salmon populations. This computer modeling exercise was designed to use a number of components including habitat assessment, monitoring of juvenile salmonids and smolts, and the analysis of escapement data and juvenile population estimates. It was determined that the probability of detecting even a large response in adults was low. Depending on the simulation model that was selected, it would take 20 years to detect a doubling in carrying capacity 70% of the time using the first model, and 30 years based on the information provided by the second model. These results point to the need for a juvenile monitoring program to supplement the use of escapement data for detecting salmonid population responses to changes in instream flow (Korman, 1995). A more realistic measure for determining if watershed restoration activities are having an impact on salmon populations may be found in calculations of the change in opportunity for fish to spawn and rear as a result of restoration activities. It may be possible to determine how watershed restoration efforts have changed or influenced the opportunity of salmonids to successfully spawn and rear in the habitat that is available to them. Potential for fish production could be the best available measure for determining how watershed restoration activities are performing. By comparing the amount of high quality spawning and rearing habitat before and after the application of restoration procedures, the opportunity for successful spawning and rearing could be assessed. The amount of quality habitat that can be attributed to the actions of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project would provide the measure of how the opportunity for successful salmon production has changed. Nonetheless, measuring spawning and rearing habitat is a limited way of measuring ecological health, because it does not address many of the other significant factors that are recognized as significant contributors to the ecological health of a watershed and subsequent salmon survival. This technique has been chosen as a way to simplifying the task of 28 measuring a complex system because it provides an indicator of environmental change, not a comprehensive measure of the health of the ecosystem. There are other factors that could be mentioned that might invalidate this approach. For example, the introduction of hatchery fish into this river system could potentially reduce the genetic integrity of native stocks (White, 1992). The threat posed by the integrating the genetically distinct strains of wild and hatchery fish could far outweigh any of the benefits associated with improving spawning and rearing habitat, as a result, limitations to this approach are recognized. It can be said as a result that measurement of spawning and rearing habitat provide a relative measure of ecological health. 2.10.2 Substantive Objective #2: Is Cost Effective. As more is learned about the complexities of ecological systems and the linkages between ecological and economic systems, it becomes increasingly difficult to define and assess environmental-economic tradeoffs (King, 1991). The conflict between economic growth and environmental protection remains active. There are essentially three types of restoration ethics or attitudes driving the current work in this field. First, there are those who believe that restoration activities are a means of celebrating their relationship with the natural environment. This is consistent with the philosophies espoused by Thoreau, that through restoration and connection with the landscape, one's life can be brought into harmony with nature. Second, others are concerned with restoration as a means of performing a healing function. This attitude represents the preservationist perspective. The third and perhaps most important to this research are the restorationists that view restoration activities as an "acid test" for the field of ecology and a means of determining how ecological systems respond to change (King, 1991). A subset of this last group of restorationists has recently emerged. These people, as entrepreneurs, view restoration activities as an opportunity to make a profit. This approach should be scrutinized at some level because without standards or regulation the restoration 29 industry has the potential for encouraging ecologically unsound practices. The market imperatives that are the driving force behind the restoration industry suggest that as businesses search for ways of maximizing their profits, they simultaneously search for ways to minimize expenditures (King, 1991). Allowing these types of entrepreneurial interests to develop the restoration industry may lead to significant and potentially ingenious ways of saving both time and capital expenditures, as they have in the development of other industries. Healthy skepticism however, should motivate individuals and agencies both public and private to develop industrial standards and regulations to minimize fraudulent behavior, and assure the delivery of quality products to the market. Having said that there is no question the energy and creativity of a well regulated entrepreneurial interests must be allowed to develop and innovate the expanding field of ecological restoration. Standards and regulation are important because as the industry of ecological restoration develops there will be competition for the work that needs be done. As businesses compete for these projects they will attempt to undermine their competitors by advertising that they can provide superior products in comparison to those of their competitors at a reduced cost. It is possible that in order to keep costs affordable, businesses may not be offering or willing to undertake expensive restoration activities that may have less of a chance of restoring full ecological functions. Unfortunately little has been written about restoration economics. At present commercial restorationists are the only source of restoration cost information, and "discrepancies between reported and true restoration costs...due to hidden costs and inaccurate cost data, are the rule rather than the exception and can be astoundingly large" (Guinon, 1989). It is difficult for decision makers to get realistic estimates of the true cost of restoration projects. Therefore, costing out restoration activities presents a unique challenge that might best be addressed at the project level or on a project by project basis, at least until a better or more comprehensive approach has been developed. 30 To determine if the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is cost effective, the total operating budget will be compared to the accomplishments of the project. Comparing the accomplishments of the project to the costs will provide a clear indication of how efficiently financial resources were allocated and distributed. This analysis makes it possible to determine how cost effective the project has been at accomplishing its goals while attempting to simultaneously minimize its costs. 2.10.3 Substantive Objective #3: Promotes Adaptive Management. It is often difficult to quantify or measure the impact of human activities on the environment. Therefore it is difficult to predict what types of actions will produce what types of results. Adaptive Management emphasizes interactions between the components of the natural environment, and the behavior of systems as a whole (Holling, 1978). This approach comes from a comprehensive ecosystem perspective that was first defined in the mid 1970's by a group of researchers lead by CS. Holling. Adaptive Management promotes the idea that because human understanding of nature is imperfect, therefore human interactions with nature should be experimental. Adaptive Management proceeds using observation and experimental intervention as the methods of interaction with natural systems. Based on observations, actions are designed as experiments, designed to learn from the processes that are observed. Over time new information is incorporated in the decision making process. New decisions are based on the most recent and best available information. This cycle is referred to as a positive feedback loop. New information becomes an integral part of any new decisions, policies, actions or future interactions with the environment. The creators of the Adaptive Management approach point out that there are many similarities between the functions and behavioral aspects of ecological and social systems. Both are dynamic, not static or linear. Applying what is known about ecological systems to our understanding of social systems, it may be possible to recommend new ways of creating social policy that incorporate environmental, social and economic concerns in a dynamic 31 framework. These are the basic principles of Adaptive Management, and they will be used to evaluate the decision making process of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 2.10.4 Substantive Objective #4: Increases Benefits To Resource Users. Watershed Restoration activities are undertaken for many reasons. Increasing the benefits to resource users is one. To determine if resource users are benefiting as a result of watershed restoration activities it is necessary to compare historical or baseline data to current sources. These types of comparisons make it possible to identify trends in the abundance or availability of resources. In the case of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project comparing fisheries, forestry and recreational values may provide the best indicators of how or to what degree restoration efforts have impacted this region. Unfortunately comparing historical and contemporary data does not by itself indicate or measure change. For example, measuring the number of fish that were, with the number that are now available to both commercial and recreational fishermen is not necessarily an accurate or precise measure of how the watershed restoration project has performed. There are so many other uncertainties and influences affecting fish runs and population size that this indicator does not provide an accurate assessment of the restoration projects performance. Similar to the fisheries debate, there are difficulties with measuring the forestry component of this fundamental objective. In forest ecosystems there are many significant factors that influence the health of forest resources. Many of these factors may be independent of the watershed restoration activities. Therefore it is difficult to get an indication of how the forest resources are impacted by watershed restoration activities. But the change in the availability of timber for industrial purposes may provide an indicator of how watershed restoration activities impact the supply of timber for the forest industry. Other factors will also influence industrial forest practices. These include timber prices on the raw log market, and the forest practices policies of the Ministry of Forests. For example, it is not known how the introduction of the new Forest Practices Code will impact 32 the forest industry. There are new regulations that will change the way that forest operators are allowed to harvest timber in sensitive areas such as riparian zones. At this time the impacts that these new rules will have on the forest industry are unknown. Although there may be some indication of how watershed restoration activities have effected the availability of timber for industrial supply it is difficult to separate these influences from the other forces that are also causing significant change in the forest industry in British Columbia. These factors have led to great uncertainties about what the effects of watershed restoration are and how they should best be measured. Tourism and the recreational component of this fundamental objective provide a different indicator of how the restoration efforts affect the benefits to resource users. By measuring the level of tourism activity before and after the introduction of the watershed restoration activities, it may be possible to identify a trend of use that has been established as a result of changing conditions in the watershed. For example, the number of wildlife viewing days may have increased over the last few years as the number of eagles frequenting the Squamish River watershed has increased. Furthermore, this area may have become more attractive to eagles in its present, partially restored state because it better resembles a less impacted state. Therefore eagles are able to take advantage of many of the attributes they require when establishing a fall feeding and breeding ground. It could be argued that, similar to salmon there is a positive correlation between Bald Eagle habitat recovery, and the number of eagles frequenting the Squamish River watershed. As the number of eagles increases, so does the potential for other associated activities including, tourism and wildlife viewing. This could be extended to include other activities and behaviors such as, biking, hiking, fishing and Whitewater rafting and kayaking. 2.10.5 Substantive Objective #5: Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property Many watersheds encompass vast geographic regions. For example, the total drainage area of the Squamish River watershed is approximately 3,786 km2. Different portions of a 33 watershed may be under a number of ownership arrangements. These can include a multitude of private and public ownership variations. Regulations and restrictions governing the use of land, water and other resources in these areas may change under the different ownership arrangements. For example, grazing may be allowed on public lands within a given watershed. Private land owners within the same watershed however, may not allow grazing of livestock on their land. Aboriginal rights to access traditional hunting, gathering and fishing territories may supersede both the public and the private rights of way. It is important that watershed restoration initiatives have a mechanism to ensure the protection of property rights, both public and private because it instills a measure of accountability. The majority of land in British Columbia is publicly owned, therefore there are less circumstances surrounding the infringement of private property rights than in the United States, where a large percentage of lands that are rich in natural resources are privately owned. In the United States, many of these private areas are ones where watershed restoration activities need to be implemented. Avoiding adverse effects to private property rights may be one of the most successful preventative measures for ensuring for the success of watershed restoration initiatives in such areas. In any situation, one approach to ensuring for the success of watershed restoration initiatives is to proactively identify the potential impacts to property (private and public) and to provide preventative measures designed to ensure protection, and provide appropriate mitigation if necessary. It may be reasonable and necessary in some cases to actually accept responsibility for adverse effects or impacts to property before they ever occur, using such measures as environmental bonds that would be issued on a project by project basis. Well designed and effective watershed restoration initiatives and policies should protect both public and private property and property rights. As new legislation is introduced to advance the goals and objectives of the Forest Practices Code and the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia, it would be well advised to draft this legislation in a manner that is consistent with and similar to existing laws and regulations. For example, in 34 extreme cases and as a last resort land owner use rights could be restricted or modified through expropriation or alienation when it is deemed that watershed restoration activities are serving the highest and best public good. These purposes could therefore be perceived as having greater importance than existing individual property rights. In the Squamish river watershed, there are only a few private property owners. These include First Nations, private citizens and the timber holdings of privately owned companies. By measuring the number of complaints or concerns of private property owners in the watershed, it may be possible to establish how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project has performed with respect to the effects that its activities have had on private property and private property rights within the watershed. 2.10.6 Substantive Objective #6: Promotes Human Resource Development. One of the goals of the Watershed Restoration Program, a component of Forest Renewal British Columbia is to "provide community-based employment, training, and stewardship opportunities throughout the province" (FRBC, 1995). There are many direct and indirect benefits associated with regional employment opportunities. It has been suggested by Pinkerton and Weinstein (1995) that environmental conservation occurs best in the context of economic development activity. These activities could be undertaken at the local level with minimal environmental impacts. Diversification of economic activities can lead to a more robust economy, and subsequent long-term employment opportunities. By measuring the number of jobs that have resulted from the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, it should be possible to determine how this initiative has effected the opportunities for employment at a local and regional level. 2.11 Procedural Objectives: The overall procedural objective of an effective watershed restoration program is to select the best possible process for watershed restoration initiatives. This is one that: 35 2.11.1 Procedural Objective #1: Promotes A Planning Framework. A planning framework is the organizational thread that ties together the necessary components of all of the fundamental objectives of the planning exercise. Essential visions, philosophies, activities, and individual actions must be coordinated in a way that will permit goals of the project to be achieved. Coordination involves establishing an intimate relationship between the goals and objectives of the project, and the actions that will be taken to achieve them. A good planning framework provides guidance through the different stages of a project. It can be characterized as a well coordinated set of decisions that have been arranged so that issues are emphasized, interests are represented, conflicts are resolved and goals are achieved. Of critical importance to any effective planning framework is the link between the values of the stakeholders and the specific actions that are selected to achieve the goals of the project. Incorporating stakeholder values in the planning process allows for comprehensive and widely accepted options to be created that are consistent with the concerns and values of the stakeholders. A good planning framework identifies areas of potential difficulty, provides suggestions on how to overcome them as they are encountered, and anticipates the potential outcomes of the process. The planners and participants in the planning process are alchemists. Together they engage in an experiment of social engineering. If they are successful, they will achieve the goals they have established for themselves in an effective, efficient and timely manner. Figure #5 provides an illustration of the interrelationship between the different procedural objectives of an effective planning framework. Decision making is fundamental to the process of establishing a planning framework. Four issues are important in any decision making context. They are: authority, power, influence and accountability. For any decision to be successful it must adequately address each of these issues . In a natural resource context, it is important to recognize who or whom has the authority and power to make decisions regarding the resources, who or whom has the 36 ability to influence the decision making process, and who or whom is accountable for the outcomes of those decisions. Historically natural resource management in British Columbia has been an activity dominated by Federal and Provincial government agencies. Examining the institutional arrangements and governance of natural resource management may provide a better understanding of how these organizations function. The Federal and Provincial agencies that are responsible for the stewardship of natural resources operate in an environment that is characterized by complex jurisdictional and procedural arrangements. These agencies receive their authority through the constitution, legislative actions and mandates. The authority vested in an agency allows them to govern the activities and actions of individuals or other organizations who interact with the resource. Natural resource management is a field that continues to evolve as the needs and desires of society change and as new scientific information becomes available. Therefore it is necessary for the actions and policies of natural resource management agencies to adapt in order to reflect the developing social will, and to incorporate new knowledge in an attempt to best serve the public as stewards of the resources. Defining the decision making process and mechanisms for implementing policies are some of the functions of a planning framework. As citizens become more concerned with how resources are managed there has been an emergence of stakeholder involvement in resource decision making. Some of this activity has been at the local level, evoking a variety of interests from people with a wide range of backgrounds. There are many examples of local resource decision making initiatives that have successfully incorporated the views, concerns and input of local participants in the decision making process. The Commission On Resources and the Environment is a good example of how the public has been allowed to have a greater say and play a larger role in land use decision making and resource management (CORE, 1995). Involving the public can lead to greater support and commitment to decisions that are made using this process (B.C. Round Table, 1994). 37 Figure #5: The Relationship Between The Procedural Fundamental Objectives Of A Watershed Restoration Program The Overall Procedural Objective Of An Effective Watershed Restoration Program Is To Select The Best Possible Process For Watershed Restoration Initiatives. This Is One That: 38 The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is an example of how local interests have promoted the idea of watershed restoration as a means of natural resource management and restoration. The planning framework that was used to structure the activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project can be analyzed by evaluating whether this process was effective at representing a wide range of legitimate interests, valued equity and fairness as well as using local knowledge effectively. 2.11.2 Procedural Objective #2: Promotes A Decision Making Framework. Watershed Restoration issues are extremely complex. There are many variables associated with the environmental, socio-economic and institutional relationships of watershed restoration issues. Many of the interdependencies between these variables are significant, but at the same time many of these relationships are not fully understood. "These characteristics have led one group of analysts to characterize such issues as "wicked problems" because they are not amenable to resolution by the traditional techniques of analysis" (Dorcey, 1986). Watershed Restoration shares many similarities with other natural resource issues because the values that are involved may not easily be defined in monetary terms. The values that must be considered are not fully represented in the "market value". Establishing an appropriate framework for decision making in the context of a watershed restoration initiative is a difficult and complicated task. The issues of representation, equity, fairness, respect and conflict resolution are all important factors that contribute to the relative effectiveness of any decision making framework. Good decision making is synonymous with decision analysis as defined earlier in this chapter. There are many alternatives to choose from when selecting an appropriate decision making framework. Among others these include the authoritative, consultative, negotiative, consensus based and collaborative approaches to decision making. The negotiative, consensus based and collaborative approaches to decision making are well suited for the types of problems that 39 watershed restoration issues present. There methods have proven to be useful when applied to other natural resource problems that are wicked by nature. Fundamental to any decision making framework is the issue of conflict resolution and negotiated agreement Fisher and Ury (1981) in their acclaimed publication "Getting To Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" promote the philosophy that principled negotiation is a superior means of dispute resolution when compared to positional negotiation. This approach advocates, separating people from the problem, focusing on interests (not positions), inventing options and using objective criteria to negotiate and resolve conflicts. "Both theory and experience suggest that the method of principled negotiation will produce over the long run substantive outcomes as good as or better than you are likely to obtain using any other negotiation strategy" (Fisher and Ury, 1991). Barbara Gray is also a leader in the field of collaboration theory and practice. Her background is in organizational behavior. Collaboration theory provides an interesting and more comprehensive approach to dispute resolution that has great potential for assisting in resolving conflicts especially those associated with environmental issues. Often, environmental conflicts can be characterized by the presence of many different stakeholders with conflicting values and deep-seated emotional attachment to those issues. In these types of circumstances, collaboration may provide a viable means of creating realistic solutions to these types of complicated "wicked problems". "Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible. Collaboration is based on the simple adages that "two heads are better than one" and that one by itself is simply not good enough!" (Gray, 1989). "This approach incorporates two interrelated processes: conflict resolution and the advancement of shared visions. The first process involves working through emotionally charged issues to achieve negotiated settlements: the second involves the discovery of common values that can give direction to the development of social domains. When the first process is embedded in the second, powerful results may be obtained" (Gray, 1989). 40 Selin and Chavez in their 1995 publication promote the idea that collaboration theory can help environmental managers better understand the factors that inhibit and facilitate collaborative solutions to resource problems. They present a sequential model for environmental planning and management that proceeds through the stages of problem-setting, direction-setting and structuring. The authors suggest that "there is a trend toward collaborative decision making where decisions are made by a consensus of affected parties" (Selin and Chavez, 1995). There may be opportunity for this type of approach to be applied to many of the environmental problems that are encountered in British Columbia, including the complications and difficulties associated with watershed restoration initiatives. 2.11.3 Procedural Objective #3: Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests. Reviewing some of the work that has been conducted on the subject of public involvement is a good place to begin examining the topic of representation. Egalitarian representation is a crucial component to any good public policy decision making process (Gray, 1989). "The purpose of the group largely determines who needs to be involved" (Fraser Basin Management Program, 1995). Ideally all legitimate and relevant perspectives on an issue would be included in a well structured process. The fundamental purpose of public involvement is to develop better public policies that lead to more informed decisions. Public involvement processes should provide decision-makers with a better understanding of facts, values and opinions pertaining to a policy issue. (BC Round Table On The Environment And Economy, 1994) There are a number of reasons why public involvement is important in a natural resource decision making process. Where decisions affect individuals and or communities, local representation in the decision making process can help the public to understand the range of factors influencing any given decision by placing it in context. Public involvement helps to provide for a flow of information from the local level to the decision making body 4 1 and from the decision making body back to the local level. Gaining access to a greater information base can be beneficial to public involvement processes. More information does not necessarily lead to better decisions, but it helps to reveal the range of alternatives and factors that may influence the outcome of a decision making process. It is important that each perspective is represented appropriately; that the role of the participants as representing a perspective as opposed to representing a specific sectoral interest is clear. Furthermore, participation cannot be left to chance. Simply inviting the public to participate or respond is often not enough; many sectors of society (i.e. youth, impoverished, physically limited) cannot respond to typical public involvement methods. It is often necessary to involve the public in venues in which they are comfortable, and where their practical needs (such as movement, language, child care) can be met (BC Round Table On The Environment And Economy, 1994). When individuals express what they feel is important, they are revealing their values. When decisions are made using values that represent a wide range of legitimate interests, there is a good chance that these decision will meet with wide public acceptance. This can lead to more efficient implementation of policies, laws, and regulations (BC Round Table On The Environment And Economy, 1994). 2.11.4 Procedural Objective #4: Values Equity And Fairness. The procedural objectives of an effective watershed restoration program as identified in this research, place value on the issues of equity, fairness and respect. Equal access to the procedural aspects of watershed restoration initiatives is an equity issue. This is somewhat redundant with the subject of representation. Without access and representation there cannot be equity between legitimate interests and stakeholders. Assuming that legitimate interests are represented within the procedural aspects of a watershed restoration initiative, it is also necessary to assure that legitimate interests are represented with fairness. For example, interests or stakeholders in a process should not be prioritized or represented on the basis of financial interest (i.e. investment), or on the basis of an ability to vocalize ones concerns in a 42 prominent fashion. Steps should be taken to ensure that all stakeholders are relatively equal players in the process (Gray, 1986), because "...participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless. It allows the powerholders to claim that all sides were considered, but makes it possible for only some of those sides to benefit" (Arnstein, 1969). Ensuring that the issues of equity, fairness and respect are incorporated and adequately represented in the procedural aspects of a watershed restoration program can increase the chances of success. These issues can be viewed as sub-components of the planning and decision making framework, that has already been discussed (see Figure #5). 2.11.5 Procedural Objective #5: Is Respectful. See Procedural Objective #4, above for definition and explanation. 2.11.6 Procedural Objective #6: Uses Knowledge, Local And Scientific Effectively. Local and scientific knowledge as well as the opinions of experts are important sources of information. Whenever possible, these perspectives should be incorporated into resource management strategies, especially at the local level. It is anticipated that these unique contributions can be used to create the most appropriate management strategy for a given location, meeting the needs of the resources and the resource users. The integrated management of resources is becoming a requirement at all levels of land-use planning today. The lack of information on all major resources under consideration is seen as an impediment to achieving integrated resource management. Incomplete resource inventories have led resource managers and planners to seek local knowledge and expert opinion as an alternative source of information. As the use of local knowledge and expert opinion has broadened, a need has also developed for clarification of how this information should be managed...it is unlikely that a single strategy can be developed that will apply to them all. There may always be questions about how local knowledge and expert opinion will be received in resource management planning. In the end, the judgment of resource managers and those involved in planning will be required to fully access, apply or reject local knowledge and expert opinion. (Lui, 1994). 43 In the context of watershed restoration initiatives, local, expert and scientific knowledge, information and opinion all play an important role in defining the scope, scale and magnitude of work that needs to be accomplished for any given project to achieve success. In the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project each of these sources has been represented in the decision making body of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and other members of the project. Determining how each of these sources of information is incorporated into the project is a product of the decision making framework that has been outlined in detail in Procedural Objective #2. 2.11.7 Procedural Objective #7: Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures. The measure of a successful program is one that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the different levels of government, one that is able to compete for the finite sources of available funding, and one that is relatively easy to implement. These two reasons provide practical incentives for programs such as the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project to try and make their initiative consistent with the goals and objectives of the government agencies that both regulate and finance these types of activities. For initiatives such as the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project to be successful on a broad scale, it must be consistent with the governance structures that have been established and implemented to manage resources and deliver stewardship at the Provincial and local level. The issue of consistency should be addressed on two levels. First from the broad scale or public policy level, and second from a smaller scale that considers how proposed projects can be supported logistically. At the broader public policy level, watershed restoration initiatives should be consistent in principle with the mandates of government regulatory agencies. Without this type of consistency there is little or no hope that valuable and necessary relationships and partnerships between the public and private sectors can be established and nurtured. In 44 principle, a government agency cannot engage in activities that are counterintuitive or counterproductive to the responsibilities that have been vested in the agency through the delegation of jurisdictional powers and responsibilities. Acting in this manner could constitute a breach of responsibility, raising important issues of accountability. If there is a disagreement or conflict between the different regulatory agencies, the watershed restoration projects or programs, there is also a need for some form of a conflict resolution mechanism. At the core of these types of conflicts, either real or imagined is the question of responsibility and accountability. Envisioning and establishing a means of resolving conflicts between different stakeholders, responsible parties and levels within the project could help to avoid potentially damaging interchanges among the parties. A conflict resolution mechanism can provide a structured environment for settling differences in an effective and timely manner. Watershed restoration initiatives are invariably in need of sources of funding to conduct the activities they promote. The government is a likely source of funding for any of these endeavors. Presently, the two government agencies that oversee the awards and distribution of funding for these types of projects are the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia and Forest Renewal British Columbia. The Watershed Restoration Program is run under the auspices of Forest Renewal British Columbia. These agencies have strict guidelines that must be met in order for funding to be awarded to a specific project or initiative. Projects must comply with these guidelines in order to receive government funding. These are the current Principles for funding under Forest Renewal British Columbia. Table #2: The Current Principles For Funding Under Forest Renewal British Columbia. • Incrementality: Forest Renewal BC investments must be incremental to obligations on industry or government, whether those obligations are derived from statute, policy, or common practice. • Wise spending: Forest Renewal BC-funded projects should demonstrate economy of delivery, efficiency of operation, and effectiveness in achieving desired results. 45 Table #2: The Current Principles For Funding Under Forest Renewal British Columbia (Continued). • Regional equity and sensitivity: Forest Renewal BC-funded projects should contribute to the corporation's goals of delivering regionally equitable programming and obtaining input into decision-making. • First Nations Participation: Forest Renewal BC-funded projects should, to the maximum extent possible, include First Nations in both project planning and implementation. • Community stability: Forest Renewal BC-funded projects should enhance long-term community stability and emphasize local employment. • Jobs: Forest Renewal BC investments should sustain or create jobs, or create conditions that support permanent jobs. • Sustainability: Forest Renewal BC investments should promote sustainability by integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives and benefits. • Environmental values: Forest Renewal BC-funded projects should contribute to restoring and maintaining the ecological integrity and environmental sustainability of the forests (FRBC, 1995). 2.12 Conclusions: Based on the key terms, definitions and the fundamental objectives of this research, a conceptual and analytical framework for an effective watershed restoration project begins to emerge. This framework is a collection of criteria that have been selected for the purposes of evaluating and analyzing watershed restoration projects and programs such as the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. These criteria were selected by a group of experts and informed individuals. They are the basis of the conceptual and analytical framework. The evaluative framework will be applied to the case study as means of testing and improving it. By comparing the objectives of the Squamish River Project to the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration program as identified in Figures #2.1 and #2.2 of the conceptual and analytical framework, it should be possible to determine if the case study has been successful at achieving the goals they set for themselves. It should also be possible to determine if the objectives of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project are consistent with the objectives that are identified in the conceptual and analytical framework. It is important to recognize that although an individual project such as the 4 6 Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project may not utilize all of the components that are identified in the conceptual and analytical framework, it is still possible to determine how the two compare to each other. The results of a program evaluation in this case study might yield useful results for other watershed restoration projects, programs and initiatives in other regions of this country and across North America. Information that has been reviewed about the subject of watershed restoration, and each of the fundamental objectives, has been used to develop a set of questions that will be applied to the case study. Measures have been created for each of the fundamental objectives based on criteria that appear in the literature or have been discovered during other phases of this research. The questions have been designed to address the relevant issues in watershed restoration and specific issues regarding each of the fundamental objectives. These questions have been composed in a manner that will produce useful and meaningful results. The questions were used as the basis of the structured information interviews that were conducted as part of this research. The questions appear in the same form that they were presented during the informational interviews in Appendix 1. 47 CHAPTER 3: The Planning Context For The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project Case Study. 3.1 Context: Watershed restorations activities are bounded by the institutional arrangements for natural resource management both at the provincial and national levels. To conduct an evaluation of a watershed restoration case study, it is useful to understand the overall planning context for watershed restoration in British Columbia and Canada. This chapter is divided into three sections: first, a description of the Watershed Restoration Program in British Columbia is provided, second, there is a section that provides details on the Squamish River watershed, and finally the history of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is presented. 3.2 Description O f The Watershed Restoration Program In British Columbia: Habitat enhancement activities have a long history in British Columbia, dating back at least one hundred years. There have been a variety of activities designed to enhance and restore populations of fish, often times as a result of negative impacts caused by human activities such as logging, mining, road building, rail building, fishing or agricultural practices. The most ambitious of these efforts is the Salmon Enhancement Program (SEP) started in 1977. This program was instituted to "preserve, rehabilitate and enhance natural salmon stocks" (Rueggeberg and Dorcey, 1994). There is controversy surrounding this program for a number of reasons including the cost effectiveness of producing fish, the threat of diluting the gene pool of native fish stocks with those produced artificially in hatchery conditions. SEP is an example of people identifying a problem and creating a solution to prevent further irreversible changes from taking place. Although there may be controversy surrounding this program and the methods that have been chosen to achieve goals, there is 48 also a recognition that this program has helped to inform the public about many of the important salmon, water and other related environmental issues that society must address. It can be argued that effective resource management should define the rights and responsibilities of individuals, organizations and institutions with respect to their relationship to resources, while balancing the issues of equity and simultaneously delivering significant levels of protection necessary for maintaining healthy ecosystems. In the context of natural resource management, there is a recognized need to manage the resources that we have both locally and globally in a manner that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED 1987). Watershed management is no exception. As mentioned earlier, one of the methods designed to achieve sustainability is through the investment in natural capital. Watershed restoration is a means of investing in natural capital. By repairing, restoring and rehabilitating areas that have been negatively impacted by human activities, it may be possible to restore the health of the native ecosystems, allowing them to provide the ecological services they once did. Because watershed restoration problems are complex, one effective means of achieving watershed restoration goals may be through the collective efforts of organizations and stakeholder groups. Stakeholders are defined as a collection of individuals representing a range of interests, beliefs and political ideals who are associated by a perceived common concern or vested interest. Examples of such organizations or stakeholder groups are First Nations, Non-Government Organizations and Government Agencies. If management is defined as the process of determining what people want and deciding how to get it, approaching watershed restoration problems with the combined efforts, abilities and resources of a range of stakeholder groups and government agencies may be an effective means of actuating effective and lasting change. The government of British Columbia is strongly committed to the ideals of watershed restoration. Forest Renewal BC, introduced in 1994 establishes partnerships between government, communities, businesses, labor, environmental groups and First Nations. It is 49 anticipated that these groups can work together towards the goal of healthy forests, secure employment opportunities and the restoration of environmental damages. The FRBC corporation has committed $400 million dollars annually to achieve these goals, and under the Forest Renewal Act, these financial resources will be available in perpetuity. The Watershed Restoration Program initiative will assist in the realization of four of the five Strategic Objectives of the Government of British Columbia, including: developing a strong and sustainable economy; strengthening the Regions; promoting social equity and fairness; and redefining government, by ensuring the sustainability of both stream and land-based natural resource values that form the basis of Regional economies, and by diversifying employment opportunities in Regions... A sustainable economy is based on a sustainable environment, a principle to which the B.C. Government strongly adheres. Sustainability requires consistent, careful management of forests and range land that the peoples of B.C. rely on for jobs, food, water, and other uses and values... By implementing the Watershed Restoration Program, the historical neglect of watershed and stream channel degradation will begin to be amended (WRP Report #3, 1994). The Watershed Restoration Program is a Provincial initiative that operates under the auspices of the Crown Corporation Forest Renewal British Columbia. The need for this type of program became apparent during the development of the new Forest Practices Code. It is well recognized that past land management activities in British Columbia have resulted in the loss of productive capacity, especially in forested land and fish habitat. Historically there were no regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure that forests were rehabilitated if they were damaged as a result of industrial forest operations. Although it is recognized that it is more cost effective to protect habitat than it is to rehabilitate it, the amount of impacted areas across the Province of British Columbia necessitates a program that will accelerate the recovery process of the forested lands and watersheds across the Province (WRP, Report #3, 1994). The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project has successfully applied for and received funding from Forest Renewal British Columbia. Therefore it has been judged to meet or exceed the criteria established by Forest Renewal British Columbia as identified in the program goals and objectives detailed in chapter #2. 50 The Watershed Restoration Program has been designed to foster community-based stewardship of local resources, and to promote the shift to a more sustainable, community-based economy. It is anticipated that this program will help to provide the necessary infrastructure needed to restore damaged fish habitat and degraded forested watersheds, in an attempt to restore the productive capacity of forest ecosystems. This new approach to resource management as promoted by Forest Renewal British Columbia and the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia recognizes the importance of employment, the role of partnerships and collaboration between the public and private sectors as well as different levels of government including First Nations. The Forest Renewal British Columbia definition of watershed restoration emphasizes proactive management techniques, i.e. protecting threatened areas by preventing damages before they occur. This definition shares many similarities with that of the previously mentioned definition of ecological restoration. Both identify ecosystem values, accelerated recovery of impacted areas and social process as a means of achieving and legitimizing the process and the results. 3.3 The Squamish River Watershed: The Squamish River is located approximately 65 km north of the city of Vancouver British Columbia at the northern end of Howe Sound, Latitude 50° and Longitude 123° 20' see Figure #6. The communities nearest the Squamish River are Squamish and Whistler. The main stem of the Squamish River is approximately 90 km long. The total drainage area of the watershed is approximately 3786 km2. The four major tributaries of the Squamish River, are the Elaho River, Ashlu Creek, the Cheakamus River and the Mamquam River. The headwaters of the Squamish River originate as glacial melt from the coast mountains, but the amount of glacial water in the river is diluted as other sources contribute to the system at lower elevations, closer to the ocean. The Squamish River has large amounts of glacial silt, relatively low nutrient levels and low temperatures throughout the year. 51 52 The hydrologic regime of the watershed is characterized by low flows during the winter, a spring freshet and sustained high flows during the late spring and early summer as higher elevation ice and snow begin to melt. Discharge during the late fall and early winter is highly variable. It is characterized by many short-duration peaks as a result of frequent rain-on-snow meteorological events. The weather patterns of this area are typical of other coastal watersheds located in Southwestern British Columbia. The Squamish River is wild and untamed, there are no dams to control the rivers flow. Flooding and flashy rises in the river level are common especially in the fall. The Squamish River watershed is an important ecological area. The watershed is home to many indigenous wild animals, Grizzly Bear, Black Bear, Bald Eagles, Deer, Mountain Goat and many others animals, not to mention the four species of Pacific salmon, anadromous and resident populations of steelhead, cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. Its proximity to British Columbia's largest population center (Vancouver) also makes it accessible for the many types of activities that take place within the watershed. These include, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, kayaking, rafting, wildlife viewing such as observing Bald Eagles during the fall and winter months. There has been a long history of industrial forestry in the Squamish River watershed. The Squamish watershed has been subjected to commercial logging since the late 1950's. More recently Weldwood of Canada Ltd. began large scale operations within the watershed when they commenced harvesting timber allocated under Tree Farm License (TFL) 38 in June of 1961. Currently Empire Logging and Interior hold rights to harvest timber in the area. Logging has also occurred in the Elaho, Ashlu, Cheakamus and Mamquam watersheds (Clark, 1988). The total percentage of the Squamish watershed that has already been logged is unknown. It is estimated that upstream of the Cheakamus River and excluding the Elaho River watershed that approximately 25-30% of the productive forest land in the watershed has already been harvested. The Squamish River dissects the flood plain of the watershed. It separates the flood plain into two halves, the northeast and southeast sections. These areas are 53 almost equal in size. It is estimated that 80-90% of the northeast side, excluding the Elaho River watershed has already been logged. In comparison, approximately 10% of the southeast side has already been logged (WRP workshop report, 1995). Logging in the flood plain is of importance to fish populations because these areas contain the river, tributaries, feeder creeks and critical habitat that fish require for migrating, spawning, and rearing. Table #3: Salmonids Inhabiting The Squamish River And Its Tributaries: Chinook Salmon (Onchoryncus tshawytscha) Coho Salmon (Onchoryncus kisutch) Chum Salmon (Onchoryncus keta) Pink Salmon (Onchoryncus gorbuscha) Steelhead (Onchoryncus mykiss) Cutthroat Trout (Onchoryncus clarki clarki) Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) 3.3.1 Trends In Abundance Of Fish Populations Over The Last 20-50 Years: There has been an overall decline in the total number of salmonids spawning in the Squamish River (WRP Workshop Report, 1995). Pink salmon have experienced the largest reduction in population size, going from an approximate 251,000 in the 1960's, to approximately 5,500 during the 1980's. The reduction in the Pink salmon population has recently been attributed to the diversion of Cheakamus River flow to Daisy Lake by BC Hydro for the production of hydroelectricity. There has been an increase in chum salmon populations since the 1960's. These increases may be attributable to Salmon Enhancement efforts and the Tenderfoot Fish Hatchery on the Cheakamus River (WRP Workshop Report, 1995). Chinook and coho salmon populations have both declined over the same time period. Not as much is known about the Cutthroat Trout or Dolly Varden populations. It would be incorrect to identify only the human activities as the factors influencing the abundance of salmonids in the Squamish River watershed. There are many natural factors that also influence the health and size of salmonid populations. The difference between human activities and natural events are that human behaviors can be subjected to regulation and management, while natural events may be unpredictable, potentially catastrophic and 54 perhaps unavoidable. The cumulative impacts of natural events, industrial forestry activities, the impacts associated with hydroelectric production, commercial, recreational and aboriginal fishing have each contributed to the reduction in almost all of the salmonid populations within the Squamish River watershed. The Steelhead populations in the Squamish River watershed can be characterized as fluctuating over time in a cyclical manner. There are no exact population statistics, but in late 1970's, there was an observed peak in population size when approximately 2000 native fish returned to the river to spawn. It is unclear what may have accounted for these unusually high numbers of fish. By the late 1980's and early 1990's the number of steelhead returning to the Squamish had declined dramatically. These observations caused concern in many people, because it was unclear what was causing the population decline. As early as the late 1980's it became apparent that the native populations of steelhead were not making it back to the Squamish river to spawn. These observations were made by Pat Ahern, a director of the Steelhead Society of British Columbia, who has a long association with the Squamish River (pers. com., P. Ahern, Jan. 19th, 1996). 3.4 The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project: Recognizing that there was an observable downward trend in steelhead population size and health, many people became concerned that if this trend continued, the steelhead in the Squamish River system would become extinct. Mr. Ahern is responsible for spearheading an effort to make significant changes to the Squamish River watershed in an attempt to restore the health of the steelhead populations. Although the motivating factor for this effort started as the health of the steelhead populations, it soon grew to incorporate all living organisms within the watershed. It was argued that by promoting a holistic approach to watershed restoration, each and all of the ecological systems in the watershed would benefit from these activities. Therefore the restoration effort targeted the stabilization and promotion of the biodiversity within the watershed. 5 5 In 1990 Pat Ahern met with Pat Slaney, a researcher for the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks. It became apparent after their first meeting that these two like minded individuals shared ideas of what the Squamish River watershed could look like if actions were taken to restore it. Together they began to create a vision that would one day have a broad reaching impact on the Squamish river system and the fish that inhabit it. These individuals recognized that other events and factors have significant effects on salmon and steelhead population size and health, but many of these circumstances were not within their ability to control. For example, open ocean survival rates, as well as the harvesting policies set by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for Pacific salmon may not be responsive to the need for protecting specific salmon stocks. Therefore they believed that the greatest impact that they could have, if they wanted to increase the chances of survival for the salmonids in the Squamish River watershed was to rehabilitate critical habitat. Their rationale was that it would be possible to reverse the negative trends encountered by the steelhead populations by repairing and restoring damaged habitat and stabilizing the ecological health of the watershed through mitigation efforts. The vision was one of restoring the ecosystems of the Squamish River to a healthy state by repairing damages within the watershed. Mr. Ahern and Mr. Slaney recognized that in order for this restoration effort to be successful it would require many people with a broad range of expertise and skills spanning a number of disciplines. In the words of Pat Ahern: We are going to get as many people together that have common interests, together to see if it is possible to add to the resources, whatever resources we have together, hopefully the cumulative effect of what we all have would be enough to get the jobs done. So what I started doing was, identifying who are the key stakeholders? and basically made a list of who I thought were going to be key stakeholders at making this work, and then I started approaching them systematically. The first key stakeholder that we had to have on board was Weldwood which was the logging company that held the TFL (Tree Farm License). Without their cooperation it wouldn't happen because doing anything in the TFL required their approval... So I approached Gordon Prescott and said lets be cooperative, instead of pointing fingers at one another, instead of pointing fingers at the "Big Bad Logging Company" maybe we should play together (pers. com., P. Ahern, Jan. 19th, 1996). 56 Because most of the land within the Squamish River watershed has been allocated as industrial forest area, it was necessary to inform Weldwood of Canada Ltd. about any restoration plans or similar projects planned for the area. Without the agreement and approval of the industrial interests in the watershed it would be virtually impossible to accomplish even the smallest of jobs. Mr. Ahern and Mr. Slaney contacted Gordon Prescott of Weldwood to discuss their vision of the watershed and the potential restoration activities. Through this conversation they hoped to get a better understanding of how Weldwood, the tenure holder would respond to these types of ideas. Mr. Prescott's initial reaction was enthusiastic and encouraging. Soon afterwards the group toured the watershed. Their thoughts were not bounded by the restrictions of what was technically feasible, but instead the group went looking for opportunities. During this trip it was agreed that restoration projects on the Squamish were needed, feasible and in everyones best interest. With the support of Weldwood, there was a significant contribution made to the overall project. With Gordon Prescott and Weldwood on side with the project, there were now three representatives. Pat Ahern from the Steelhead Society representing the special interest and the not for profit sector, Pat Slaney from the scientific and government community , and Gordon Prescott from industry. This combination lead to a strong partnership because these were three highly motivated individuals who between them possessed a variety of skills and knowledge representing a number of different disciplines. 3.4.1 Sharing The Vision, By Touring The Watershed: The three men agreed that in order to make this project work, there needed to be a broader base of support, one that represents a wide range of legitimate interest. In order to share "the vision" of what they thought could be achieved in the watershed with the public, another watershed tour was scheduled. The year was 1991. This tour was open to anyone who wanted to participate. Representatives from many different interest groups were asked to participate. The watershed tour was conducted by loading everyone into a school bus and 57 touring the sites within the watershed that had been identified as potential spots for restoration activities. Pat Ahern, Pat Slaney and Gordon Prescott pitched the watershed restoration ideas to the group and explained how they thought that this type of work could be implemented. There were representatives from First Nations, Federal and Provincial government agencies, politicians, citizen groups and the media (see Table #4). It was during this watershed tour that the "vision" of the watershed restoration project was presented to and shared with all those who were present. It was clear that for this project to be successful it would require the assistance of many groups, each providing the special assistance that it could. There needed to be sources of funding, labor, management and an agreement from the vested interests, such as the regulatory agencies and the timber license holder that this type of work would and should be allowed to take place in this area. At one stop in the watershed tour everyone got off the bus and was viewing a potential restoration site. Pat Ahern used this opportunity to try and measure peoples willingness to commit to this project. Mr. Ahern was able to grab everyones attention and ultimately ask them if they thought the project had the potential to work. There was enthusiasm and support, people were willing to volunteer their efforts to try and make the initiative work. As it has been relayed in more than one interview, this moment was one where the group became "galvanized". All the necessary ingredients for establishing such a project were all present, and they were fused together as individuals expressed their beliefs and willingness to commit. This event has been described as a rare moment when a combination of unlikely ingredients all fall together to form the necessary building blocks of the project and the process necessary to complete it. It was as a result of this watershed tour that the Squamish River Habitat Task Force was formed. 3.4.2 The Squamish River Habitat Task Force: From the different representatives present at the watershed tour, the Squamish River Habitat Task Force was officially formed. The individual members act as a board of 58 directors. Currently they meet only once a year, but at the beginning of this project there were more meetings required to get the project organized and operational. This group was able to identify common values among a diverse group of stakeholders. Using these shared values as a starting point, stakeholders were willing to volunteer great amounts of time, energy and financial resources in order to achieve their goals. Some of the benefits expected from these types of activities included, healthier fish stocks, greater environmental awareness, a shared sense of responsibility and stewardship, reduced demands placed on fisheries officers and other government agents, as well as meaningful personal rewards. The list of stakeholders represents those groups and individuals who were commitment to making the project work, and willing to be involved in the activities of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project on an ongoing basis. This is a good example of how concerned citizens working in conjunction with government agencies, First Nations and private companies were able to organize themselves for the purpose of restoring threatened fish populations and rehabilitating a damaged watershed. Although this group was formed over concern for native steelhead populations, they recognized that restoration efforts should target all species within the watershed (see Table #5.2, section 2). T a b l e # 4 ; S t a k e h o l d e r s : The Squamish River Habitat Task Force The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Corporation The Steelhead Society of British Columbia Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Interfor / Empire Logging Government Agencies (Federal and Provincial): Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks Ministry of Forests The Squamish Nation Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia BC Hydro British Columbia Wildlife Federation The Squamish Rod and Gun Club Coast Steelheaders Collection of Unorganized Anglers from the Squamish area 59 The first meeting of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force took place in the fall of 1991. Pat Ahern was the "Master of Ceremonies" of this and subsequent events. He acted as a facilitator. Items on the agenda were the establishment of the "Rules Of Engagement" and the "Objectives of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project". The Rules of Engagement were set up to facilitate effective communication, respect and protect peoples opinions and character, establish a process that was "hard on ideas not on people" and make sure that the meetings were designed to produce results. It was reiterated at this meeting that the project was a cooperative joint venture requiring all participants to work together. The Rules of Engagement and the Objectives Of The Watershed Restoration Project are: Table #5.1: Rules Of Engagement: 1) No finger pointing, or casting of blame. The traditional adversarial roles such as logging company versus environmental interest, First Nations versus commercial fisherman, would not be welcome in the meetings. Working as a group, the group either succeeded together or failed together with equal responsibility shared amongst the group. 2) Respect peoples opinions. Separating individuals from the group they might represent. Give ample time to each individual to present their opinions. No personal attacks would be tolerated. Persons disregarding this rule would be asked to leave. 3) Decisions were to be made by consensus whenever possible. If it were necessary then a vote would be taken as a final means of solving any non consensus issues (pers. com., P. Ahern, Jan. 19 t h , 1996). Table #5.2: Objectives Of The Watershed Restoration Project: 1) Restore habitat for all species, not just steelhead. 2) Biodiversity for all of the ecosystems, not just salmonids. 3) "Whole System Approach", The whole system is what makes the stream healthy. Each organism has its part and plays its role. For example "every species of fish plays a part and you can't remove one for the system to be healthy", "you can't harvest the surplus without an impact. The surplus in nature has a purpose". 4) Maintain biodiversity. 5) Get people together (pers. com., P. Ahern, Jan. 19 t h, 1996). 3.4.3 Funding: Acquiring and maintaining a steady stream of funding has been essential to achieving the goals of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The initial funding for the 60 project came in 1993 from the British Columbia 2021 initiative (pers. com., P. Slaney, Oct. 9 t h, 1996). This funding made it possible to complete the first projects that the Squamish River Habitat Task Force identified. The first project on Shop Creek did not require large amounts of heavy machinery and was not as labor intensive as later projects have proven to be. The budget for this first project on Shop Creek was relatively small in comparison to other projects that have since been completed. As the size of the restoration projects has grown, so has the need for larger sources of funding. Much of the work that has been accomplished in the watershed so far has depended to a large degree on the use of heavy machinery. This is an expensive proposition because the hourly cost of machinery use is relatively high. Front end loaders are a good choice of machine for this type of work. They are efficient and effective at moving large amounts of earth and fill, building or decommissioning roads and restructuring stream channels. The Squamish River Restoration Project was perceived as an experimental pilot project by regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Ministry of Forests, the Department of Fisheries, Oceans and the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia. Because the Squamish River Project predates the Watershed Restoration Program, much of the work on the Squamish contributed to establishment of the Watershed Restoration Program. In 1995 the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia was subsumed by Forest Renewal British Columbia, and is currently run under the auspices of Forest Renewal British Columbia. As the main funding agency for forest renewal activities including watershed restoration, Forest Renewal British Columbia maintains financial support for the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 3.4.4 Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation: The Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation has become the lead proponent of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. As the scope of the work began to grow and the responsibilities of all those involved blossomed, it was necessary for 61 one interest to take charge and establish itself as the recognized leader. For financial and liability reasons, the Steelhead Society created the Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation to insulate the Society and its members from potential complications arising from the various restoration efforts being conducted across the Province of British Columbia (pers. com., P. Tyedmers, June. 19th, 1996). The Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation became a business entity in December of 1994. There is a President and a board of directors. It is a not-for-profit business entity that handles the contractual obligations, financial, insurance, and taxation responsibilities of the restoration projects it is involved with. The Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation applies to Forest Renewal British Columbia for funding to run and operate watershed restoration projects throughout the Province including the one in the Squamish River Watershed. When funding has been secured, the corporation administers it to the projects it has selected to support. In this manner, the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is now managed under the auspices of the Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation. It receives funding from the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia which is a subsidiary of the Forest Renewal British Columbia initiative. 3.4.5 Completed Projects Of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project: The Shop Creek project was the first project undertaken by the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The old-growth forest surrounding Shop Creek was logged thirty years ago. As a result of the forest harvesting, only a small amount of structure remained in the river channel in comparison to what had been there historically before harvesting. Past logging practices often required timber harvesters to clean and remove debris from river channels. Over time, it has been recognized that this large woody debris (LWD) plays an important role in the life cycle of certain salmonids. Juvenile coho and steelhead in 62 particular require large woody debris (LWD) during the rearing and overwintering stages of their life. The LWD provides important habitat for these species during the time that they spend in the river. The Shop Creek project was designed to increase the amount of available rearing and overwintering habitat. The project was completed in two phases: Table #6: Phases Of The Shop Creek Project: • Phase 1: establishment of log-v-weirs to deepen wide shallow pools, secure floating log cover in shallow runs, and boulder clusters in riffles (via BC-21 in 1993); construction of overwintering pond, mainly for coho salmon (Interfor and DFO in 1993). • Phase 2a: groundwater channels to provide rearing and overwintering habitat for juvenile coho salmon and to augment low flows in Shop Creek (3 channels via WRP 1994 and 1995); • Phase 2b: restoration of large woody debris and additional larger boulder clusters to rehabilitate salmonid habitat (1994 and 1995 via WRP) (WRP, 1995). The Shovelnose Creek was severely impacted by a series of natural events in the 1980's. There was a mud-flow from Mt. Cayley that terminated in the Squamish River. There were numerous natural slides in the upper sections of the Shovelnose drainage. Past logging impacts including timber removal in the flood plain. Logging in these areas often involved removing timber up to the stream banks. There were increased amounts of sediment being delivered to the Creek as a result of road building activities and gully failures. Rehabilitation efforts were designed to reduce the impacts on fish habitat. These activities are listed in Table #7, also see Figure #1 on the following page. The tour of the watershed that inspired people to form the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and create the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was in 1991. Since this time many projects have been completed, including projects on Shop Creek and Shovelnose Creek. The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project has secured funding for the work they have completed, and for an ongoing operating budget until the end of the 1996-7 fiscal year. To date there has not been an attempt to evaluate the work of the Squamish River Restoration Project at the program level. Therefore there is an obvious need 63 to determine if the work that has been conducted by the Squamish River Habitat Task Force on the Squamish River Restoration Project is achieving the program goals and objectives that they established for themselves. Table #7; Activities Designed To Rehabilitate Shovelnose Creek: • Road Upgrading: cross ditches, water bars and revegetation of slopes (Weldwood/Interfor 1993-1994); • Shovelnose Dyke: this WRP project was assisted by Weldwood of Canada (now Interfor), and was designed to restore vital fish habitat seriously impacted by encroachment of cold, silty waters of the Squamish River. The dyke was constructed in March-April as the inaugural project of the Watershed Restoration Program at the inception of the Forest Renewal Plan in the spring of 1994; • Shovelnose Side-channel Extension: this late-summer (1995) project recovered 800 m (20%) of prime salmon and steelhead habitat in a relic channel, offsetting habitat losses in the very unstable upper reach; • Groundwater Channel and Restoration of Off-channel Habitat: as access to adults and juveniles to a back-water tributary was obstructed by an old elevated culvert, the channel was reconnected in October/95; • Pilot Stream Reefs, Large Woody Debris Restoration and Slow-release Fertilization: pilots initiated during 1995; to be completed with earlier funding in 1996 (WRP, 1995). 64 Figure #7: Shovelnose Creek Habitat Restoration. CHAPTER 4: Methods. 4.1 Context: The theoretical foundation of this research is presented in the conceptual and analytical framework that is developed in chapters #1 and #2. This chapter describes how the conceptual and analytical framework are applied to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration case study. When the conceptual and analytical framework had been established, a set of specific questions were created that would be asked of the case study. These questions were used as the basis for structured informational interviews. These interviews were conducted to gain the opinions of experts generally about the subject of watershed restoration, but more specifically about the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study. These questions are presented in Appendix 1. They appear in the Appendix in the same format as they were when delivered during the structured informational interviews. The process, procedure and participants that were used to conduct the structured informational interviews are detailed in this chapter. 4.2 Interview Process: Seven of the interviews were conducted in person, one was conducted over the telephone. The interviews lasted anywhere from thirty five minutes to an hour and a half. The average response time was fifty-four minutes. Each interview began with an introductory statement that was followed by a presentation of the research purpose, the recipients of the research and a description of the interview format. Before the respondents were asked any formal questions they were asked if they agreed to take part in this interview and the overall project. All of the respondents agreed to participate. Each of the interviews was recorded, except the one that was conducted over the telephone. The respondents were told that the recordings would be used to verify what had been discussed in the interviews. There were no objections to this procedure. 66 4.2.1 Respondents: Respondents were selected based on their unique qualifications as natural resource experts, watershed restoration specialists, their extensive personal knowledge and experience with the case study or issues related to the watershed restoration initiative. Seven men voluntarily took part in the interview process. They are listed in alphabetical order: 1) Mr. Brian Klassen Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation, Project Manager, Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 2) Mr. Bruce Ward British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Research Scientist, Fisheries Research and Development Section. 3) Mr. Craig On-Executive Director, The Steelhead Society of British Columbia. 4) Mr. Dave Duff Lead Biologist for the Squamish Watershed Restoration River Project. 5) Mr. Gordon Prescott Forest Planner, Interfor, Empire Logging, Squamish BC. 6) Mr. Pat Ahern Founder of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 7) Mr. Pat Slaney Research Biologist Provincial Fisheries Branch. 8) Mr. Randall Lewis Councillor/Environmental Representative, Squamish Nation. 4.2.2 Instrument Design: The interview questions were designed to relate to each of the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration project as identified in Chapter 2, Figure #1.1 and #1.2. Each of the questions was tailored to incorporate relevant contextual information from the Squamish River case study, but may not have included each of the sub-topics identified in the fundamental objectives. There were thirty-two questions in total. The purpose of the questions was to evaluate how the efforts and activities of the Squamish River Watershed 67 Restoration Project compared to the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration project as detailed in Figure #1.1 and #1.2. There are two different types of fundamental objectives, substantive and procedural. The questions used in the structured informational interviews were designed to address each of the subjects from the list of fundamental objectives in a comprehensive manner. The questions that were asked about substantive objectives differed from the questions asked about procedural objectives. The differences between the types of question is provided in the following sections. 4.2.3 Substantive Fundamental Objective Interview Questions: The questions asked about the substantive fundamental objectives were separated into three distinct categories. The first category involves questions requiring either a positive or negative, yes or no answer. The second category of questions required the opinions of the individual respondents. The differences in opinions provided useful insights into the subject area, making it possible to draw conclusions based on these responses. The third and final category of questions were those that required the respondents to give a judgment or a relative measure based on one of two hypothetical scenarios. The respondents were presented with two hypothetical scenarios by the interviewer. Each involved a twenty year time period. The first scenario assumed that all activities within the Squamish River watershed would remain as they were prior to the implementation of any watershed restoration activities. For example, respondents were asked to imagine what was occurring in the watershed in the year 1990. Next, they were asked to imagine that these activities would remain constant over a twenty year time period. Timber removal would remain at a fixed, constant rate and amount. There would be no changes to the regulatory status of the timber management policies. Specifically, there would be no introduction of the Forest Practices Code or any other similar legislative changes. 68 The second scenario involved having the respondents image that watershed restoration activities similar to the ones that have resulted from the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project would remain at a constant level for a twenty year time period. Imagining the amount and type of work that has been completed as a result of the actions and activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, the respondents were asked to imagine that these activities would occur over a twenty year timeframe. This would provide an imaginary benchmark that the first scenario could be compared to. Based on the information provided in the two imaginary scenarios, the respondents were asked how they believed this might effect certain aspects of the watershed. For example, "how would the number of salmonids returning to the Squamish River watershed change over twenty years if there were no watershed restoration activities?". Comparatively, "how would the number of salmonids returning to the watershed change over a twenty year time period if there were watershed restoration activities?". The respondents were asked to keep the two scenarios in mind while answering the questions. 4.2.3.1 Scales: Scales were used to track responses to the third type of questions, ones that required a relative measure or judgment. A seven point scale ranging from zero to six was used, three being the midpoint. A zero on the scale represents a worst case scenario, a six represents the best case scenario. For example when asking a question about how restoration activities would impact the total number of salmonids produced by the Squamish River watershed, a zero response would indicate a total loss of all salmonids or extinction of all salmon species in the watershed. A value of six on the scale would represent a return to the historic numbers of salmonids once produced by the watershed before industrial intervention. The scales were not presented to the respondents as part of the questions. Instead they were used as a tool by the interviewer as a means of tracking the answers of the respondents. It is important to recognize that these values were not provided by the respondents, but were 69 subjectively chosen by the interviewer to provide a relative measure of the responses that were elicited during each of the interviews. As a result the reported values reflect the judgment of the interviewer, not values that were provided by each of the respondents. The mean, median and range of response values were used to report the results of the interviews. 4.2.4 Procedural Fundamental Objective Interview Questions: Questions asked about procedural issues were designed to evaluate how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project structured the planning and decision making processes used in this initiative. These questions were also designed to determine if these processes were consistent with the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration program as identified in conceptual and analytical framework outlined in Figure #2.1 and #2.2. 70 CHAPTER 5: Results. 5.1 Introduction: The structured informational interviews were used as a means of evaluating how well the Squamish River Restoration Project compared to the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration as previously identified in Chapter 2, Figure #2.1 and #2.2. The results of this research are the comparison and discussion of the differences and similarities between the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration project and those of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The analysis is presented in the same order that the fundamental objectives appear in Figure #2.1 and #2.2, six substantive objectives, followed by seven procedural objectives. A first step in analyzing the data was to recode the seven point scale used to record the responses of certain substantive questions. During the informational interviews the scales used ranged from zero to six, with a midpoint of three. The scales have been recoded so that the endpoints are negative three and three, with zero as the midpoint. This was done to highlight the differences between the responses to the interview questions and the midpoint of the scales. A second step was to calculate the mean and median responses of the results to the interview questions and display them in a matrix and table format; these are displayed in Figures #8.1 and #8.2. The results of the structured informational interview analysis are presented in two sections. The first section presents the results of the substantive fundamental objectives analysis. These results are displayed in an objectives by alternative matrix in Figure #8.1. This allows for a cursory overview of the results. The substantive fundamental objectives are listed vertically in the left hand column. The two alternatives, without watershed restoration and with watershed restoration are listed horizontally across the top of the matrix. The matrix displays the research results in a visual context that allows for the comparison of each of the objectives in relation to each of the two alternatives. The second section presents the results 7 1 Figure #8.1: Informational Interview Results Objectives By Alternatives Matrix Substantive Objectives 1) Promote Ecological Health: 1.1) Total Number Of Fish Alternative #1 Without Restoration mean, median, range w/o) -1.4* -1 3 Alternative #2 With Restoration mean, median, range w) 1.5 2 2 1.2) Productivity w/o) -1.6 -1.5 2 w) 1.9 2 2 1.3) Amount Of Habitat (A) w/o) Net Loss w) Net Gain 2) Promote Cost Effectiveness. Yes 3) Promote Adaptive Management. w/o) Very Few w) Extensive 4) Promote Benefits To Resource Users: mean, median, range mean, median, range 4.1) Total Number Of Fish w/o)-1.6 -2 2.5 w) 2 2 2 4.2) Sport Fishing Experience w/o) -1 4.3) Industrial Forestry 4.4) Wildlife -1.75 2 w) 2 2 1 w/o)-0.3 -.25 .5 w)0.7 1 3 w/o)-1.7 -1.5 2 w)1.8 2 .5 5) Avoid Adverse Effects To Private Property. Yes 6) Promote Human Resource Development: 6.1) Participants in Training programs 6.2) Number Of Jobs Created Yes 200-280 3 FTE positions * (The values listed in this chart are the sample mean, median and range of responses assigned to the responses given by participants in the structured informational interviews) 72 Figure #8.2: Informational Interview Results Table Of Procedural Objectives Results Procedural Objectives: Did The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project Promote These Procedural Objectives? 1) Promote A Planning Framework. Yes 2) Promote A Decision Making Framework Yes 3) Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Yes Interests. 4) Values Equity And Fairness. Yes 5) Is Respectful Yes 6) Uses Knowledge, Scientific And Local Yes Effectively. 7) Is Consistent With Existing Government. Yes 73 of the procedural fundamental objectives analysis. These results are presented in a table format in Figure #8.2. The procedural fundamental objectives are listed vertically in the left hand column, and the results of the informational interviews indicating whether these objectives were incorporated in the process used by the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project are presented in the next column directly to the right of the objectives. Below the results are presented in a discussion format. Comments or quotes that provide useful insights and help to characterize the range of responses are presented and discussed. 5.2 Detailed Results Of The Substantive Objectives: The overall procedural fundamental objective is to select the best possible process for watershed restoration initiatives. This is one that: 5.2.1 Substantive Objective #1: Promotes Ecological Health. 5.2.1.1) Biodiversity. When asked how the biodiversity of the Squamish River watershed would be effected with and without watershed restoration activities, one respondent suggested that without watershed restoration activities in the Squamish River watershed there was a potential for a total loss of all biodiversity. This was the most extreme view that was expressed. All other respondents agreed that without restoration activities there would be a reduction or loss of biodiversity over time within the watershed. On the seven point scale that was used to record the responses, a -3 represented a total loss of biodiversity and a 3 represents a return to historic conditions. The mean response value to this question was -1.4, the median was -1 and the range of responses was 3, see Figure #8.1. One respondent agreed that biodiversity would be lost without restoration activities, and the areas that would be most heavily impacted would be the riparian zones. It was reported by one of the respondents that riparian zones are critical to ecological health of a 74 watershed because they provide the interface between the aquatic and the terrestrial ecosystems. These areas are sensitive, and provide many necessary functions that are not performed in other areas of the watershed. Therefore damaging these areas would have a critical impact on the ecological health of the watershed. One individual suggested that biological integrity was at least as important if not more than biodiversity, and that it would be better to manage for both biodiversity and biological integrity when approaching watershed restoration activities and policy development. There was total agreement between all respondents that watershed restoration activities would benefit the biodiversity in the watershed. The same scale was used to record the responses to this question as above. The mean response value was 1.5, the median was 2 and the range of responses was also 2, see Figure #8.1. One respondent suggested that biodiversity would be stabilized and improved over time from its current condition within the Squamish River watershed as a result of applying watershed restoration procedures and techniques. Another respondent mentioned that the activities of the Watershed Restoration Project were designed to create a diversity of habitat. More than one respondent mentioned the idea of a holistic approach to restoration. This approach promotes habitat improvement for all species. It was argued that without diversity the whole ecosystem could fail. It was suggested by one respondent that the new Forest Practices Code helps to maintain biodiversity through the protection of a range of important habitat throughout the watershed. 5.2.1.2) Productivity. The responses to the questions about biological productivity were similar in many respects to those asked about biodiversity. There was general agreement between the respondents that the biological productivity of the Squamish River watershed would decline if there were no watershed restoration activities. The seven point scale that was used to record the responses to these questions was similar to the one used in the previous question, and on the scale -3 represented a total loss of productivity and a 3 represented a return to 7 5 historic conditions. When asked how the productivity of the Squamish River watershed would be affected if there were no watershed restoration activities, there was general agreement between the respondents that a lack of restoration activities would result in a loss of productivity. The mean response to this question was -1.6, the median was -1.5 and the range of responses was 2, see Figure #8.1. By comparison, all respondents also agreed that the biological productivity of the ecosystems in the watershed would benefit from watershed restoration activities. It was explained by one respondent that the limits to biological productivity in the Squamish River watershed are nutrients and water temperature. The Squamish is a glacial river, and like most glacial rivers it is characteristically nutrient poor. The vast majority of nutrients in the Squamish River system are provided by the annual input of salmon carcasses. This person suggested that both nutrient input and water temperature in the Squamish River watershed could be positively influenced by watershed restoration activities. The mean response to this question was 1.9, the median value was 2 and the range of response values was also 2, see Figure #8.1. It was suggested that watershed restoration activities in the Squamish river watershed have the potential of increasing the amount of fish returning to the system and to the presence, preservation, and repair of riparian habitat. In the opinions of the respondents, the two important factors driving biological productivity in this aquatic ecosystem of the Squamish River (nutrients and temperature) would benefit from the application of watershed restoration activities. One respondent believed that the biological productivity of the watershed as measured in the number of salmon returning to the watershed could easily be doubled in a reasonable timeframe as a result of watershed restoration activities. 5.2.1.3) Amount Of Habitat None of the respondents was able to give exact figures regarding the amount of "quality fisheries habitat" that would be affected by watershed restoration activities or the 76 lack thereof. This is in part due to the fact that a comprehensive inventory of all fish habitat within the watershed, or an assessment of its historic and current conditions does not exist. There was general agreement among all the respondents that quality fisheries habitat would be reduced, and the total amount of habitat would have continued to decline over time without the introduction and application of watershed restoration activities. Specifically, there would be a net loss of quality fisheries habitat if there were no watershed restoration activities. Conversely, there was general agreement among all of the respondents that there would be a net increase in the amount of quality fisheries habitat in the Squamish River watershed as a direct result of the activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Two respondents identified the tributaries of the Squamish River system as the areas that held greatest potential for recovery and rehabilitation. Noting that the hydrologic cycle of the Squamish River is characterized by annual storm events that cause large fluctuations in river flow. These respondents explained that the tributaries were easier to work in, as compared to the mainstem of the Squamish River. They also suggested that the tributaries were possibly more suitable for the types of restoration projects that are being implemented. These same individuals pointed out that coincidentally the tributaries contain large amounts of valuable spawning and rearing habitat that is necessary for the survival of the salmonids inhabiting the Squamish River. It was projected that the damaged habitat in the tributaries of the Squamish River could be recovered and rehabilitated at a rate of approximately five to ten kilometers a year. The respondents were reluctant to quote exact figures or percentages of change to habitat within the watershed, because in their opinion the dynamic processes at work in the watershed make these types of estimations difficult if not impossible to quantify. Overwintering habitat for steelhead and coho were the focus of concern for many individuals. One person suggested that the Shovelnose Project has "created a couple of kilometers of side channel habitat, and several hectares of improved spawning and rearing habitat". In a progress report written for the Watershed Restoration Program of British 77 Columbia, it was predicted that there will be a three fold increase in the amount of recovered habitat as a result of the Shop Creek Project, and a ten fold gain in the larger more severely impacted Shovelnose Creek restoration project. "Linked with the new Forest Practices Code, these WRP projects will continue to offset historical losses of salmonid habitat in 10 streams and key side-channels with a target of about two to three fold recovery in winter steelhead and salmon stocks" (WRP, 1995). 5.2.1.4) Overview Of Ecological Health Results. Although it was difficult for the respondents to provide figures for the amount of habitat that has been involved in the restoration activities and the amount of habitat that could potentially be affected, it was agreed by everyone who was interviewed that there would be a decline in the biodiversity, productivity and the amount of quality fisheries habitat if there were no watershed restoration activities in the Squamish River watershed. In contrast, all of the respondents believed that the watershed restoration efforts and activities of the Squamish River Watershed restoration Project would have a positive impact on the biodiversity, productivity and amount of quality fisheries habitat within the Squamish River watershed. 5.2.2 Substantive Objective #2: Is Cost Effective. Everyone interviewed agreed that the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is being run cost effectively. Not one person disagreed with this statement. Additional comments provide more insight. One respondent believes there is still "room for improvement". Because much of what is being done in the watershed is new, there has been a steep learning curve. Over time, the individuals involved with this project are getting better at their work. In particular, heavy equipment operators hired on a contract basis, are being asked to perform tasks that many have never done before. As they become proficient at these new types of projects, their level of efficiency and effectiveness increases dramatically. 78 When speaking about the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project in general, two respondents suggested that it is hoping to conduct projects that have a reasonable benefit cost ratio. For example in the Shop Creek project there is a low cost to number of fish ratio. One respondent had difficulty with the traditional approach to commoditizing and valuing natural resources. He promoted the idea that it is very difficult to put a price on a run or particular species of fish, and that there is no "full-cost accounting" when determining what these fish are worth. He believed that the current amount of money being spent on restoration efforts could be increased thirty or forty fold, and still this would be cost effective. He based his beliefs on the idea that over time the value of salmon will increase substantially in comparison to its current level, and in relation to all other commodities that are currently used to make up the valuation index. Members of the Squamish River Task Force pointed out that much of the labor and equipment cost associated with the initial phases of the project were donated, therefore the project was being operated very cost effectively. Over time, as the Restoration Project has gained momentum and obtained financial backing from other sources including the private sector and government, the need for the proportion of volunteer labor and equipment has decreased. Currently a large percentage of the annual budget is spent on equipment operation cost, and a relatively small proportion of the budget is spent on salaries for employees and other labor. This project is being conducted by an organization that has very little administrative overhead. 5.2.3 Substantive Objective #3: Promotes Adaptive Management. There was some slight disagreement between respondents when they were asked if Adaptive Management was practiced before the introduction of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Two prominent figures in the creation and operation of this project both believe that Adaptive Management did not exist in the Squamish River watershed in any context before the implementation of the Squamish River Watershed 79 Restoration Project. These thoughts were not shared by everyone. Others respondents believed that although Adaptive Management was not widely practiced in the Squamish River watershed, it was present and was occasionally being used as a management tool. For example, it was suggested that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment had both contributed to research that promoted Adaptive Management approaches when dealing with fisheries issues in the Squamish River watershed, but that these research findings and conclusions had never been implemented. In the opinion of other respondents, the Ministry of Forest and the Ministry of Environment were not managing resources using an Adaptive Management approach, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had been using Adaptive Management principles in the Squamish River watershed before the restoration project began. The majority of people who were interviewed agreed that there was a significant increase in the number of times that the principles of Adaptive Management were being applied as a result of the watershed restoration project. The on-site managers and operators suggested that Adaptive Management is practiced on a daily basis when working in the field at the site and operational level. They suggested that this type of approach is necessary for this kind of work, especially if it is going to be completed in a timely manner. The Shovelnose Creek project was cited as an example of applied Adaptive Management because there was a very definite window of opportunity for the work that needed to be completed within the stream. Prior to this time, the area would be utilized by juvenile salmonids as rearing habitat, and following this window of opportunity the same area would be used by adult salmonids for spawning purposes. The time frame and the work that needed to be accomplished were well defined. For this project to be completed successfully, decisions needed to be made at the site level on an ongoing daily basis. In the opinions of a few respondents this is an example of how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project applied the principles of Adaptive Management. As issues arose at the site level, the site manager would make decisions based on his knowledge of what had worked before in other 80 situations. Often times these decisions would be discussed with other members of the project when it was possible and convenient. During the information interviews a definition of Adaptive Management was read by the interviewer as a precursor to the questions that were asked about Adaptive Management. The purpose of this procedure was to establish a common understanding of Adaptive Management, how it works and how it is implemented. The definition of Adaptive Management that was presented during the interview is consistent with the work of C.S. Holling, and can be found in Appendix 1. Even though a common definition was provided during the interview process, it appears that there was still some confusion and disagreement between the respondents about the definition of Adaptive Management and how it can be applied as a natural resource management tool within the context of watershed restoration. 5.2.4 Substantive Objective #4: Increases Benefits To Resource Users. 5.2.4.1) Total Number Of Salmonids Returning To The Watershed When asked "All things remaining equal, how would fish production, the total number of salmonids returning to the watershed change over time, if there were no watershed restoration activities?". All the people interviewed for this research believed that the total number of salmon returning to the Squamish River watershed would decline over time without watershed restoration activities. It was suggested that the majority of salmon populations in the watershed would continue to decrease or become extinct over time. One individual expressed the thought that extinction of some salmon stocks could occur over the next twenty years. On the seven point scale used to record the responses to this question a -3 represented a total loss of salmon runs, and a 3 represented a rehabilitation of salmon runs to historic levels. The mean response to this question was -1.6, the median was -2 and the range was 2.5, see Figure #8.1. 81 More than one respondent mentioned that fish that have high residence times in the river would suffer the greatest impacts, and that fish spending less time in the freshwater environment would be impacted to a lesser degree. It was suggested that species representation would be dictated primarily by these factors. For example, the Chum salmon populations would be impacted to a lesser degree than the chinook, coho and steelhead populations because they spend less time in the freshwater environment as juveniles. Therefore it is possible that chum salmon populations could remain consistent over time even if there was an overall decline in the health of the watershed because these fish spend relatively little time in the freshwater environment in comparison to the other salmonids. When asked how watershed restoration activities would affect the number of salmonids returning to the Squamish River watershed, most people agreed that the watershed restoration activities would have a positive impact on salmon stocks. One respondent suggested that there would be an "amazing improvements in the numbers of fish returning to the watershed as a direct result of the watershed restoration activities". Others remained skeptical, suggesting that the jury is still out, and that it will be known how well restoration activities have performed when or if the fish return, and that predictions about the long term results and viability of this project are still premature. The mean, median and range of responses to this question were all 2, see Figure #8.1. 5.2.4.2) Quality Of The Sport Fishing Experience. By identifying recreational sport fishing enthusiasts as resource users, it is important to understand how watershed restoration activities could possibly affect the experience these individuals pursue when using the Squamish River watershed. The respondents to the informational interview were asked to compare how they thought the experience of a sportfishing enthusiast would be affected if there were no watershed restoration activities in the Squamish River watershed. All responses were consistent with each another, stating that people believed that the sport fishing experience would decline over time if there were no 82 watershed restoration activities. The mean response to this question was -1, the median was -1.75 and the range of responses was 2, see Figure #8.1. The number of recreational sport fishing days that have been reported on the Squamish River system has declined dramatically from a historic high of approximately 3000 users days a year to a current level of approximately 1000 user days per year. This decline is attributed to the fact that there are fewer steelhead in the system than there have been in the past. Although there is little or no statistical evidence to support this claim, it has been suggested by some individuals that the level of resource extraction and industrial impact may play a role in the level of use. Some people said that they did not personally want to recreate in areas that had been heavily impacted by industrial forest activities because this distracted from the experience they were seeking, and therefore the Squamish River system would not necessarily be their first choice of recreational destinations. One respondent summarized his thoughts by suggesting that more fish meant a better experience. This was not the same for all respondents. One individual suggested that his fishing experience included many factors, only one of which was the number of fish landed or hooked. He said that the aesthetics associated with fishing were also of great importance to the overall fishing experience. One respondent argued that the Forest Practices Code would eventually bring about desirable changes to the Squamish River watershed, but that these changes would take many years to be realized. All respondents agreed that the quality of the sport fishing experience would benefit from the application of watershed restoration activities. The mean response to this question was 2, the median value was also 2, and the range of response values was 1, see Figure #8.1. 5.2.4.3) Industrial Forestry Activity. When asked about how industrial forestry activities in the Squamish River watershed would be affected if there were no watershed restoration activities, the majority of respondents suggested that forest operations would remain basically the same in the future as 83 they are today. One reason for this is that a large percentage of the low lying valley bottom old growth timber has already been harvested within the Squamish River watershed. It was indicated that over time it will continue to become more difficult for forest operators to find easily accessible timber of high economic value within the Squamish River watershed. To maintain an even flow of wood and fiber coming out of the watershed, there needs to be a shift in harvesting patterns and techniques. This shift could mean placing a greater emphasis on road construction because it would involve harvesting timber in areas that are currently inaccessible. Another possible scenario that was mentioned by one respondent was the increased use of helicopters to remove timber from the harvesting site to the loading area. This scenario is consistent with what is occurring in other areas of British Columbia. During the interviews all the respondents provided consistent answers to the question of how industrial forest operations would be affected over time if there were no watershed restoration activities. The mean response value was -.3, the median was -.25 and the range of response values was only .5, see Figure #8.1. When asked how the industrial forestry activities would be affected by watershed restoration activities, many people pointed out that watershed restoration activities are in many ways synonymous with the introduction and application of the Forest Practices Code. These two subjects were often discussed simultaneously. Respondents suggested that both the Forest Practices Code and watershed restoration activities would have a long term positive impacts on the industrial forest sector, but that these benefits would not be realized in the short term. The new regulations of the Forest Practices Code and the watershed restoration project will ultimately be beneficial for the forest sector and society. 5.2.4.4) Impacts To Wildlife. Respondents were clear about how they thought the wildlife in the Squamish River watershed would be affected by the application of watershed restoration activities as compared to the lack of them. People believed that without watershed restoration activities, 84 the populations of wildlife in the Squamish River watershed would decline dramatically over time. With an overall decrease in the amount of available habitat, wildlife populations would be placed under increased stress, causing the health of animals to deteriorate, that would eventually result in decreased populations. The mean response value when asked how wildlife would be affected without watershed restoration activities was -1.7, the median was -1.5 and the range of responses was 2, see Figure #8.1., In comparison, when asked how the wildlife in the Squamish River watershed would be affected as a result of watershed restoration activities being applied, the response was clear. People believed there would be rehabilitation of native flora and fauna, increased wildlife and aesthetic values. The respondents were in agreement with this belief, as the range of response values indicates. The mean response value to this question was 1.8, the median was 2 and the range of response values was .5, see Figure #8.1. 5.2.4.5) Overview Of Benefits To Resource Users Results. The average responses of the questions asked about how watershed restoration activities would effect the benefits to resource users was clear. Without watershed restoration activities all of the respondents felt that the condition of the Squamish River watershed would continue to deteriorate over time. As the condition of the watershed deteriorated, the benefits to resource users would also suffer dramatically. This downturn would have a negative impact on the different resources, and subsequently the resource users within and dependent on the Squamish River watershed. It was believed by all of the respondents that watershed restoration activities would improve conditions in the Squamish River watershed and that this would have a positive impact on the watershed and the resources within it. In general, it was believed that watershed restoration activities would create positive benefits for both the resources within the watershed and the resource users. 85 5.2.5 Substantive Objective #5: Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property. It was mentioned by at least fifty percent of the respondents that this question was not necessarily applicable to the situation on the Squamish River watershed because the vast majority of land in the watershed is Crown land. Therefore it is owned, managed and regulated by the government. There are small parcels of private land within the watershed, including Native reserves, private timber holdings and residential sites. The largest concentration of private land is at the mouth of the river in the estuarine areas. There are few if any watershed restoration or resource extraction activities taking place in these areas, so the possibilities for competing interests, and potential adverse impacts are minimal. None the less, there have been some instances further up the watershed that have had to deal with private property issues. There are at least two isolated instances where private property has been an issue with the restoration activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Chuck Chuck Creek is a tributary of the Squamish River. As a tributary it contains valuable spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids. There is a private land owner on Chuck Chuck Creek, at the confluence of the Chuck Chuck Creek and the mainstem of the Squamish River. One of the restoration projects required modifying a section of the creek and the surrounding habitat that butted up against the private property. Before any work was scheduled two representatives, from the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project contacted the private property owners. Their intentions were to see if any arrangements could be made that would allow for the restoration work to be completed without upsetting the private property owners. During this meeting it was determined that the property owners did not object to the rehabilitation work being conducted, but in return they wanted to have a duck pond built on their property. In this manner, the private property owners were willing to allow work on their property and in compensation they would get something that they valued. This arrangement was acceptable to everyone involved in part because the rehabilitation work required the use of heavy machinery (a front end loader), and this same piece of machinery 86 could be used to construct the duck pond. Building a duck pond did not constitute a large expenditure for the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, therefore they were willing to accept the cost of constructing the duck pond because it allowed for restoration work to be conducted on an important section of Chuck Chuck Creek that contained valuable and important habitat. Another example of how the activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project have been effected by private property issues surrounds a small private timber holding at the mouth of the Ashlu River. Where the Ashlu River and the Squamish River meet, there is a small parcel of land that is owned by Interfor/Empire Logging. They are planning to harvest the timber from this site in the near future. At this same site there is a potential restoration project in the same area that has not yet been activated. The restoration project site is on the private land. Interfor/Empire Logging have suggested that they would be willing to negotiate an agreement with the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project over how this project will be conducted. It is willing to allow the restoration project to take place if it is still possible for them to remove their timber. This might require the Ministry of Forests to provide the forest operator with some leeway in how they harvest this timber while working in and around the restoration project without having to go to great lengths to satisfy additional regulatory requirements. This arrangement suggests a three way agreement between the private property owner, the restoration interest and the regulatory agency. These two examples suggest that agreements between private land owners, the proponents of the restoration initiative and the necessary regulatory agency can be established to avoid or significantly reduce potential adverse effects to private property and private property rights. Proactively negotiating mutually satisfying agreements, it may be possible to satisfy each of the parties without compromising the interests or integrity of any of the parties involved. 87 5.2.6 Substantive Objective #6: Promotes Human Resource Development. It was stated on numerous occasions during different phases of this research project that the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is a pilot or demonstration project for the Watershed restoration Program of British Columbia. This project is the first of its kind in British Columbia. Subsequently many opportunities for advancing the objectives of the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia have presented themselves. These opportunities have been used to promote and advance this and other watershed restoration projects throughout the Province. One of the activities that has resulted from the Squamish River Restoration Project has been the Watershed Restoration Program's Coastal Fish Habitat Assessment And Rehabilitation Workshops that take place three to four times each year in the Squamish River watershed. These workshops are a three day event that involve a variety of different structured activities designed to instruct, inform and train individuals who work within the field of watershed restoration and resource management. The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project has promoted human resource development both directly and indirectly. It has promoted development directly through the training of volunteers and workers who are involved with the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Indirect human resource development occurs when people are involved with the watershed Restoration Program Workshops that take place in the Squamish River watershed. After people complete these workshops they return to where they work and live, bringing with them new information and knowledge. It is anticipated that this information, training and appreciation for the types of activities that are promoted during the workshops will be disseminated throughout the Province and other areas as more people become involved in these workshops. Another source of indirect human resource development occurs when individuals such as the heavy equipment operators are contracted to conduct work for the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. They may learn new skills as a result of performing as a part of the work they are conducting for the Project. For example, an operator may be asked 88 to rebuild a section of stream channel. They are informed on how to reconstruct these areas based on the needs of the fish and the knowledge of the restoration supervisor. The operator stands to gain important information that they may implement in other areas during the course of other employment. In this manner, information and knowledge is transferred through actions. These actions can then be repeated elsewhere. Many respondents indicated that there has been an increase in public awareness regarding the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. It was suggested that this is an indication of an increased sense of stewardship within the community and region. Stewardship refers to opportunities for learning about and taking care of the resources within the Squamish River Watershed. A local interest indicated that the creation of other stewardship groups such as the Land for Nature and the Nature Conservancy Eagle Habitat groups are an indication that there is a growing public awareness about the environment, and an increased willingness to participate in activities that may lead to the protection, preservation or increased appreciation of environmental values. 5.2.6.1) Participants In Training Programs. As mentioned above there has been a significant number of people who have been involved with training programs in the Squamish region as a result of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Approximately 200 to 280 people have participated in the Watershed Restoration Program's Coastal Fish Habitat Assessment And Rehabilitation Workshops since the program was started in 1994. The Workshops are conducted on an ongoing basis and are open to the public. There are no restrictions on who can participate as long as they are willing to pay the appropriate fee. This program has met with great success. The sessions are well attended, and the participants are often enthusiastic about the material that is being taught and the opportunities to meet with other individuals who are also interested in this type of work. The Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia is planning to continue offering these Workshops for many years in the future. 89 5.2.6.2) Number Of Jobs Created. The Project manager of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project indicated that at least three Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE's) have been created in the community of Squamish as a result of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. These include the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, Project Manager and an on site Fisheries Biologist. Other employment opportunities in the areas of habitat survey and heavy equipment operation are also attributed to the activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Many of these positions are filled by people who live within the Squamish area. 5.3 Detailed Results Of Procedural Objectives: The overall procedural fundamental objective is to select the best possible process for watershed restoration initiatives. This is one that: 5.3.1 Procedural Objective #1: Promotes A Planning Framework. One of the original members of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force explained that this group was created to develop and implement the planning and decision making framework for the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The planning framework helped to structure the problems of watershed restoration. These included problems that are generic by nature, and those that are unique to the Squamish River context. The planning framework also helped to identify and recruit stakeholders, and create the best possible plans for accomplishing the goals and objectives of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. The planning framework consisted of three components: one, a strategically selected set of goals or projects, two, a list of people and organizations that were willing to work on the projects, and third the identification of potential resources necessary for completing the projects that had been identified. The planning framework came from the Objectives of the Watershed Restoration Project as detailed in Chapter #3. 90 It was explained by interview respondents that the results oriented approach of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force influenced the way that short and long term plans were designed and implemented. Because the Squamish River Habitat Task Force was initially interested in producing quick results, the Shop Creek project was chosen as the first watershed restoration project. This project was an "acid test" for the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. It was suggested by a number of people that this project was important because it was seen as a manageable project because of its size and it had the potential for delivering high quality results. There was the potential for a high return to investment ratio. One of the respondents suggested that the planning framework employed by the Squamish River Habitat Task Force on the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was designed to guide and structure the activities of the project by utilizing the available resources to their greatest potential. 5.3.2 Procedural Objective #2: Promotes A Decision Making Framework. The decision making framework utilized by the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is outlined and discussed in detail in the Rules of Engagement. Table #8: Rules Of Engagement: 1) Nor finger pointing, or casting of blame. The traditional adversarial roles of such as logging company versus environmental interest. First Nations versus commercial fisherman would not be welcome in the meetings. Working as a group, the group either succeeded together or failed together with equal responsibility shared amongst the group. 2) Respect peoples opinions. Separating individuals from the group they might represent. Give ample time to each individual to present their opinions. No personal attacks would be tolerated. Persons disregarding this rule would be asked to leave. 3) Decisions were to be made by consensus whenever possible. If it were necessary then a vote would be taken as a final means of solving any non consensus issues (Appendix, #2). One respondent characterized the decision making process as striving for consensus whenever possible, but that voting was employed when necessary to break deadlocks. 91 Participants also characterized the decision making process as "fluid", "developmental" and a "learning process". The decision making process was designed to be hard on ideas, not on people, as well as results oriented. One person described the decision making process as being representative. They suggested that each person present at a meeting could openly discuss their ideas and opinions, often times lobbying for their point of view. These ideas would then be discussed, allowing an equal opportunity for everyone to add input, and eventually decisions would be made based on the available information and knowledge. One participant suggested that the First Nations perspective was not incorporated in the decision making process, and that this interest was not properly represented. This opinion was not widely held among the participants in both the Squamish River Habitat Task Force or the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. There was a distinct separation of opinions among the participants regarding this issue. Some individuals suggested that the First Nations were given ample opportunity to be involved in the decision making and other processes, but had willingly opted out. It was suggested by many interview participants that First Nations involvement had been a contentious issue throughout the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 5.3.3 Procedural Objective #3: Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests. As outlined in the guiding principles of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force, one of the purposes of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was to bring people together. This could involve abandoning traditional adversarial positions such as industry versus environment, Native versus non-native. Although this project expended great amounts of effort and energy attempting to accomplish this goal, there were still problems that arose surrounding the issues of representation within the decision making body that comprised the core of the membership of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. 92 There was a range of perspectives that were voiced regarding the issue of representation of legitimate interests in the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. These differing perspectives became clear as a result of conducting the structured information interviews. On the one hand, there were at least one individual that was of the belief that the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project represented all user groups, and that nobody was excluded. This person suggested that each legitimate interest was approached and asked to be involved in the project. It then became their decision to participate or choose not to be involved. Another person suggested that the Project was representative of everyone who wanted to do something. On the other hand, there were those participants who thought that the First Nations were not fully represented in the process. There was a range of different opinions expressed. One respondent suggested that the First Nations were missing from the process, but that they had chosen to be separate because they were non-committal to the ideas and projects that were presented at the scheduled meetings. One respondent who was interviewed suggested that the First Nations had become disenfranchised during the planning and decision making processes, and from that time forward there was a lack of trust between the First Nations representative and the other participants in the process. In the opinion of this person the lack of trust between the First Nations and the other members of the group undermined and compromised the process because in their opinion there was also a lack of commitment and integrity on the part of the members of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force when engaging in any aspects of the process. This individual referred to bridges that had been burnt between these stakeholders because of promises that have not been kept, therefore under the circumstances it became necessary to distance the First Nations interests or specifically the Squamish Nation from the work of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Aside from the issue of First Nations representation and involvement, the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was 93 successful at involving a large number of, diverse groups that were representative of many different interests in the watershed restoration initiative. 5.3.4 Procedural Objective #4: Values Equity And Fairness. The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was established on the basis of a process that encouraged involvement from any parties expressing interest. The intentions of the Squamish River Watershed Habitat Task Force members regarding the issues of equity and fairness are outlined and detailed in the Rules of Engagement, the Objectives of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project and in the quote by Pat Ahern in chapter #3. From these sources it is possible to compile a sense of how this group established the procedural aspects of their project. This process was one that provided an opportunity for those people who were interested in becoming involved to contribute in a meaningful fashion. It was the belief of more than one of the interview respondents that the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project had attempted to create a fair, equitable process and that these efforts were substantially well rewarded. There were others who believed that the process was unjust, unfair and was designed to discourage involvement from a certain interest group. This opinion was held almost entirely by the representative of the group that perceived that they were being persecuted. 5.3.5 Procedural Objective #5: Is Respectful. The issue of personal respect is discussed in detail in the Rules of Engagement in Chapter #3. The second rule notes that people's opinions must be respected. It also states that individuals will have the opportunity to express their opinion, and personal attacks will not be tolerated within the context of the meetings and working groups. The penalty for failing to recognize or abide by these rules is expulsion from the group and the process. It is evident 94 from these rules that the participants were serious about their commitment to the issue of respect being a fundamental tenet of the process that would be employed as a means of accomplishing the goals of the project. The group worked hard to establish a process that ensured the rights of all individuals and the interests that they represented. There were many participants within the group that strongly believed that these principles were adhered to and that they made it possible for the group to make the type of progress that they did with the resources that they had available to them. It was the belief of most participants in the interview process that the planning and decision making processes selected for the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project were ones that strove to be respectful of all the individuals who were involved by attempting to represent the interests of each participant in a meaningful and respectful manner. The difficulties that were experienced with the First Nations issue may have been the result of a series of miscommunication between different interests and parties. Therefore this incident does not necessarily indicate that the project was intending to act or behave in a disrespectful manner. This incident highlights the fact that individuals, no matter how well intentioned they may be, still run the risk of behaving in a manner that may be perceived as unacceptable by others, whether they know it or not 5.3.6 Procedural Objective #6: Uses Knowledge, Local And Scientific Effectively. The members of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project strongly believed that they used both local and scientific knowledge effectively. From a local perspective, one respondent suggests that before the watershed restoration project began he had noticed a dramatic decline in number of steelhead returning to the Squamish River watershed. His knowledge was not always consistent with that of the scientific information that was available from the regulatory agencies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment. One respondent expressed the idea that local knowledge is a lightning rod. In this instance, it seems to have provided the impetus for creating the 95 Squamish River Habitat Task Force. Another individual suggested that "local knowledge is the best". As the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was implemented, it relied heavily on information from both local and scientific sources. The accomplishments of this project represent a successful marriage of local and scientific knowledge because many of the ideas that were necessary to complete restoration projects required a combination of certain aspects of both types of information. In this manner the solutions that were derived benefited from the range of perspectives provided. One individual suggested that the fish in the Squamish River watershed would benefit from this project because there was many instances where there were applications of good science. 5.3.7 Procedural Objective #7: Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures. It was agreed by all respondents that the efforts of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project predated the government initiatives of the Watershed Restoration Program and Forest Renewal British Columbia. The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is viewed by many government regulatory agencies as a pilot project. Suggesting that the Squamish River Project is consistent with the existing framework is a bit of a misnomer. There was agreement that the objectives, methods and procedures of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project are consistent with the initiatives of the government regulatory agencies, such as the Watershed Restoration Program and Forest Renewal British Columbia. More than one respondent indicated that the Squamish River project was the example that the government initiative used as the basis for their programs. This is consistent with the concept that the Squamish River Project is a pilot project for other watershed restoration projects being conducted throughout the Province of British Columbia. 96 5.4 General Conclusions: It becomes clear from reviewing this analysis that the people who were interviewed for this research perceive that the Squamish River watershed has, and will continue to benefit from the efforts and activities of the Squamish Rive Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Project in a diversity of ways. The respondents indicated that they believe the cumulative impacts of this project will greatly benefit the ecological and social systems of the Squamish River watershed. It was concluded from the background research and the structured informational interviews that without the efforts and activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, there is a high likelihood that the ecological and social conditions in the Squamish River watershed would deteriorate over time. The results of this research also indicate that the process and procedure that was established by the Squamish River Habitat Task Force for structuring and conducting the activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project are generally consistent with the fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration program as identified in the fundamental objectives that were created as an evaluative tool for the purposes of conducting this research. 97 Chapter 6: Evaluative Framework Assessment. 6.1 Introduction: The second purpose of this thesis research was to apply the evaluative framework as defined in chapter #2 to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study as a means of testing and improving it. This chapter presents the results of that exercise in three sections. First, a critical assessment of how the evaluative framework performed when it was applied to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study is presented. Second, a general discussion of the evaluative framework performance is provided. Third, and finally detailed recommendations on how the evaluative framework could be improved as a result of what was learned when it was applied to the case study are outlined. 6.2 Assessment Of The Evaluative Framework Performance. An assessment of the evaluative framework has been conducted to determine how well the framework performed when it was applied to the case study. The assessment of the evaluative framework will be carried out by first determining how it performed when it was used to address many of the most relevant environmental, socio-economic and institutional issues associated with each of the fundamental objectives in the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study. This is followed by a discussion of how well the evaluative framework performed when it was applied to the case study in a broader more general sense. Questions that were used to guide the assessment include: Did the evaluative framework work? Was it understandable? Were the fundamental objectives complete? 6.2.1 Promotes Ecological Health. Proxy attributes were used to identify and measure the ecological health trends in the Squamish River watershed as they changed over time. This research employed biodiversity, biological productivity and the amount of quality fisheries habitat as the proxy attributes to 98 measure the health ecosystems in the Squamish River watershed, and to determine how the ecological health of the Squamish River would be effected with and without watershed restoration activities. The questions that were asked of the participants in the structured information interviews were designed to allow the respondents the opportunity to express themselves on these topics, and provide their opinion on the relative state of ecological health conditions within the Squamish River watershed. These questions did a good job of structuring the discussion of ecological health with regard to each of the proxy attributes. It was apparent that they provided a good starting point that then allowed people to speak to what they believed were relevant issues and concerns. The evaluative framework provided a good venue for people to provide information that they thought had a bearing on the ecological health of the watershed. Even though the questions addressed three specific sub components of the broader topic of ecological health, this did not stop respondents from providing their opinions on what factors they believed contributed to the health conditions in the watershed even if these factors were not represented in the three sub components. The questions did not bound the respondents to specific or anticipated answers, instead respondents were allowed the opportunity to provide more, perhaps new information. In this manner the questions that were asked allowed for new discoveries to be made without limiting the responses. It can be concluded that the evaluative framework performed effectively when addressing the topic of ecological health. On a scale of 1 to 5, the evaluative framework was given a performance level of 4 (see Table #9). 6.2.2 Is Cost Effective. Without conducting an extensive full cost benefit analysis, this research was able to get an accurate depiction of how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project managed their financial assets. Respondents identified the types of restoration work the project has completed and the amount of financial backing this project was able to attract. 99 Table #9: Summary Results Of The Evaluative Framework Application Assessment. Substantive Fundamental Objectives Performance 1) Promotes ecological health. 4 * 2) Is cost effective. 4 3) Promotes Adaptive Management. 2 4) Increases benefits to resources users. 4 5) Avoids adverse effects to private property. 4 6) Promoted human resource development. 4 Procedural Fundamental Objectives Performance 1) Promotes a planning framework. 4 2) Promotes a decision making framework. 4 3) Represents a wide range of legitimate interests. 4 4) Values equity and fairness. 3 5) Is respectful. 3 6) Use knowledge, local and scientific effectively. 3 7) Is consistent with existing governance structures. 3 * (The numbers that appear in the performance column above, have been selected in reference to the five point scale that appears below. These numbers represent the relative effectiveness of the evaluative framework to evaluate each of the fundamental objectives.) 1 2 3 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 needs less than adequate effective very improvement adequate effective This made it possible to compare the amount of work completed for the amount of money spent to money received and to the amount of work completed for the financial resource spent. In the opinions of most people who were interviewed, this project has been conducted cost effectively. Many examples of how the project was being conducted cost effectively 1 0 0 were provided. These include the relatively low expenditures allocated to administrative overhead as compared to the relatively greater proportion of expenditures allocated and spent on the restoration work being conducted at the project or site level. The evaluative framework was effective at allowing people to express their opinions on the issue of cost effectiveness. The question asked about cost effectiveness was direct, to the point and did not appear to constrict the types of answers that were given by the respondents. It was determined that the evaluative framework was effective when dealing with this subject, therefore it was given a performance rating of 4 on scale of 1 to 5 (see Table #9). 6.2.3 Promotes Adaptive Management. The range of responses to the Adaptive Management questions seem to suggest that individual respondents may have relied on their previous established definitions of Adaptive Management to answer the interview questions. This was in spite of the fact that a common definition of Adaptive Management, one that is consistent with the theories promoted by CS. Holling and his colleagues, was presented as a precursor to the interview questions. The technique of establishing a common definition before asking questions about Adaptive Management did not work well. It is uncertain if the interview respondents chose not to recognize, incorporate or use the information that was provided for them, or if their definition of Adaptive Management was anchored in their previously established beliefs. The phenomenon of anchoring may have made it difficult for people to objectively consider the new information that was presented in the preamble to the interview questions. The evaluative framework performed less than adequately when addressing the topic of Adaptive Management, and how this theory and practice was or was not incorporated in the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study. The evaluative framework and the techniques and procedures that were used to research this subject could be improved. This fundamental objective was given a performance rating of 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 when it was evaluated (see Table #9). 1 0 1 6.2.4 Increases Benefits To Resource Users. The questions addressing the benefits to resource users relied on the interview respondents to imagine two hypothetical scenarios, one where there were no watershed restoration activities and the other where watershed restoration activities had been implemented as a means of restoring, repairing and rehabilitating the ongoing ecological processes within the Squamish River watershed (see Appendix 1). It was anticipated that this set of questions may have proven to be more difficult than others because it required the participants to manipulate two mental images in their minds while simultaneously being asked to answer questions about them. Interestingly this procedure did not appear to pose an unreasonable challenge to the respondents, they were capable of providing clear and concise answers to all of the questions involving the two different scenarios. In the opinion of the researcher the scenarios that were used in this section of the interview process, seemed to be similar in their procedural technique and psychological challenge to the questions that were asked about Adaptive Management. Both required new information being presented, then people were asked questions that would be influenced by the information that was presented. The respondents treated each of the two subjects (Adaptive Management and benefits to resources users) very differently from one another. Respondents did not appear to be confused by the technique of using hypothetical scenarios as a basis for answering the set of questions involving the benefits to resource users. Once the scenarios had been presented to the respondents during the interview, in the majority of instances it was not necessary to reiterate or repeat them. Respondents were capable of maintaining the scenarios fixed in their minds for the duration of the questioning. This was consistent for all three sets of questions, those involving the total number of salmon returning to the watershed, the quality of the sport fishing experience, industrial forestry activities and the impacts to wildlife. One of the more surprising aspects of the procedure of applying hypothetical scenarios during the interviews was the ability of the respondents to keep a very clear image 102 in their mind of what they believed the watershed would be like if there were no watershed restoration activities as compared to how it would appear if there were watershed restoration activities. Respondents were able to provide vivid depictions of how they believed the area would be effected. This format was very successful at gauging peoples opinions about the potential benefits to resource users as a result of watershed restoration activities or the lack there of. This subject was given a performance rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 because it is believed that this approach to researching the topic and the specific questions that were asked was effective at revealing meaningful results (see Table #9). 6.2.5 Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property. The questions that were used as part of the evaluative framework to determine how the actions and activities of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project case study may have effected private property or private property rights of individuals within the Squamish River watershed were effective because they allowed the respondents to address these issues from a variety of different perspectives. This objective was given a performance rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 (see Table #9). More than one example of how private property and private property rights had been, or could be effected by the actions and activities of the watershed restoration initiative was given by interview respondents. In one example that was referred to more than once, a potential conflict between a private property owner and the watershed restoration plans and goals was resolved in an amicable manner. Respondents used this example as a means of exploring this and other potential problems associated with private property rights within the Squamish River. It was recognized that this issue has greater applicability in areas that have a larger percentage of private property holdings such as the United States of America, but that it is still of concern within this watershed restoration context. Respondents provided good material for discussing this issue, making for a rich understanding of the subject and how it is contextualized to the Squamish River watershed. 103 6.2.6 Promotes Human Resource Development. The Squamish River region, like many other areas of British Columbia, is in a period of transition between an existence that has been highly dependent on timber jobs to one that relies less heavily on this industry to provide the mainstay of the regional economic activity. An overriding influence on the employment opportunities within this region is the cyclical conditions within resource extraction industries in general, mainly forestry in this case. Many of these industries can be characterized by swift, often volatile changes in economic opportunity and work force. These changes are often driven by conditions that are generated in the international market place, leaving regional workers little or no ability to influence the terms of their employment. This evaluative framework attempted to quantify the change in employment opportunities as a result of the watershed restoration activities within this region. Respondents in the interviews were able to provide some specific numbers on the direct jobs that had been created, but were not as capable of providing a more general assessment of how regional or area specific employment opportunities or how they had changed as a result of this watershed restoration project. The evaluative framework performed well in the context of measuring and determining how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project effected the human resource development within this region because it asked relevant questions about this topic, that were answered by informed individuals who provided intelligent answers. This may be in part due to the fact that there is at least one well established program that has been implemented to address this issue at a regional and Provincial level within the Squamish River watershed. Many of the interview respondents were aware of this program and what it hopes to accomplish. Some of these individuals were responsible for establishing the program, therefore most of the people involved in the interview process have a heightened awareness of the regional issues and the actions that have been taken to address them. The existence of the training and development program displays the fact that there are concerns 1 0 4 about employment issues within this region, and that there have been actions taken to help people deal with the regional socio-economic transition. When the evaluative framework was applied to the case study, many relevant questions were addressed and many useful and insightful responses were given. The evaluative framework did a good job in relaying valuable information and uncovering specific details regarding this topic. This was a successful research application. It was given a performance rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 (see Table #9). 6.2.7 Promotes A Planning Framework. Promoting a planning framework is the first of the seven procedural fundamental objectives. When the respondents were asked about the process that was used to structure the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, it was easy for them to provide detailed answers because there was a well structured planning framework that was and is still used to guide the actions and activities of this project. It was not difficult to apply the questions from the evaluative framework to this subject because when the respondents were asked about it, they had a great deal of information to draw from. Once on the subject of promoting a planning framework the respondents were clear about how they structured their project, established rules, set the goals and objectives of the watershed restoration initiative. The question regarding the promotion of a planning framework allowed the respondents the opportunity to open the discussion up so that they could expand on the initial question and provide more specific details about the procedures that they had designed, selected and implemented. This was a successful application of the evaluative framework with regards to this subject. The respondents provided relevant information that allowed the researcher to gain a better understanding of the procedures that were used by this group. The evaluative framework was successful at identifying important aspects of this topic and asking specific questions that provided a better understanding of the topic. On a scale of 1 to 5, the topic received a performance rating of 4 (see Table #9). 1 0 5 6.2.8 Promotes A Decision Making Framework. Similar to the planning framework, this group had a well defined decision making approach that was outlined in the Rules Of Engagement. When asked about how the group made decisions in the interview process, more than one respondent referred to the Rules Of Engagement that had been established to assist the project in keeping focused and goal oriented. The decision making framework as outlined by the group provided a level of support that helps keep tasks and projects structured. The evaluative framework was successful at addressing the issue of promoting a decision making context because it asked questions that allowed the interview respondents to provide relevant details from the perspective of their project. They had a well defined decision making context, and therefore it was easy for the respondents to provide detailed information on how they promoted a decision making framework within the context of this project. On a scale of 1 to 5, this topic received a performance rating of 4 (see Table #9). 6.2.9 Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests. The work that was done on the issue of representation provided good information about how this group operated and functioned as an organization. One thing that became apparent when questions about the representation of legitimate interests from the evaluative framework were applied to the case study was that, in this case it was not sufficient to recognize the different legitimate stakeholders, involve them in the work being conducted, but also to keep them involved and participating in a meaningful and effective fashion. This case provides a good example of at least one stakeholder group that initially became involved, but decided at a later date to distance themselves from the project because they did not feel as though their needs were being met by the process. This suggests that a mechanism in the procedural components of this project, one that was designed to allow for constant updating and evaluation might have improved the projects success rate by avoiding some of the confusion and discrepancies that occurred. 1 0 6 When the information regarding the issue of representation was fully discussed by the participants, it became clear that this project could have been improved. This indicates that the evaluative framework was successful at revealing relevant information that could be used to improve on the case study. The evaluative framework performed very well with regards to presenting many of the important details of how the issue of representation was dealt with by the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project as a whole. Uncovering this type of information allows the researcher to provide recommendations on how to improve the performance of the case study, therefore the evaluative framework was a success. On a scale of 1 to 5, the evaluative framework received a performance rating of 4 (see Table #9). 6.2.10 Values Equity And Fairness. When asked about the issues of equity, fairness and respect the respondents mentioned the Rules Of Engagement. It was within this set of rules that the guidelines for how people should conduct themselves in this process are detailed. The application of the evaluative framework in this instance was straightforward, because the respondents had a very well prepared answer to the question that was documented in the Rules Of Engagement. If there had not been such a well established system for how people were expected to conduct themselves, these questions may not have been as easily answered. Both this subject and the issue of respect received a performance rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (see Table #9). 6.2.11 Is Respectful. Refer to the previous answer for detailed information. 6.2.12 Uses Knowledge, Local And Scientific Effectively. The members of The Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project were adept at involving local knowledge in the creation and formation of the goals and objectives of this project. Scientific information was not always 1 0 7 relied on because of a lingering skepticism by members of these groups that the government might not have a better idea about how to accomplish these difficult goals than the local interests did. Although scientific information and knowledge does play an important role in how this project is operated, there are not always clear definitions on what the scientific information is or how it should be interpreted. The example that comes to mind is the issue of Adaptive Management and how it is applied in the context of this project. Based on the responses in the informational interviews to the questions regarding this subject, there is confusion over what is meant by Adaptive Management and how it should be applied as a natural resource management tool. These discrepancies became apparent when the respondents beliefs or definitions of what Adaptive Management, and how it is applied were compared to a more academic and theoretical definition. Respondents often times expressed views regarding Adaptive Management that were inconsistent with the academic one. From this perspective, this example illustrates how the evaluative framework was successfully applied to the case study, because it was able to uncover and reveal useful information that lead the researcher to gain a better understanding of the project and how it operated. This was a partial successful application of the evaluative framework, it scored a performance rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (see Table #9). 6.2.13 Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures. When asked if the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project was consistent with other governance structures, the reply from the vast majority of respondents in the informational interviews was that this project was a pilot for the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia. It was revealed that this project predated the Provincial initiative, therefore it was suggested that not only was this project consistent with the later Provincial initiative but that it provided the framework by which the Provincial initiative was eventually designed. These responses cover an important aspect of the governance issue, but do not address other relevant issues. 1 0 8 From a different, perhaps broader perspective, the evaluative framework did not address some of the relevant governance issues that become apparent at the National and international levels. For example, if watershed restoration activities centered around restoring depleted or endangered species of salmonids in a certain location are not administered in coordination or conjunction with the policies of regulatory agencies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, then watershed restoration activities may have little or no bearing on salmon survival within that location. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the agency responsible for setting harvest levels for commercial, aboriginal and recreational fishers, may have the ability to supersede watershed restoration activities in a watershed by allowing for the harvest of entire salmonid stocks before they have the opportunity to return to the spawning grounds. Along the same line of reasoning, international harvest levels can also have a significant impact on salmonid survival. This emphasizes how important it is for the inter-governmental agencies coordination of natural resource management policies, practices and decision making. The evaluative framework did a good job of getting respondents in the informational interviews to present their opinions on how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project addressed the issues of governance, but many of these responses failed to include a broader context to this question. If the questions included in the framework were broader in there scope they may have prompted people to include these types of concerns in their answers to these questions. As it stands the respondents focused mainly on the more local or Provincial concerns, ignoring in large part the National and international aspects of this subject. This was a partial successful application of the evaluative framework, it scored a performance rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (see Table #9). 6.3 General Discussion Of Evaluative Framework Performance. When the evaluative framework was applied to the case study, it proved to be consistent through the range of topics that were covered, yet flexible enough to allow for 1 0 9 pertinent information to be presented even though it may not have been directly relevant to the questions being asked. In most cases the evaluative framework was able to uncover significant and interesting material that had a bearing on how the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project operated as a case study, adding depth and integrity to the database that may not have been captured in a more rigid format. The evaluative framework was successful at measuring the performance of the case study. One of the reasons for this success was that the fundamental objectives covered a wide range of topics that were all relevant to the success of the project and the ability of the project to meet the goals and objectives that it had established at the outset. The evaluative framework that was developed for this research provides great potential as a program planning device. It has helped to structure the subjects and issues associated with this type of work in an organized fashion that allows for the comprehensive evaluation of efforts and activities in a structured format. This approach has proven to be useful at gaining a better perspective on the work that has been conducted in the Squamish River watershed and the processes that were selected and employed to accomplish the goals of the project. There seems to be an opportunity for a greater general applicability of this evaluative framework to other watershed restoration projects and programs. Tailoring the techniques and methods of this framework to the specific needs and characteristics of an individual project or program may prove to be the most effective means of creating the best and most appropriate tool for conducting this type of work in other locations. There are many opportunities that present themselves for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of these techniques and procedures. It may be possible to learn from the experience of others and avoid mistakes made elsewhere while attempting to advance the field of ecological restoration as it is applied with greater frequency in a variety of circumstances for the purposes of achieving the goals of sustainable development through the practice of investing in natural capital. 1 1 0 6.4 Recommendations For Improving The Evaluative Framework Recognizing that there are always improvements that can be made, and that there are also limitations to the amount of work that is needed to get an adequate and accurate depiction of the questions being analyzed, it is important to perceive the evaluative framework as a dynamic process that continues to develop over time as new information and experiences are gained. This approach is one that incorporates the evaluative framework within an information feedback loop, where new information is included in the policy decision making process as it becomes available. Over time the natural resource management policies and practices will adapt to the social and environmental influences that drive them. This section presents recommendation for how the evaluative framework could be improved. Not all of the fundamental objectives are covered in this section. These recommendations are a result of what has been learned when the evaluative framework was applied to the case study. 6.4.1 Promotes Ecological Health. Recognizing that the health of ecological systems may be difficult if not impossible to accurately measure, it is assumed that proxy attributes provide a realistic relative indication of ecological health trends. Based on this assumption it may be possible to get a more accurate indication of ecological health trends if a greater number of significant proxy attributes were used to measure the relative health of ecosystems within the geographic location in question. Increasing the sample size would help to reduce the probability of the occurrence of a type II error (Walpole, 1982). Additional proxy attributes such as wildlife and soil productivity could be used to gain a more accurate depiction of ecological trends within geographic location such as the Squamish River watershed. Comparing populations of eagles, ungulates, other fur bearing creatures as well as the specific stocks of salmonids and other fishes before and after the application of industrial forest activities could provide a more complete indication of 1 1 1 ecological health trends within the watershed and how they have been effected by human intervention. Similarly, comparing soil productivity before and after industrial forest activity could provide valuable information for assessing ecological health. Soil productivity could be measured by using the proxy attributes of bacteria and fungi. The representation and abundance of these organisms could be measured within areas of a watershed and could be compared to the levels or conditions that existed before human or industrial intervention. In addition to selecting a greater number of proxy attributes to measure the ecological health changes in a watershed, the implementation of sound experimental design should also be promoted. One method that is recommended by Mellina and Hinch in their 1995 publication is "a paired watershed approach, where physically and biologically similar logged watersheds are selected within different ecoregions. Each pair would consist of two logged watersheds, one subjected to restoration and the other remaining as an untreated control" (Mellina and Hinch, 1995). The application of this experimental design could lead to a better understanding of the ecological health trends within a watershed and how they are effected by watershed restoration activities. 6.4.2 Is Cost Effective. Conducting a complete and comprehensive cost benefit analysis of this project would result in a better understanding of how the financial resources of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project were allocated and distributed, and at what cost each of the objectives and goals of the project either were or were not met. This approach was outside of the scope of this study. Other program evaluations could benefit from the application of this type of approach, when and where it is deemed to be appropriate. Full cost accounting was a procedure that was mentioned by more than one of the interview respondents. This approach to valuing commodities such as salmon and other natural resources might prove to be a very useful and insightful exercise in situations such as watershed restoration initiatives. Applying this model could result in changes to the current 1 1 2 or traditional ways in which society perceives the worth of natural resources. Altering the valuation structure of the existing economic paradigm could lead to vastly different decisions being made as a result of a different value placed on natural resources. Although this is outside of the scope and scale of this work, it is a fertile subject area for future research. 6 . 4 . 3 P r o m o t e s A d a p t i v e M a n a g e m e n t . A new and different approach to the interview process must be created and implemented if the subject of Adaptive Management and its usefulness in these types of conditions is going to be properly addressed. It may be possible to learn more from the techniques that were used in the approach that was employed to evaluate the benefits to resource users in earlier sections to help guide the restructuring of this research approach and application. For example, the procedure that was used to orient interviewer respondents when addressing the subject of Adaptive Management could be changed to help reduce confusion and contradiction between peoples beliefs about Adaptive Management and an academically acceptable and scientifically defensible definition. One approach that may prove to be more successful than the one that was employed in this research, would be to ask respondents to provide their definition of Adaptive Management as an introduction to the subject. When the respondent had given their definition, this could be compared to the definition that had been selected for the research. Defining the differences in the definitions could allow respondents to recognize inconsistencies between them. At this stage, the interviewer could reintroduce the proper definition of Adaptive Management and reiterate that this definition is the one that should be referred to when answering questions about the case study. 6 . 4 . 4 P r o m o t e s H u m a n R e s o u r c e D e v e l o p m e n t . This evaluative framework did a good job of measuring the direct employment benefits associated with this restoration project, but it did not do an entirely accurate job of 113 determining the extent of measuring the positive and the negative financial and employment losses and benefits that resulted from this project. To get a better indication of the extent and significance of these impacts, it would be necessary to conduct a full blown cost benefit analysis. This was not within the scope or the scale of this research project. It must be recognized that the cursory overview of this subject was not enough to lead to a full understanding of all the influences that effect the human resource development potential in this case, nor is it enough to accurately determine how this case has impacted these obviously important soci-economic issues. Further study is required for a better more comprehensive understanding of this subject area. In other cases and applications the use of cost benefit analysis may be the most appropriate means of generating the type of information that is needed. 6.4.5 Promotes A Decision Making Framework. The applicability and utility of the collaborative approach will become more apparent over time as it is tried and tested in a range of different situations and conditions that it is applied to. There is great promise for this approach to meet with success in the fields of natural resource management and policy making because of the inherently complicated or wicked problems that are often associated with these types of issues. The application of this approach to decision making and conflict resolution may provide encouraging results in a watershed restoration context. The evaluative framework that was applied to the Squamish River case study was effective at allowing respondents to identify the way that decisions were made. Respondents identified the rules that had been established and the means of resolving potential conflicts that arose between different interests. The evaluative framework did not necessarily address the subject of collaboration or determine if the project had employed the principles of the collaborative approach or not. Therefore the decision making framework component of the evaluative framework could be improved by adding to or refining the existing questions that 1 1 4 are asked about the decision making framework to determine if collaboration or the principles of the collaborative approach were used in the context of the case study that is being examined. 6.4.6 Represents A Wide Range Of Legitimate Interests. As mentioned in the earlier assessment. Adopting a three stage approach to representation of legitimate interests in a given process could provide benefits that otherwise might not be realized. The three steps include: one, the identification of legitimate stakeholders, two, the commitment to the goals and objectives of the project by the stakeholders and three, the ongoing monitoring of how the stakeholders are maintaining their involvement. If questions within the evaluative framework could be designed to monitor each of these three important steps or stages in the process, then the framework would become a more effective tool for measuring and monitoring the condition of the state of a project with regards to this topic. 6.4.7 Values Equity And Fairness And Is Respectful. The evaluative framework could be improved by combining the subjects of equity, fairness and respect. It should be possible to deal with each of these issues under the same subheading or topic area. In the current state, the evaluative framework does not delineate between these subject areas as effectively as it could. Therefore combining these subjects could provide a more effective means of measuring how the case study being analyzed values the issues of equity, fairness and respect and how the case study incorporated these issues into the procedural aspects of the project. 6.4.8 Is Consistent With Existing Governance Structures. The examination of governance structures could be expanded to include a much broader range of governance and natural resource management issues. Building on the land 1 1 5 based activities of the watershed restoration activities in the Squamish, these activities could be expanded to include the actions and policy decisions of other government agencies, such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The impacts of this type of approach could have a significant impact on the amount of fish able to return to their home waters, and provide a true test for the land based restoration activities by allowing them to be tested by the salmonids they were designed to restore and rehabilitate. 1 1 6 Chapter 7: Discussion And Recommendations. 7.1 Introduction: This chapter is presented in two sections. The first section is a discussion of the results of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Second, recommendations on how this research could be used to benefit other watershed restoration projects and programs across British Columbia and North America are presented. 7.2 Discussion Of Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project Results. Faced with the daunting task of reversing the processes that have lead to the deterioration of the ecological conditions in the Squamish River watershed, the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project have made great progress in pursuit of the goals and objectives that they established for themselves at the commencement of their watershed restoration initiative. This project has become a pilot for the Watershed Restoration Program of British Columbia. It has made a significant contribution to advancing the goals of watershed restoration within the Squamish River watershed. Undoubtedly these efforts will also have broad reaching impacts on other watershed restoration projects and programs as they attempt to accomplish similar goals. It should be possible to implement some of what has been learned in the Squamish River watershed by helping others structure and implement restoration efforts and activities in a effective and meaningful fashion based on the experiences that have gained in the Squamish. After conducting a program evaluation of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project, it is clear that this project has met with a certain level of success in many of the areas it has become involved in. These include the design and implementation of a well structured approach to planning and decision making that allowed for the identification of projects, the organization of efforts and the accomplishment of many physical watershed restoration projects identified during the planning phase. Using these methods, the organizers of this 117 project were able to structure and implement a complex project, even when faced with tremendous biophysical and administrative obstacles and uncertainties. One of the strengths of this approach was the ability of the project organizers to bring people together, share a common vision and orchestrate a collective buy-in of interested individuals. Much of the success of this project is attributable to the people who were involved. In particular Pat Ahern, Pat Slaney and Gordon Prescott each played an instrumental role in getting this project started, and continuing to provide the guidance and enthusiasm that was necessary to maintain a productive organization. These three individuals were the visionaries who were able to infect others with the same zeal, passion and hope that they had. They were able to convince others that this project could make a difference by improving environmental conditions in the Squamish River watershed, even if it meant overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles to do so. "Collaboration is sometimes championed by a strong leader whose energy and vision mobilizes others to participate" (Selin and Chavez, 1995). This is exactly what Pat Ahern managed to do with the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. He was the catalyst that helped structure and create the opportunity for other people to participate and become involved in a meaningful and useful fashion (Crowley, K. 1988). Once the project became operational, it took on a life of its own. Today, this project has an annual budget and an administrative and operational staff who are responsible for managing all aspects of the project. Although the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project have been successful at achieving many of the goals that they established for themselves, there is still room for improvement. One area of concern centers on the issue of representation. According to the First Nations representative they felt that they had become disenfranchised as a legitimate interest during the planning phase of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Theirs is obviously a legitimate and important interest in the context of this project. Understanding how and why this situation occurred may help to avoid similar types of problems from occurring in the future. Based on information that was 1 1 8 provided during the interviews, it became apparent that there was a that a lack of effective communication between the core body of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the First Nations representative. These parties were not communicating in a manner that allowed all parties to feel integral to the decision making and planning process. In the opinion of the First Nations representative, they had been intentionally kept outside of the core decision making body of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force. Therefore as the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project took shape and began to progress, the First Nations representative became increasingly discontent with the way that the process was developing. Ultimately they decided that their interests were not being served in this process, and decided to withdraw or cease to participate. There were great differences of opinion about who and how people were to be involved and how people should be treated as members of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. Speaking to both sides of an obviously divided issue, it became clear that there was, and remains to this day a very significant difference of opinions regarding how people should conduct themselves with regard to the project and their involvement. The members of the Squamish River Habitat Task Force and the Squamish River Restoration Project believe that they have provided ample opportunity for involvement and participation from anyone or any party that expresses interest in the work that they are trying to accomplish in this watershed. Recognizing, that there have been personal differences that have lead to an unfavorable outcome, it becomes necessary to ask how this could have been avoided, and would it be possible to prevent this type of outcome in other circumstances? It may have been possible to avoid some of the confusion and miscommunication that occurred during the initial phases of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project by taking greater care when establishing the procedural aspects, especially if they involve members of culturally diverse communities. This may be accomplished by structuring the procedural aspects of this and other watershed restoration initiatives in a manner that helps participants identify the 1 1 9 individual needs, differences and sensitivities of each of the participants before the project begins. Attempting to take corrective measures after the project is underway is often times more difficult than identifying potential problems and implementing proactive measures to avoid them. It may be useful in this context to apply some of the principles that have been developed in the field of mediation for structuring the process that will be used to achieve the identified goals of the project (Stulberg, 1987). The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project has achieved success in many if not most of the projects that they have engaged in. It will be interesting to see how this project develops over time, especially because much of the work that is being done in the Squamish River watershed is experimental. Over time, as the results of these experiments emerge, they will provide a greater knowledge of the ecological and social systems that govern these processes. Presently, ecological restoration and specifically watershed restoration are fields of research and application that are developing rapidly. Both of these fields could benefit from a greater abundance of quality research results and findings. It is anticipated that there may be encouraging results from many of these experiments, especially those involving the biophysical aspects of watershed restoration activities. The results of this work will undoubtedly be of some benefit to other projects being planned and conducted in other parts of the Province, Canada and the world. 7.3 Recommendations For The General Application Of The Research Findings . The recommendations presented in this section are generic. They provide a logical and intuitive way of structuring the inherently complex or "wicked" problems associated with watershed restoration projects and programs from a planning, decision making, and policy perspective. This perspective is one that strives to achieve the goals of sustainability through investment in natural capital, and the creation and maintenance of self-sustaining ecological and social systems. 1 2 0 7.3.1 Ecosystem Approach To Natural Resource Management. It is recognized that a watershed functions as a system, and that there are many distinct components to each of these systems. These components are related to one another in a series of complex relationships that define the watershed ecosystem. This conceptual approach comes from a comprehensive ecosystem perspective that was first defined in the mid 1970's by a group of researchers lead by C.S. Holling. This management approach is one that considers the ecosystem as a whole, and designs management interventions appropriately. Evaluating ecosystem health is an important precursor to selecting ecosystem management alternatives. "To determine health status, somewhat different criteria may be applied to managed ecosystems compared to natural or "pristine" systems. However, in both cases a primary consideration is the extent to which ecological integrity is preserved and the ecosystem in sustainable" (Rapport, 1989). Another useful criteria for measuring the health of an ecosystem is the capacity of an ecosystem to counteract or respond to stress. The supposition is that healthy ecosystems can withstand stressors, either internal or external and that some ecosystems are even stress dependent. For example, streams are subject to periods of annual runoff most often during the spring season. The ability of an ecosystem to react to stress events can provide a measure of health. An ecosystem approach to natural resource or watershed management might provide the best available protection, preservation and maintenance of ecosystem functions (Frissell and Bayles, 1996: Frissell and Nawa, 1992). It is anticipated that the application of this approach to natural resource management could help protect the environment, help maintain healthy ecosystems, preserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable development. The seven basic principles or pillars of the ecosystem management model are presented in Table #10. A definition of ecosystem management that is based on the seven pillars: "The application of ecological and social information, options, and constraints to achieve desired social benefits within a defined geographic area and over a specific time period" (Lackey, 121 1996). When applying this natural resource management model, it is important to recognize that there are no right answers to the decisions that need to be made. Rather decisions are a response to the needs and demands of society's current and future needs. Recognizing that this is the decision making context, the application of the decision analysis could assist in making better decisions. There are many researchers who believe that the ecosystem management model is currently the best available means of managing natural resources and ecosystems. Table #10: The Seven Pillars Of Ecosystem Management 1) Ecosystem management reflects a stage in the continuing evolution of social values and priorities; it is neither a beginning nor end. 2) Ecosystem management is place-based and the boundaries of the place must be clearly and formally defined. 3) Ecosystem management should maintain ecosystems in the appropriate condition to achieve desired social benefits. 4) Ecosystem management should take advantage of the ability of ecosystems to respond to a variety of stressors, natural or man made, but all ecosystems have limited ability to accommodate stressors and maintain a desired state. 5) Ecosystem management may or may not result in emphasis on biological diversity. 6) The term sustainability, if used at all in ecosystem management, should be clearly defined - specifically the time frame of concern, the benefits and costs of concern, and the relative priority of the benefits and costs. 7) Scientific information is important for effective ecosysterr management, but is only one element in a decision making process that is fundamentally one of public and private choice. (Lackey, 1996) 7.3.2 A Common Definition Of Ecological Restoration As A Starting Point. The concept of restoration involves repairing, rehabihtating and restoring something that has been damaged to a state or condition that better resembles a previous or historic condition. By taking actions to restore the functions of an ecosystem, it is implied that this procedure would provide society with many of the sustainable benefits produced by a restored ecosystem more quickly than would be possible under a natural recovery process. Setting appropriate goals is an important step in creating a realistic restoration plan. If it is 1 2 2 not possible to return a watershed to its historic condition, then it is important to understand what condition is an acceptable alternative. It is important to clearly define the end state of a watershed restoration initiative. By defining ecological restoration as a process that strives to enhance and protect the ecological and social functions of systems, it may be possible to adequately evaluate and measure how well the processes of restoration are being conducted in specific areas and in the context of different projects. By using the definition of ecological restoration that is presented below, it may be possible for future watershed restoration activities to structure their process and activities appropriately. Table #11: Definition Of Ecological Restoration. "Ecological restoration includes: (1) the identification of ecologically and socially desirable ecosystem values, goods and services as determined through a number of scientific and public-input mechanisms; (2) identification of the functional and structural elements essential to a self-sustaining system that will provide those values; and finally, (3) facilitation of ecosystem recovery to a self-sustaining state by manipulation of the physical, biological, chemical and even social or cultural elements of the system (Wyant, et. al. 1995). 7.3.3 The Application O f Decision Analysis As A Guiding Principle. There are great benefits that can be realized through the application of decision analysis in a natural resource management, ecological restoration or watershed restoration context. The basis of the decision analysis framework is identified in the five step process presented below. Applying this procedure to the types of issues that are raised in the natural resource management context of a watershed restoration initiative could allow for better decisions to be made. 1) Identifying and structuring objectives 2) Creating alternatives 3) Estimating the impacts of each alternative 4) Clarifying the trade-offs associated with each alternative 5) Evaluating the alternatives 123 The fundamental objectives of an effective watershed restoration initiative have been identified in the conceptual and analytical framework that was created for the purpose of conducting this research. Making these fundamental objectives available to other watershed restoration initiatives could prove to be an effective way of assisting others when they are attempting to identify and structure the fundamental objectives of their particular watershed restoration project or program. These fundamental objectives identified in this research can be used to help structure both the substantive and procedural issues associated with this kind of work while allowing for the unique concerns of each case to be incorporated in the process. Working through the decision analysis procedure will undoubtedly help groups and organizations that are hoping to achieve success by helping them to make well informed, quality decisions. At the same time it may be possible for other groups working on watershed restoration initiatives to benefit from the work that has already been conducted on the Squamish River and in an effort to save valuable time and resources. 7.3.4 Incorporate Adaptive Management Adaptive Management promotes the idea that because human understanding of nature is imperfect, therefore human interactions with nature should be experimental. It emphasizes the interactions between components of the natural environment, and the behavior of systems as a whole (Holling, 1978). Adaptive Management proceeds using observation and experimental intervention as the methods of interaction with natural systems. Based on observations, actions are designed as experiments, designed to learn from the processes that are observed. Over time new information is incorporated in the decision and policy making process, creating a positive feedback loop. Watershed restoration projects, programs and initiatives in general could benefit from the application of the Adaptive Management principles because these types of projects all involve a certain level of uncertainty that is often times inherent to the natural systems that are involved. The knowledge of many of these systems is growing, but until the time that the 1 2 4 level of knowledge sufficiently reduces the level of uncertainty to insignificance, it is important to recognize these limitations and use them as assets, not liabilities. Adaptive Management could provide an effective means of managing natural systems when it is recognized that there are limitations to the knowledge that is available about them and how they behave. This approach could provide the link between the conceptual basis of natural resource management and stewardship and the necessary actions that are needed to accomplish these goals. 7.3.5 Collaboration Of Legitimate Interests In The Process. Collaboration is a practice that is gaining legitimacy in the field of environmental planning and management (Selin, Chavez, 1995). It can be used to structure the process of participation and decision making when complex environmental and social issues are involved. This approach allows people to build on common ground and shared beliefs to overcome obstacles and barriers. In this manner it may be possible for stakeholder groups to build the right kind of bridges between different communities. "Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible" (Gray, 1989). The collaborative approach to problem solving may prove to be useful when attempting to structure and solve the complex, multiparty problems that are inherent to many if not all watershed restoration initiatives. 1 2 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY Art, H.W. ed. 1993. The Dictionary Of Ecology And Environmentla Science. Henry Holt And Company. New York. Arnstein, S. 1969. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal Of The American Institute Of Planners {JAW). pp. 216-224. BC Round Table On The Environment And Economy. 1994. Public Involvement In Government Decision-Making: Choosing The Right Model. A Report of the B.C. Round Table On The Environment And The Economy. Victoria, BC. Berger, J. (ed.) 1990. Environmental Restoration: Science And Strategies For Restoring The Earth. Island Press. Washington DC. Beschta, R.L. and W.S. Platts. 1986. Morphological Features Of Small Streams: Significance And Function. Water Resources Bulletin. 22:369-379. Bonnel, G.R. 1991. Construction. Operation And Evaluation Of Groundwater-Fed Side Channels For Chum Salmon In British Columbia. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 10: 109-124. Bottom, D.L. 1995. Restoring Salmon Ecosystems. Myth And Reality. Restoration and Management Notes. 13(2): 162-170. Brown, G. W. 1991. Forestry And Water Quality. O.S.U. Bookstores Inc. Corvallis Oregon. 1 2 6 Clark, B. 1988. The Squamish Steelhead Investigation. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Surrey BC. Commission On Resources And The Environment. 1995. Public Participation. Volume 3. Commission On Resources And The Environment. Victoria BC. 153 pp. Crowley, K. 1988. Teamwork. Resorts And The Forest Service. Parks & Recreation. 23(8): 38-40. Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. Handbook Of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, California. Department Of Fisheries And Oceans. 1990. Fish Habitat Enhancement. A Manual For Freshwater. Estuarine. And Marine Habitat. Prepared by Adams, M.A. and I.W. Whyte for the Government of Canada, Department of Fisheries And Oceans. DFO 4474. 330p. Dorcey, A.H.J. 1986. Bargaining In The Governance Of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research And Reform. Westwater Research Centre, Faculty of Graduate Studies. University of British Columbia. Vancouver B.C. Dorcey, A.H.J, and J.R. Griggs. 1991. Water In Sustainable Development. Exploring Our Common Future In The Fraser River Basin. Westwater Research Centre, Faculty of Graduate Studies. University of British Columbia. Vancouver B.C. Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1991. Getting To Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books. Toronto, Ontario. 127 Forest Renewal British Columbia 1995.1996/97 Handbook For Land-Based Programs. Enhanced Forest Program. Watershed Restoration Program. Resource Inventory Program-Operation Inventories. Forest Renewal BC, Victoria B.C. Fraser Basin Management Program. 1995. Community Stewardship. A guide To Establishing Your Own Group. Stewardship Series, Co-Published by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Fraser Basin Management Program, and Forest Renewal BC. Vancouver BC. Frissell, C A . and D. Bayles. 1996. Ecosystem Management And The Conservation Of Aquatic Biodiversity And Ecological Integrity. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(2): 229-240. Frissell, C A . and R.K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence And Cause Of Physical Failure Of Artificial Habitat Structures In Streams of Western Oregon And Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12:182-197. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating. Finding Common Ground For Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass Inc. San Francisco, California. Guinon, M. 1989. No Free Lunch. Restoration & Management Notes. 7(3). Harr, R.D. and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing Forest Roads To Help Restore Fish Habitats: A Northwest Washington Example. Fisheries. 18(4): 18-22. 1 2 8 Hartman, G.F. and T.G. Brown. 1987. Use Of Small. Temporary. Floodplain Tributaries By Juvenile Salmonids In A West Coast Rain-Forest Drainage Basin. Carnation Creek. British Columbia. Canadian Journal Of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences. 44:262-270. Hewlett, J. 1982. The Principles Of Forest Hydrology. The University of Georgia Press: Athens Georgia. Holling, CS. 1994. New Science And New Investments For A Sustainable Biosphere, in Investing In Natural Capital. The Ecological Economics Approach To Sustainability. Island Press: Washington, DC. Holling, CS. ed. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment And Management Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Holtby, L.B. 1988. The Effects Of Logging On Stream Temperatures IN Canrnation Creek. British Columbia. And Associated Impacts On The Coho Salmon (Oncorynchus. kisutch). Canadian Journal Of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences. 45:502-515. House R., V. Crispin and J.M. Sutter. 1991. Habitat And Channel Changes After Rehabilitation Of Two Coastal Streams In Oregon. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 10:150-159. Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking. A Path To Creative Decisonmaking. Harvard University Press. Cambridge Massachusetts 129 Keeney, R.L., T.L. McDaniels and V.L. Ridge-Cooney. 1996. Using Values In Planning Wastewater Facilities For Metropolitan Seattle. Journal of American Water Resources Association. 32:2. Keeney, R.L. and T.L. McDaniels. 1994. Clarifying Objectives. Measures, and Value Tradeoffs for Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas. Vancouver, BC. Korman, J. 1995. A Quantitative Evaluation Of The Utility Of Escapement Data To Detect The response Of Salmonid Populations To Instream Flow Changes In The Cheakamus River. Prepared for BC Hydro Power Authority. 21. King, D.M. 1991. Costing Out Restoration. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 15-21. Krause, D. 1996. Effective Program Evaluation. An Introduction. Nelson-Hall Publishers. Chicago. Lackey, R.T. 1996. The Seven Pillars OF Ecosystem Management Landscape And Urban Planning. Lantz, R.L. 1971. Influences Of Water Temperature On Fish Survival. Growth And Behavior, in, Krygier J.T. and J.D. Hall. 1971. Proceedings. Forest Land Uses And Stream Environment Symposium. Continuing Education Publications, Oregon State University, Corvallis. pages 182-193. Lui, J. 1994. The Use of Local Knowledge And Expert Opinion In Resource Planning. Resource Planning Section, Range, Recreation and Forest Practices Branch, Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC. 130 McDaniels, T. 1992. A Multiple Objectives Decision Analysis Of Land Use Options For The Tatshenshini-Alsek Area. Commission on Resources and Environment. Victoria BC. Mellina, E. and S.G. Hinch. 1995. Overview Of Large-Scale Ecological Experimental Designs And Recommendations For The British Columbia Watershed Restoration Program. Watershed Restoration Program Project Report #1. Naiman, RJ. 1992. Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability And Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York. Nehlsen, W. 1994. Pacific Salmon At The Crossroads: Do We Need More?. Pacific Rivers Council. Portland Oregon. Northcote T.G. and M.D. Burwash 1991. in Dorcey, H.J. and J.R. Griggs. 1991. Water In Sustainable Development. Exploring Our Common Future In The Fraser River Basin. Westwater Research Centre, Faculty of Graduate Studies. University of British Columbia. Vancouver B.C. Pella, J.J. and R.T Myren. 1974. Caveats Concerning Evaluation Of Effects Of Logging On Salmon Production In Southwestern Alaska From Biological Information. Northwest Science. 48:132-144. Pinkerton, E. and M. Weinstein. 1995. Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through Community-Based Management. The David Suzuki Foundation. Vancouver BC. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis. Random House. New York. 131 Rapport, DJ. 1989. What Constitutes Ecosystem Health?, in, Perspectives In Biology And Medicine. 33(1): 120-132. Reeves, G.H., J.D. Hall, T.D. Roelofs, T.L. Hickman and C O . Baker. 1991. Rehabilitating And Modifying Stream Habitats, in, Influences Of Forest And Rangeland Management On Salmonid Fishes And Their Habitats. U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Forest Service. Bethesda Maryland. Regier, H.A. 1993. The Notion Of Natural And Cultural Integrity. In Ecological Integrity And The Management OF Ecosystems, (eds.) Stephen Woodley, James Kay, George Francis. Sponsored By Heritage Resource Centre, University OF Waterloo, And Canadian Parks Service: Ottawa. Resenbichler, R.R. 1989. Utility Of Spawner-Recruit Relations For Evaluating The Effects Of Degraded Environment On The Abundance Of Chinook Salmon. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. In C D Levings, L.B. Hotlby, and M.A. Henderson (ed.). Proceedings Of The National Workshop On Effects Of Habitat Alteration On Salmonid Stocks. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 105. Rueggeberg, H.I. and H.J. Dorcey. 1991. in Dorcey, H.J. and J.R. Griggs. 1991. Water In Sustainable Development. Exploring Our Common Future In The Fraser River Basin. Westwater Research Centre, Faculty of Graduate Studies. University of British Columbia. Vancouver B.C. Selin, S and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing A Collaborative Model For Environmental Planning And Management. Environmental Management. 19(2): 189-195. 132 Stanley, T.R. 1995. Ecosystem Management And The Arrogance Of Humanism. Conservation Biology. 9:255-262. Stulberg, J.B. 1987. Taking Charge/Managing Conflict. Lexington Books. Toronto. von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards. 1986. Decision Analysis And Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Walpole, R.E. 1982. Introduction To Statistics. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. Watershed Restoration Program (WRP). 1994. An Overview Of The Watershed Restoration Program. Watershed Restoration Project Report #3. Watershed Restoration Program, under the Auspices of Forest Renewal BC. Vancouver BC. Watershed Restoration Program (WRP). 1995. WRP Coastal Fish Habitat Assessment And Rehabilitation Workshop. Upper Squamish River Tour. Examples Of Fish Habitat Rehabilitation. Watershed Restoration Program, under the Auspices of Forest Renewal BC. Vancouver BC. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England. White, R.J. 1992. Why Wild Fish Matter: Balancing Ecological And Aquacultural Fisheries Management. Trout 33 (4): 17-48 133 Wyant, J.G. R.A. Meganck and S.H. Ham. 1995. A Planning And Decision-Making Framework For Ecological Restoration. Environmental Management. Springer-Verlag. New York. 134 APPENDIX 1: An Evaluative Framework For The Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project Name: Date: Time Started: Finished: • This is part of a research project that I am conducting for my masters degree in Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. • I am not working with FRBC or WRP, and the results of this work are for me not the government. • The purpose of this research is to develop an evaluative framework for watershed restoration initiatives, and to apply it to the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. • To conduct the research I need the opinions of experts such as yourself. • I am hoping that your opinions will help me to get a better understanding of what the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project is 1) trying to accomplish, 2) how they are trying to do it and 3) what are the expected outcomes of this work. • I want to remind you that there are no right answers to the question that I am going to ask. I'm only interested in what you think about these subjects. If you don't have an answer to some of the questions, that's O.K. 135 • The interview will take about a half an hour. • During this time I will ask you a range of questions on a variety of topics. I will record you r answers on a sheet. It may be necessary to clarify what you have said, so please bear with me if it seems I am making you repeat yourself. • With your permission I would like to begin the interview. Promotes human resource development. 1) Have there been any employment training programs established in the Squamish region as a result of the watershed restoration initiative? Do you know how many people have participated? 2) Have any jobs been created as a result of any training programs, as measured in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions? 3) Did the opportunities for stewardship, i.e. learning about and taking care of the resources within the Squamish River watershed change as a result of the watershed restoration program? Discuss. Is there greater public awareness? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Worse Better 136 Cost Effectiveness. 4) In your opinion, do you think that the actions and expenditures of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project have been designed to be cost effective? Explain. Can you provide any examples? Promotes Adaptive Management. Many researchers suggest that because human understanding of nature is limited, human interactions with nature should be designed to teach us something. The Adaptive Management approach to resource management promotes the idea that our interaction with natural systems should be experimental. When something is learned from the experiment, this new information is used to update policies or modify the experiment. New information becomes and integral part of new decisions, policies, actions or future interactions with the environment. 5) What was it like before the program was implemented? 6) How have the opportunities for applying the principles of Adaptive Management changed as a result of the watershed restoration project? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Worse Better 137 7) How many time each year do you think the principles of Adaptive Management are applied under the Squamish River project? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 None Many Avoids Adverse Effects To Private Property. 8) Can you imagine how private property or private property rights could be affected by the activities that were taking place in the Squamish River watershed before the watershed restoration project was implemented? i.e. forestry, road building or other activities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Worst Best Irreversible loss of private property Enhanced private property values and values and rights rights 9) Have there been any complaints that you know of regarding impacts to private property and private property rights in the Squamish River watershed? # 10) Would this be any different as a result of watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Worse Better 138 Benefits to Resource Users. For this set of questions and one other I want you to imagine the Squamish River watershed in tow different states. First imagine what the watershed was like before any watershed restoration activities had taken place, let's say 1990. For arguments sake let's consider that everything remains constant, as it was at that time for a twenty year time period. For example, the resource management is the same as it was in 1990 up to the year 2000, no Forest Practices Code etc. Just imagine what the watershed looked like. In comparison, I want you to imagine the watershed as it could be if starting in 1990 the watershed restoration activities such as the ones currently being used by the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project were in lace and operating for a twenty year time period. 11) All things remaining equal, how would fish production, the total number of salmonids returning to the watershed change over time, if there were no watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Much WORSE than at present. Much BETTER than at present. Total loss of fish runs Rehabilitation of fish runs to historic levels. 12) How would fish production change over time as a result of watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 139 13) How would the quality of sport fishing experience, aesthetics, fishability (good water) change over time if there were no watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Much WORSE than at present. Much BETTER than at present. Total loss of riparian habitat, Significantly increased aesthetic and pool to riffle ratios and structures. values and better fishability. 14) How would the quality of the sport fishing experience be affected as a result of watershed restoration activities? 0 15) How would the industrial forestry activities in the Squamish River watershed be affected over time if there were no watershed restoration activities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Much WORSE than at present. Much BETTER than at present. Less timber is available, and Large amounts of easily accessible, high what is available is of low quality. quality timber available for harvesting. 1 4 0 16) How would the industrial forestry activities in the Squamish River watershed change over time as a result of the watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 17) How would the wildlife, and other aesthetics such as eagle viewing etc., change over time if there were no watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Much WORSE than at present Much BETTER than at present. Watershed becomes less attractive Rehabilitation of native flora and fauna, and devoid of wildlife. increasing wildlife and aesthetic values. 18) How would the wildlife, and other aesthetics i.e. eagle viewing etc. change over time as a result of watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ecological Health: 19) Remembering our scenarios, how would the biodiversity of the watershed be affected if there were no watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total loss of biodiversity values Return to historic condition of the watershed 1 4 1 20) How would the biodiversity of the watershed be affected as a result of watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total loss of biodiversity values Return to historic condition of the watershed 21) How would the productivity of the Squamish River watershed be affected if there were no watershed restoration activities? Productivity as measured in the total biomass of organism, aquatic and forest. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Loss of productivity Return to historic condition of the watershed 22) How would the productivity of the watershed be affected if there were watershed restoration activities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Loss of productivity Return to historic condition of the watershed 23) How many hectares or kilometers of quality fisheries habitat would be affected if there were no watershed restoration activities in the Squamish River watershed? (percentage of watershed affected, habitat lost or gained) 24) How many hectares or kilometers of quality habitat in the Squamish River watershed would be affected as a result of watershed restoration activities? (percentage of watershed affected, habitat lost or gained) 1 4 2 25) How confident are you in these estimations? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No confidence Total confidence Planning Framework and Decision Making Process. 26) How would you characterize the planning framework? Did it help structure problems, define alternatives and weigh trade-offs before choosing a course of action? 27) How were decisions made? Was consensus used or relied upon in the decision making process? What percentage of the time? ; 28) Was the decision making process representative of a wide range of legitimate interests? Was anyone missing? Who? 29) How did the decision making process deal with the issues of equity and fairness? 30) Do you think that knowledge, local and scientific was used effectively? 31) Was the decision making process consistent with the principles of the Watershed Restoration Program Of British Columbia and Forest Renewal British Columbia? 32) Final Question: If you could do it all over again, what would you change? 143 APPENDIX 2: Structured Informational Interviews, Informational Interview, and Telephone Correspondence Structured Informational Interviews: Mr. Brian Klassen Steelhead Society Habitat Restoration Corporation, Project Manager, Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. September 19th, Squamish B.C. Mr. Bruce Ward British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Research Scientist, Fisheries Research and Development Section. September 18th, Vancouver B.C. Mr. Craig On-Executive Director, The Steelhead Society of British Columbia. September 11th, 1996, Vancouver B.C. Mr. Dave Duff Lead Biologist for the Squamish Watershed Restoration River Project. September 19th, Squamish B.C. Mr. Gordon Prescott Forest Planner, Interfor, Empire Logging, Squamish BC. September 20th, Squamish B.C. 1 4 4 Mr. Pat Ahern Founder of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. September 19th, Campbell River B.C. Mr. Pat Slaney Research Biologist Provincial Fisheries Branch. October 9 t h, Vancouver B.C. Mr. Randall Lewis Councillor/Environmental Representative, Squamish Nation. October 3rd, Squamish B.C. Informational Interview: Pat Ahern Founder of the Squamish River Watershed Restoration Project. January 19th, 1996, Campbell River B.C. Telephone Correspondence: Ms. Laurel Palou Management Services And Program Officer, Forest Renewal Coordination Office, Victoria B.C. November 25th, 1996 1 4 5
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Planning
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
An evaluative framework for watershed restoration initiatives, as applied to the Squamish River watershed restoration project
Text