Santa Clara Basin - Watershed Management Initiative
Work Group D
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Work Group D
DATE: October 1, 1999
SUBJECT: Draft Technical Memorandum 19¾Proposed Process and Criteria for Prioritizing Impediments (Task 12)
This memorandum describes a proposed process and criteria for prioritizing impediments to beneficial uses and the stakeholder interest. Work Group D was charged with developing the process and criteria in order to complete Task 12 of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) Consolidated Action Plan (CAP). This process builds upon the Framework for Conducting Watershed Assessment, which is Task 3b of the CAP, developed by the Watershed Assessment Consultant (WAC). Once the Core Group approves the process described herein, the process and criteria will be used to prioritize impediments that are identified as part of the watershed assessment, which is Task 13 of the CAP.
Work Group D Background
Work Group D was initiated in June 1999, when the WMI Core Group approved the tasks and membership for the Work Group. The Core Group assigned the Work Group two tasks. The first task, Task A, was to develop a process and criteria for prioritizing impediments. The second task, Task B, was to incorporate management issues into the selection of watershed suites. This memorandum presents the process and criteria for prioritizing impediments, or Task A of Work Group D.
Work Group D met twice to develop the proposed process and criteria for prioritizing impediments. The Work Group members are:
TM19DrevisedTM19Drevised.doc Page 1 of 7 05/01/0110/01/99
· Geraldine Luna, City of San Jose/RPT
· Kirsten Struve, City of San Jose
· Libby Lucas, League of Women Voters
· Lori Pettigrew, EOA/SCVURPPP
· Ngoc Nguyen, Santa Clara Valley Water District
· Pat Showalter, Peninsula Conservation Center
· Tom Mumley, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Tracy Hemmeter, Santa Clara Valley Water District/RPT
· Trish Mulvey, Clean South Bay
· Valerie Young, CH2M HILL/Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
TM19DrevisedTM19Drevised.doc Page 1 of 7 05/01/0110/01/99
Assumptions and Definitions
Work Group D agreed on the following assumptions and definitions:
· Impediment is defined as a cause of non-support or a cause of beneficial use/stakeholder interest impairment.
· Impediments are being prioritized so that the WMI can identify solutions to the impediments and develop a watershed management plan.
· The WAC will prioritize the impediments, according to the process in this memorandum, and present the results to the WMI Core Group.
· This memorandum provides information and guidance on how to score criteria and rank impediments. However, professional judgement should be exercised in assigning the actual scores and rankings, based on the impediments that are identified by the watershed assessment.
· The WAC will provide the following information as a product of the watershed assessment (Task 13):
§ Beneficial use/stakeholder interest
§ The level of support for each beneficial use/stakeholder interest
§ The indicators/criteria used for determining the level of support
§ Causes of non-support/limiting factors, as the data allows.
Proposed Process for Prioritizing Impediments
Work Group D recommends the following process for prioritizing impediments. Evaluate each impediment thoroughly against the set of proposed criteria for prioritizing impediments. The proposed criteria are: 1) simplicity/ease of solving; 2) political concerns; 3) solvability; 4) regional versus local; and 5) data quality/certainty. These criteria are described in more detail below. Based on this evaluation, apply a score to each criterion, by impediment, to obtain a total score for the impediment. Scoring criteria/guidelines are described below in Table 1. Those impediments with the highest scores become the highest priority impediments. In order to facilitate this process, Work Group D recommends the use of the Impediment Prioritization Matrix shown on Figure1. The matrix should be used as described below.
First, the first four columns of the matrix will be filled in based on the results of the watershed assessment. This number of rows in the matrix will depend on the number of watersheds that were assessed, the number of reaches that were assessed, and the number of impediments that were identified for each reach. Each beneficial use and the stakeholder interest will be evaluated for each reach assessed. In Figure 2, the example matrix, two watersheds were assessed and each watershed contained one reach. Normally, a watershed would contain several reaches. In Watershed 1, Reach A, two beneficial uses were determined to be impaired/not supported¾RARE and REC1. One impediment was identified for the RARE beneficial use and two impediments/causes of non-support were identified for the REC1 beneficial use. In Watershed 2, Reach B, two beneficial uses were determined to be partially supported¾ COLD AND GWR. One impediment was identified for each of those beneficial uses. The WAC will determine all this information during the watershed assessment task.
When the above is completed, a score from one to three will be assigned to each criterion in each row of the matrix that represents an impediment to a beneficial use or the stakeholder interest. The criteria and scoring guidelines are described in the next section. Narrative information should be noted in the matrix to explain why a particular score was assigned. In Figure 2, five rows represent impediments to beneficial uses or the stakeholder interest. These rows are the row for RARE and the two rows for REC1 in Watershed 1, Reach A and the rows for COLD and GWR in Watershed 2, Reach B. All other rows, which will not be scored, in the matrix represent beneficial uses/stakeholder interests that are either fully supported or have unknown levels of support.
Third, for each row, the scores assigned to each of the five criteria will be summed and the total score will be entered in the second to last column of the matrix, under “Total Score.” The highest priority impediments will be those that have the greatest total score.
Lastly, a technical memorandum should be prepared that summarizes the results of the scoring, including the impediments that scored the highest. The technical memorandum should also describe where beneficial uses and the stakeholder interest are fully supported. Along with completing the matrix and assigning scores to impediments, information should be provided on which beneficial uses/stakeholder interests are fully supported, where they are fully supported, and why they are supported. If there is room for improvement, it also should be noted. This information is important for identifying what is working and healthy in the watershed, and what activities and efforts should continue.
Proposed Criteria for Prioritizing Impediments
The recommended criteria for prioritizing impediments are summarized below. Guidelines for scoring each criterion are in Table 1.
· Simplicity/Ease of Solving: This criterion includes the level of regulatory complexity, expected costs, the level of effort, the number of entities/stakeholders involved, the number of responsible parties, who controls the problem, and who controls the solutions. Impediments that are easy and simple to solve will get a score of three for this criterion. Impediments that are very complex, would cost a lot to solve, or involve a number of responsible parties would get a score of one for this criterion.
· Political Concerns: The criterion includes the relationship to WMI goals and objectives, regulatory mandates, regulatory benefits, public will, and incentives to solving the problem. Impediments would be given a score of three if solving them is strongly related to WMI goals and objectives, would fulfill regulatory mandates, is important to the public, will achieve regulatory benefits, or has some other incentive.
· Solvability: This criterion includes variability (temporal/seasonal/spatial), are there known solutions, are there expected solutions, how close are we to attainment, stream equilibrium, and inter-relationship/linkage between impediments (synergy/antagonism). For this criterion, impediments that have feasible solutions and would solve more than one problem (synergistic effects) would get a score of three. Impediments that reflect a stream system that is far from equilibrium or complicated by lots of variability would get a score of one.
· Regional vs. Local: Under this criterion, impediments that are regional in nature would get a score of three. Impediments that only occur locally would get a score of one.
· Data Quality/Certainty: Under this criterion, impediments that have a high degree of certainty and data quality associated with them would get a score of three. Impediments that are identified based on poor or little data would get a score of one.
TABLE 1. CRITERION SCORING
Score
/Explanation
Simplicity/Ease of Solving
1 / There are high costs, lots of effort, and many stakeholders and responsible parties associated with the solution, and someone outside of WMI controls the problem and/or solution.2 / There may be high costs, lots of effort, and/or many stakeholders and responsible parties, but someone involved with WMI controls the problem and/or solution.
3 / There are not high costs, lots of effort, or many stakeholders and responsible parties associated with the solution to the impediment, and someone involved with WMI controls the problem and/or solution.
Political Concerns
1 / Solving this problem will not meet WMI goals and objectives, will not meet regulatory mandates, will not provide regulatory benefits, will not serve the public will, and has limit benefits or benefits only a few individuals.2 / Solving this problem will provide/meet more than one of the following: WMI goals and objectives, regulatory mandates, regulatory benefits, public will.
3 / Solving this problem will provide/meet all of the following: WMI goals and objectives, regulatory mandates, regulatory benefits, public will.
Solvability
1 / Stream system is far from equilibrium, solutions are infeasible and/or unknown, the impediment or system has high variability, and WMI is far from attaining the solution.2 / Some of the following apply: the stream system is far from equilibrium, solutions are infeasible and/or unknown, the impediment or system has high variability, or WMI is far from attaining the solution.
3 / The system is in equilibrium, solutions are feasible and stakeholders expect them to be implemented, the system or impediment does not have a high degree of associated variability, and WMI could easily obtain the solution.
Regional vs. Local
1 / This impediment only occurs in one watershed or only affects one natural resource.2 / This impediment occurs in several watersheds and affects several natural resources.
3 / The impediment needs to be solved in order to protect resources across the basin; solving this impediment will protect resources throughout the basin; this impediment occurs in all the watersheds and affects many natural resources.
Data Quality/Certainty
1 / The quality and the certainty of the data are low.2 / Either the data quality or the data certainty is high, but both are not high.
3 / The quality and the certainty of the data are high.
TM19DrevisedTM19Drevised.doc Page 1 of 7 05/01/0110/01/99
Figure 1. Impediment Prioritization Matrix
The following matrix can be used to score impediments to beneficial uses and the stakeholder interest. The first four columns of the matrix will be filled in based on information obtained during the watershed assessment. The criteria in the next five columns will be assigned scores based on the guidelines in Table 1. The criteria will not be assigned scores in the rows that represent beneficial uses/stakeholder interests that are fully supported or where the level of support is unknown. The assessment will summarize the locations where beneficial uses are fully supported and reasons for that support in a memorandum that will accompany the completed matrix. The memorandum will also describe which impediments score highest, and are, therefore, the highest priority impediments.
Beneficial Use or Stakeholder Interest [1] / Supported?(Y/N/Partial/Unknown)1 / Indicator 1 / Causes of
Non-Support, Impediments, Limiting Factors1,[2] / Criteria / Total Score
Simplicity & Ease / Political Concerns / Solvability / Regional vs. Local / Data Quality & Certainty
Watershed _, Reach _
Watershed_, Reach _
Figure 2. Example Matrix
Beneficial Use or Stakeholder Interest / Supported?(Y/N/Partial/Unknown) / Indicator / Causes of
Non-Support, Impediments, Limiting Factors / Criteria / Total Score
Simplicity & Ease / Political Concerns / Solvability / Regional vs. Local / Data Quality & Certainty
Watershed 1, Reach A
COLD / Yes
RARE / No / Habitat conditions, i.e., substrate particle size distribution and canopy cover / Lack of offstream channels and pools limiting to red legged frogs / 2
Controlled by regulators and public / 3
The public and some regulators would like to see more habitat / 2
Technology & incentives exists to solve the problem / 3 / 1 / 11
REC1 / No / Coliform counts / Wild Animals / 1 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 9
Human Sources, including storm drain discharges / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 11
GWR / Yes
Flood Management / Unknown
Watershed 2, Reach B
COLD / Partial / Healthy sustainable population of steelhead, but not trout / Temperature variations due to variable canopy cover / 2 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 12
RARE / Yes
REC1 / Yes
GWR / Partial / MTBE in recharging creek / Boats on the reservoirs / 3 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 10
Flood Management / Yes
TM19DrevisedTM19Drevised.doc Page 7 of 1 05/01/0110/01/99
[1] The information in the first four columns will be a product of the watershed assessment.
[2] The assessment should identify potential causes to the extent that the data allows.