Negotiating Agreements for Integrated Flood Control: Guadalupe River Flood Control Project Collaborative, Santa Clara Valley, California
Scott T. McCreary, Ph.D., and Austin McInerny, AICP, MRP	© & Author Info

Abstract

Conflict is intrinsic to flood control planning efforts in the United States. Many practitioners and scholars address the process of flood control conflict resolution implicitly through case studies and examination of innovative program and policies. Few authors have examined conflict resolution explicitly; even fewer have documented how structured face-to-face negotiations have been used to resolve conflict and build consensus in contentious and complex flood control cases. The authors believe that interest-based negotiation holds great promise for resolving both site specific and policy-level conflicts in a wide variety of flood control and infrastructure planning conflicts. The goal of this case study presentation, which focuses on CONCUR's facilitation and mediation of the Guadalupe River Flood Control Project, is to inform and educate readers of the variety of tools that can be applied to a wide range of planning related conflicts. This case details a step-by-step process of agreement-building among diverse interests.

A neutral facilitation or mediation team with substantive knowledge and process expertise can help diverse regulatory agencies, elected officials, and interest groups reach agreements over challenging issues. This article establishes several lessons about the effective use of facilitated negotiation to resolve flood control related policy disputes. These include: establishing a clear structure and framing a specific, bounded agenda for negotiation which helps set the foundation for specific agreements. The joint scoping, review, and synthesis of technical information (joint fact-finding) is central to reaching consensus on technically complex and uncertain issues. Using a single negotiating text and delegating drafting responsibility to working committees is an effective strategy for completing the written agreement. Establishing several deadlines helps motivate closure in complex negotiations. Creating strategies to deal with implementation is also an essential step.

I. Agreement Building Principles and Techniques: A Working Framework

Resolving multi-issue and multi-stakeholder environmental policy issues such as flood control design and management requires a series of well structured negotiations that bring citizens into face-to-face dialogue with representatives of government agencies and other contending stakeholders. There has been a considerable body of theory building carried out at the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program. Important concepts in principled negotiation (Fisher and Ury 1981; Raiffa 1982) and in convening structured dialogues (Susskind and McCreary 1985; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987), developed in the 1980s, help inform the field of environmental dispute resolution. Several authors, notably (Bacow and Wheeler 1984; Bingham 1986; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; and Carpenter and Kennedy 1988) have shown that alternative dispute resolution processes are useful for settling a range of natural resource and environmental conflicts.

When mediation practitioners speak of negotiation, consensus building, and mediation, they are speaking of professional terms of art which employ some form of structured process to engage parties in face-to-face negotiations to resolve issues in dispute and reach agreements. These terms and others, such as public participation, community-based management, co-management, and collaborative planning are often used interchangeably to suggest an alternative to conventional command-and-control and top-down decision making style that has typically led to confrontation. Collaborative efforts that involve affected stakeholders are more likely to avoid conflict and lead to more stable outcomes, but the process of resolving disputes and building consensus needs further elaboration in the literature and should be defined as a subset of collaborative participatory processes in general. However, misuse of these allied terms can give a false impression that conflict resolution techniques are being used.

Some common subsets of conflict resolution include negotiation: "a voluntary process in which parties meet face-to-face to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of a conflict (Pendzich et al. 1994:8-9); consensus building: "a process leading to an agreement (or synthesis) that is reached by identifying the interests of all concerned parties and then building an integrative solution" (CDR Associates 1986:3); and mediation: "the use of a neutral third-party in a negotiation process, where a mediator assists those in a conflict situation in reaching their own agreement, but has no power to direct the parties or attempt to resolve the dispute"(Pendzich et al. 1994:8-9).

More recently, some analysts (Forester and Innes) have argued that more specific case studies are needed to show how theory can be applied in a practical manner to real world planning problems.

This paper is to:

The Guadalupe River case serves to illustrate several replicable models of agreement-focused negotiation, namely single-text negotiation in a series of stepwise agreements and joint fact-finding. Some consensus building models have the limited objective of building trust among parties and producing issue reports that represent a spectrum of perspectives. The case in this presentation demonstrates a process for helping parties resolve differences and reach ratified agreements which they commit to implement.

As a keynote speaker at the Watershed96 conference stated:

A. Principles of an effective environmental negotiation process:

1. Legitimacy: A clear decision making process must be carefully structured that creates and maintains the legitimacy of stakeholders and their negotiations, regardless of disparities in their political and economic power.

2. Accountability: Designing a decision-making process with a neutral helper and an emphasis on implementing agreements, creates accountability between negotiators.

3. Representation: Ensuring that all parties with legal standing or veto power are included in a negotiation results in more durable agreements and lessens the likelihood of future litigation.

4. Participation: Providing a forum where all parties participate equally and fairly as they scope, debate, and agree on issues under discussion breaks impasses and lead to creative solutions.

B. Process elements for building agreements:

1. Stepwise agreements: A neutral facilitation team can lead participants through a structured sequence of building smaller agreements that culminate in a final agreement. After establishing the participation of a negotiating group, the negotiations begin with the creation of ground rules and a mission statement, continued by developing technical information, and carried forward into drafting final agreements. Often, the task of drafting specific sections is delegated to subcommittees, which meet in between the regular plenary meetings. The facilitation team asks for specific written comments on draft text and compiles them before the next round of deliberations.

2. Joint fact-finding: The joint scoping, review, and synthesis of technical information (joint fact-finding) is central to the successful negotiation of solutions to any complex environmental issue. Joint fact-finding emphasizes sharing information and dialogue among policy makers, independent scientists, and other stakeholders to make better informed and consensus-based decisions on technically complex and uncertain issues. It is both a method for sound science-based decision making and for achieving stable agreements with widespread stakeholder support.

Joint fact-finding stands in contrast to the classic scientific blue ribbon panel in which only scientists participate. A major downside of the blue ribbon panel is that diverse stakeholders who may have relevant information and advice to contribute to resolving an issue are isolated from the process. Another shortcoming of the pure blue ribbon panel approach is that policy makers, agency staff, and stakeholder are removed from panel deliberation, and as a result are not informed of the rationale for the panelists findings and recommendations. Although blue ribbon panels can yield important and useful information, excluded stakeholders are likely to mistrust the findings thereby negating their benefit.

In the "adversary science" approach prevalent in public hearings and litigation, experts are aligned with particular interests groups. Experts are thus accountable to a particular party, and are recruited to bolster a point of view. Often in adversarial science, there is no specific effort to document areas of scientific agreement, or to get to the basis of apparent scientific disagreement.

Joint fact-finding is an improvement over both the blue ribbon panel and adversary science. In the joint fact-finding approach, an independent review team is recruited whose members are not aligned with any one stakeholder group. Second, there is an explicit effort to document areas of scientific agreement, as well as residual areas of scientific disagreement and uncertainty. Third, the process is structured as a direct dialogue, with participants including independent scientists, a second team of technical advisors to the independent review team, and stakeholder representatives.

3. Single-text negotiation: Using a single negotiating text and delegating drafting responsibility to working committees is an effective strategy for completing multiparty written agreements. Parties add and subtract text from a placeholder agreement document that eventually becomes a final ratified agreement. The advantage of this model is it encourages parties to talk to one another and to focus on each other’s interests instead of drafting competing documents that meet only the interests of smaller coalitions. Facilitators also help groups form technical working groups that meet outside of the core group to reach consensus on technically complex issues that directly impact the decisions being made by the core group.

4. Time deadlines: Skillfully chosen deadlines help motivate closure in complex negotiations.

II. Case Study in Negotiation: The Guadalupe River Flood Control Project Collaborative

The Guadalupe River, which drains from the Santa Cruz Mountains into the wetlands of the southern San Francisco Bay, has a long history of flooding. The heavily developed floodplain has flooded 14 times since World War II, with the flood of 1955 being the worst in recorded history. In that year, the Guadalupe River inundated 8,300 acres and caused more than $1.3 million in damages (1985 dollars). More recently, the river flooded in 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1995. About 40 percent of the 160 square mile Santa Clara Valley drainage basin lies below the 400-foot elevation mark and is highly urbanized with approximately 6,000 built structures in the River's 500 year floodplain. Over 4,000 of these structures are within the 100 year floodplain.

Because of the Guadalupe River’s demonstrated power for destruction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), in coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and the City of San Jose, has been attempting to create a comprehensive flood control project for over 50 years. These efforts have been frustrated by a combination of lack of funds, political discord, competing demands on the resource, and more recently, concerns over endangered native anadromous fish populations, including Coho salmon and steelhead trout.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s primary method of flood control, widening the channel, would have removed trees and brush on the banks of the river that provide shade and keep the water temperature low enough for cold-water fish during the summer. Techniques designed to increase flow velocity would have left juvenile fish nowhere to hide on the river’s edge, thereby increasing the odds that fish would be prematurely swept out to sea.

Dissatisfied with the Corps’ 1992 flood control plans’ potential impacts to the fish, the Natural Heritage Institute (representing the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District, Trout Unlimited, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association) filed a Notice of Clean Water Act Citizen’s Suit in late 1996. To avoid costly and lengthy litigation, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of San Jose, the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to participate in a collaborative process to pursue resolution of the mitigation issues. CONCUR was retained as a professional neutral to structure and facilitate the negotiations. Since December 1997, the project sponsors, as well as representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish & Game, City of San Jose Public Works, State Water Resources Control Board, and others met for two days a month striving to reach an agreement by a self-imposed deadline of July 1, 1998. See Appendix I for a complete list of the organizations represented on the Collaborative.

In the case of the Guadalupe River Flood Control Collaborative, the CONCUR team of neutrals assisted the parties by facilitating a series of negotiated agreements culminating in a final single-text negotiated agreement (Dispute Resolution Memorandum) signed by all parties. CONCUR provided the parties with a cluster of services in the early stages of the negotiations designed to help establish the group on a solid foundation for consensus building work. This involved a stakeholder analysis --built on a structured set of confidential interviews-- to help determine if the collaborative body had appropriate representation from all relevant stakeholder interests. Questions in a stakeholder analysis address topics such as representation, participation, interests, issues of greatest concern, commitment to collaborative process, and aspirations for strong outcomes. This convening stage of the negotiation involved facilitating the group’s selection of a mission statement and creating a set of ground rules to insure an orderly and fair process. Concurrently, the facilitation team wrote an issue audit document, which helped the diverse constituents clearly frame and select the top priority issues for deliberation. This also helped set the agenda and structure forthcoming meetings.

Once the preparatory convening stage was complete, the negotiation process used by the Collaborative rested upon:

1. Clear articulation of a set of review criteria;
2. Development of eight alternative project configurations;
3. Intensive analysis by a team of biologists, geomorphologists, planners, civil and hydraulic engineers, and designers organized as a Technical Fact-Finding Subcommittee (TFFS) who met five times and used a joint fact-finding approach to develop consensus in technical areas critical to resolving the core issue of habitat mitigation;
4. Timely deliberation of a policy-level group (Collaborative) composed of very senior officials; and
5. Use of a single negotiating text.

We describe each component below.

a) Review Criteria: Early in its deliberations, the Collaborative established a set of decision criteria to help guide their recommendation of a proposed project from among multiple alternatives. These criteria are presented below:

1. An alternative design (including mitigation) will provide at least as much flood protection as the current project.
2. An alternative will achieve the measurable objectives for project benefits agreed to by the Collaborative.
3. An alternative will result in timely project completion.
4. An alternative will be cost-effective and fundable through secure sources.
5. An alternative will comply with applicable laws.

b) Development of seven alternative project configurations: With the assistance of the TFFS, the Collaborative evaluated a total of seven different project alternatives: the
"Cured" Alternative, and six variations of a Bypass Alternative. Both alternatives are contrasted with the Base Case and are briefly described below.

The Base Case flood control project is the third and final phase of construction from Coleman Avenue to Interstate 280, totaling 1.52 miles. Relocation of historical buildings and demolition of residential houses in the River Street Historical District have been completed. Relocation of water, sewer, and gas facilities have been completed; relocation of PG&E 115 kv overhead to underground transmission line is substantially complete. Based on the current footprint of the design of the flood protection improvements, this reach is divided into three construction contracts: 3A-C (See Figure 2). This design was unacceptable to the regulatory agencies and environmental community due to its high environmental impacts and unworkable mitigation package. Since this original design does not satisfy the conditions of the Water Quality Certification Basin Plan, and summer rearing conditions for steelhead, the Base Case can not be considered as a true alternative design.

This alternative is the Base Case with additional mitigation to meet the conditions of the Water Quality Certification and Endangered Species Act. The portion of this mitigation package, which makes this design more acceptable, is the addition of cool water during the hottest months of the year. The source of this cool water may be recycled water. This "cured" alternative was not supported by the Collaborative mainly due to its high impacts and reliance on artificial method of mitigation, i.e. addition of cool water to control temperatures for 12 hours per day for 3 months per year for the life of the project, 100 years.

This alternative provides an underground culvert along the east bank of the river from near Saint John Street to near Coleman Avenue. Cool water may be required to control temperatures in accordance with the Adaptive Management Plan, until the mitigation planting matures (approximately 10 years). Recycled water may be the source of cool water.

In addition to consideration of alternatives, the Collaborative also devoted considerable attention to developing a package of flood control and mitigation items that can be implemented in the near term, while planning, modeling, and construction of other aspects of the project are completed over a longer period. The motivation for developing this package was that the resources agencies and the project sponsors wanted to find a way to make up for some of the environmental impact mitigation deficit from earlier flood control project work, while the project sponsors desired to make progress with some components of project construction.

c) Intensive analysis by a team of biologists, geomorphologists, planners, civil and hyraulic engineers, and designers: A Technical Fact-Finding Subcommittee (TFFS) was established early on in the Collaborative’s process to research, investigate, and provide recommendations and advice to the Collaborative. During the year, the Subcommittee met five times as a full body and held many smaller meetings and teleconferences to design the various alternatives and to discuss pressing issues.

The Subcommittee was instrumental in creating a detailed side-by-side comparison of the alternatives that was organized into six tables. The tables portray costs, three categories of environmental impacts, and compliance with environmental requirements (See Appendix II). The previously described criteria were used to evaluate the most favorable alternatives.

d) Timely deliberation of a policy-level group (Collaborative) composed of very senior officials: The decisions reached early in the process established the Collaborative as the body responsible for making policy-level decisions, based in part on technical information and advice from the TFFS. The Collaborative acknowledged from the outset that the complexity of the project, in conjunction with the objective of reaching an agreement by July 1, 1998, required the commitment of substantial effort and resources.

Collaborative members agreed to a series of monthly two-day meetings, while the TFFS also met monthly for one day. Thus, CONCUR convened alternating meetings of the Collaborative and the TFFS every two weeks for nearly seven months. At Collaborative and TFFS meetings, participants took on numerous assignments, many of which were completed before the next meeting. CONCUR prepared a key outcomes memorandum following each meeting, and distributed these memorandum to members of both the Collaborative and the TFFS so that members of each group were kept informed regarding the project efforts and work products. In addition, CONCUR created and maintained a project web site to provide participants easy access to meeting agenda materials and background documents. This Internet based "project resource center" was well received and used.

At the end of the meeting on June 4^th, each member of the Collaborative was given an opportunity to express their major interests with respect to the selection of a proposed project, as well as the information needed to reach a wise recommendation. During the period between June 3^rd and June 10^th, technical consultants worked long hours to respond to these requests.

As part of the deliberations, members of the Collaborative met for a time in respective caucuses. When the deliberations commenced, each member of the Collaborative put forward important considerations in their recommendation.

As the deliberations progressed, each Collaborative member reported a preference for the Bypass Alternative. In effect, the recommendation was unanimous. An overarching consideration for many Collaborative members was the increased chances for successful mitigation and restoration that the Bypass Alternative represents. Many Collaborative members added comments that amounted to conditions or assurances that must be satisfied in order to sustain their support for the Bypass Alternative. These conditions are reflected in the Dispute Resolution Memorandum, which is described in the next section.

The new project design utilizes an underground bypass tunnel that will run parallel to the river between St. Johns Street and Coleman Avenue in downtown San Jose (see Figure5). By allowing high flows to enter the bypass tunnel, the river’s capacity will more than double while leaving intact over 3,500 lineal feet of sensitive river habitat for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. Steelhead were formally listed by the federal government as "threatened" in August 1997, and Chinook were proposed for such listing early in 1998. Such status requires flood project proponents to take steps to ensure protection of these fish.

e) Use of Single Negotiating Text: The Collaborative’s diligence resulted in unanimous support and signing of an agreement document titled "Dispute Resolution Memorandum Regarding Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Guadalupe River Flood Control Project." This agreement, signed July 1, 1998, identifies the bypass as the proposed project and details additional work for the Collaborative to undertake during the next seven months. The Collaborative utilized a single text approach to writing, reviewing, and revising the evolving Dispute Resolution Memorandum, which went through thirteen drafts during a six-week period, including five iterative drafts in the final two days of meeting.

Meetings were structured in such a way as to allow plentiful time for the respective sub-interests (e.g., resource agencies, environmental groups, and project sponsors) to caucus and to check in with their respective legal counsels. Since reaching agreement, Collaborative members have worked within their respective organizations to build support for implementation of the Memorandum. By September 10, 1998, all Collaborative members had secured organizational ratification. A Record Document was written which details all the alternatives considered and issues addressed over the seven-month period in which the Collaborative evaluated and researched the various project alternatives.

III. Critical Next Step: Implementation of the Dispute Resolution Memorandum

Signing an agreement is not enough. The true test of the stability of a negotiated agreement is whether it is implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the signatories. Successful implementation is facilitated when strong relationships are built in the negotiation process. An attorney representing the former litigating party in this case expressed optimism on the prospects for implementation: "One of the benefits of this agreement is that the signatories have established lines of communication and trust that will help us see this through to completion."

During final months of 1998 and early 1999, the Collaborative has continued to meet in facilitated monthly sessions to pursue completion of tasks detailed in the Dispute Resolution Memorandum. Most significantly, the exact location of the bypass facility’s inlet and outlet structure must be determined (based on hydraulic modeling) and a Mitigation Plan to detail specific locations and types of mitigation actions must be created and agreed upon by the involved parties. In addition, an Adaptive Management Plan to monitor the project’s impacts will also be completed and implemented.

A testament to the promise of collaborative negotiations for resolving flood control conflicts is expressed well in a supporting letter from the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board:

IV. A Test of the Dispute Resolution Memorandum

In late 1998, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency retained a well known landscape design firm to update a Master Plan for the Guadalupe River Park which includes the portion of the River to be bypassed. The City desires a continuous "River Walk" to run along the river, which as originally envisioned would necessitate the removal of nearly the same amount of Shaded Riverine Aquatic Habitat (SRA) that the bypass would avoid.

At the January 27, 1999 meeting, Collaborative members, especially the resource agency, environmental, and Water District representatives, expressed strong reservations over the proposed River Walk. Keeping to the joint fact-finding process, and to better understand the potential thermal impacts of the walk, the Collaborative, with approval from the Corps, tasked the hydrologic and environmental consultants to bracket the possible amounts of potential SRA loss from high to low resulting from construction and operation of the walk and to conduct additional thermal modeling based on these estimates. This effort is currently underway as this paper goes to press. In the meantime, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency is, with the assistance of CONCUR, convening a work team comprised of representatives from the Water District, Corps, City of San Jose, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the landscape designers who are preparing the Guadalupe Park Master Plan Update, and various consultants to explore possible design solutions to these conflicting desires. By the time of the APA conference for which this paper is being written, the outcome of this process should be known.

V. Conclusion

Based on our experience as neutral facilitators in this and other cases, several conclusions can be made about environmental negotiations which are applicable to many conflicts:

• Once a framework and system of environmental management is institutionalized, a neutral facilitation team can help diverse agencies and interest groups reach agreements to further advance flood control efforts. As the executive director of the Waterways Restoration Institute, Ann L. Riley, observed in her recently published book:

• A partnership between a committed convening organization and a skilled facilitation team is absolutely essential to the success of complex multiparty dialogues. Such a partnership is necessary to establish the legitimacy of a facilitated negotiation and to ensure that the outcome is linked to a specific vehicle for implementation. For the Guadalupe River Collaborative, a steering committee of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency, and the Natural Heritage Institute served as convening organizations.

• Establishing a clear structure and framing a specific, bounded agenda for negotiation helps set the foundation for specific agreements. Considerable effort was made to focus on well-defined issues and establish in advance the format of recommendations.

• The joint scoping, review, and synthesis of technical information (joint fact-finding) is central to the successful negotiation of solutions to any complex environmental issue. The pooling of staff and consultant expertise in the Guadalupe River Flood Control Collaborative was a vital step in crafting well-informed flood control strategies.

This technical analysis is an essential step in creating the foundation for resolution of complex environmental policy disputes.

• Using a single negotiating text and delegating drafting responsibility to working committees is an effective strategy for completing the written agreement, and it is an effect use of time. A single negotiating text method was used. Participants were asked to cooperate in drafting a single unified document rather than producing competing versions of facts and recommendations.

• Dual expertise in environmental policy coupled with negotiation expertise is advantageous to facilitating agreements on complex environmental management issues. An ability to articulate scientific issues, institutional constraints and management options enhances the credibility and effectiveness of a facilitation team. For example, the Guadalupe flood control agreement hinged on both the benefits of face-to-face negotiation and on the rapid assimilation of highly technical information on flood control and fishery biology. During the facilitation, eight different project designs were considered. Our expertise enables facilitators to earn the trust of experts in allied fields.

• Time deadlines help motivate closure in complex negotiations. In the Guadalupe flood control project, an aggressive target date for agreeing on a preferred project was set seven months after the Collaborative convened. This date kept the members focused on their task of producing a single text document and ensured that the document was produced while the deliberations were still fresh in the minds of all participants.

Appendix I

• Michael Aceituno, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Oscar Balaguer, State Water Resources Control Board

• James Bybee, National Marine Fisheries Service

• Darrell Dearborn, City of San Jose

• James Ferguson, Santa Clara Valley Water District

• Al Gurevich, City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency

• Carl Mosher, City of San Jose Environment Services Department

• Chris Mobley, National Marine Fisheries Service

• Mike Nolan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

• Dale Pierce, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Ralph Qualls, City of San Jose Department of Public Works

• Arijs Rackstins, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District

• Richard Roos-Collins, Natural Heritage Institute (Representing the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation Distict, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, and Trout Unlimited)

• Kenneth Talbot, City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency

• Kay Whitlock, Santa Clara Valley Water District

• Lewis Whitney, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

• Richard Whitsel, California Regional Water Quality Control Board

• Carl Wilcox, California Department of Fish and Game

• Stan Williams, Santa Clara Valley Water District

• Mark Wolfe, Natural Heritage Institute (Representing the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation Distict, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, and Trout Unlimited)

Facilitator
CONCUR, Inc.
Berkeley, California

Appendix II

Table 1 and 2 display costs. There are four main categories of costs: project costs, mitigation costs, present worth of in-stream recharge, and costs of flow augmentation between the project site and the mitigation site.

Table 3 presents information on the thermal changes for two reaches of the project in relation to baseline temperature. This table shows temperatures in both the post project and the post mitigation time frame. A smaller temperature change is preferred to a larger temperature change, as it places fewer stresses on fishery resources.

Table 4 compares project area deficits measured in average annual habitat units, or AAHUs. These AAHUs represent the habitat units gained or lost as a result of the perceived action, (which in turn are a measure of habitat quality X habitat quantity) divided by the life of the action. A smaller value for AAHU deficits means that there is a smaller environmental impact.

Table 5 compares the AAHU value of offsite mitigation for two areas: Reach A and lower Guadalupe Creek. A larger value correlates with an increased value for offsite mitigation.

Table 6 reports on the compliance of the alternative in terms of five different environmental requirements. These include requirements dealing with thermal properties, steelhead summer rearing, riparian vegetation, habitat value for rainbow trout, and water quality certifications.

1. Includes $8.6 million for railroad bridge.

2. Present worth of cost of groundwater augmentation at 10% escalation for the first 10 years and 5% for subsequent 90 years; and 7.125% discount rate for 100 years. Recycled water may be available when needed in 2004.

3. Present Worth of cost of groundwater augmentation for a maximum of 10 years, as determined through use of the Adaptive Management process. Recycled water may be available when needed in 2004.

4. Assume ineffective recharge in Reach 12 or Guadalupe Creek when rainfall is less than 20% frequency in a 10 year cycle. There is an 89.3% chance of effective recharge and 10.7% chance of no recharge. Therefore, the present worth is reduced by 10.7% (10% escalation rate for the first 10 years and 5% for subsequent 90 years; and 7.125% discount rate for 100 years). Recharge ponds in Guadalupe Creek will continue when Guadalupe River Recharge Ponds are lost, and Recharge Ponds in Guadalupe River will continue when Guadalupe Creek Recharge Ponds are lost.

5. Off-site mitigation at Guadalupe Creek necessitates provision for adequate fish passage flow between the Project Site and the Mitigation Site. Per NMFS’ letter dated 8/4/97, this estimate assumes flows at 5 cubic feet per second (CFS) 24 hours per day every other week for 4 days throughout the passage period from November 1 to April 30.

6. Post Mitigation means the time after which mitigation planting have matured to the point where they are capable of providing necessary shade cover.

7. AAHU = Annual Average Habitat Unit. AAHU is used to represent the total number of habitat units gained or lost as a result of a proposed action divided by the life of the action. Habitat unit (HU) is a value derived from multiplying habitat quality by habitat quantity. The HU provides a standardized basis for comparing habitat changes over time and space.

8. Onsite, but not offsite, mitigation [Contracts 1-3] has been considered in determining post-mitigation AAHU deficit.

9. When determining the AAHU value of Lower Guadalupe Creek under existing (i.e., baseline) and post-mitigation conditions, no in-stream percolation ponds were assumed to be installed in the creek.

10. SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board

11. Temperature requirements will be temporarily exceeded under both alternatives immediately following construction. Appropriate temperatures will be restored more quickly under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 due to difference in impact avoidance.

12. SRA = Shaded Riverine Aquatic Habitat

13. HEP = Habitat Evaluation Procedure

Adams, Robert W. 1995. Addressing Barriers to Watershed Protection. Environmental Law 25 (3): 973-1106.

Bacow, L. S., and M. Wheeler. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum Press.

Baril, K. 1996. Achieving results community by community. National satellite video conference. In proceedings, Watershed96. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.

Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Carpenter, S. L., and W. J. D. Kennedy. 1988. Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide to Handling Conflict and Reaching Agreements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press.

CDR Associates 1986. Glossary. CDR Associates, Boulder CO, USA.

Coastal America 1994. Toward a Watershed Approach: A Framework for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Protection and Management. Washington DC: Coastal America Partnership Project.

Ferrer, E. M. 1992. Learning and Working Together: Towards a Community-Based Coastal Resource Management. Research and Extension for Development Office, College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines.

Fisher, R., and W. Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreements Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.

Forester, John. 1996. Beyond Dialogue to Transformative Learning: How Deliberative Rituals Encourage Political Judgment in Community Planning Processes. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 46: 295-333.

Garcia, Margot, W. 1995a. A Proposal for Environmental Planning and Management on a Watershed Basis. Washington D.C.: American Planning Association.

___________. 1998b. Watershed Management: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. Presentation made at the Association for Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP annual conference in Pasadena, CA on November 6, 1998.

Guara, Maria Alicia. San Jose Council Oks Redesign of River Flood Project. San Francisco Chronicle 26 August 1998. Peninsula Section: A1.

___________. San Jose's New Flood Plan Spares River, Fish Habitat. San Francisco Chronicle 28 September 1998. East Bay and the Region Section: A13.

Gusman, S., and V. Huser. 1984. Mediation in the estuary. In Coastal Zone Management Journal 11(4): 273-293.

Healy, R. G., and J. A. Zinn. 1985. Environment and development conflicts in coastal zone management. In Journal of the American Planning Association. 51(3): 299-311.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. "Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Towards a Theory of Collaborative Planning." In Journal of the American Planning Association. 65(1): 9-26.

Lavigne, Peter. 1995. Watershed Approaches: What Have we Learned? Highlights from the Watershed Innovators Workshop. River Voices 6(3)"1-6.

Martin, Larry R.G. n.d. "The Laurel Creek Watershed Study: Integrating Ecosystem-Based Watershed Planning with Municipal Land Use Planning in Ontario: Reprint. School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

McCreary, S. T., and M. B. Adams. 1995. Managing wetlands through advanced planning and permitting: the case of the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. In D. R. Porter and D. A. Salvesan (eds.) Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples. pp. 103-137. Washington, DC: Island Press.

McCreary, S. T. 1999. Resolving science-intensive public policy disputes: reflections on the New York Bight Initiative. In Susskind and McKearnan (eds.) Consensus Building Handbook. Sage Publications (forthcoming).

McGinnis, M. V, John Woolley, and John Gamman. Bioregional Conflict Resolution: Rebuilding Community in Watershed Planning and Organizing. Environmental Management (forthcoming).

National Research Council (NRC), 1993. Flood Risk Management and the American River Basin: An Evaluation. Washington D.C., National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC), 1998. New Strategies of America’s Watersheds. Washington D.C., National Academy Press.

Pendzich, Christine, Gary Thomas and Tim Wohlgenant. 1994. The Role of Alternative Conflict in Management in Community Forestry, Forests, Trees, and People Programme Phase II Working Paper No. 1, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, September 1994.

Peterson, Todd L., Claggett, Larry W., and James T. Addis. 1993. "Managing Watersheds for Fisheries and Wildlife: An Integrated Approach to Natural Resource Management. Transactions 58th N.A. Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. pgs 296-310.

Porter, Douglas R., and Salvesen, David A. 1995. Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Raiffa, Howard. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Riley, Ann L.1998. Restoring Stream in Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and Citizens. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

San Francisco Estuary Project. June 1993. Regional Monitoring Strategy. San Francisco, California.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. Even When the Rain Stops, It Doesn't Mean We Do. 1998.

The Guadalupe River: Its Multiple Uses, Past and Present. Directed by Santa Clara Valley Water District., 27 min. video production. 1998.

Sorensen, J. C., and S. T. McCreary. 1990. Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments. Washington, DC: National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior.

Sorensen, J. 1997. "National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: definitions, achievements, and lessons. In Coastal Management. 25(1): 3-41.

Susskind, L., and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse--Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.

Susskind, L., and S. T. McCreary 1985. Techniques for resolving coastal resource management disputes through mediation. Journal of the American Planning Association. 51(3): 365-374.

USEPA 1991. Watershed Protection Approach, An Overview EPA/503-9-92/002 Washington, D.C. USEPA Office of Water (WH-556F) December 1991.

Whitewater Watershed Project 1996. Watershed Implementation Plan. Shelly Struss, Executive Director, Rochester MN 507-289-6239.

Witt, Barry. Tunnel Would Tame Guadalupe. San Jose Mercury News 28 July, 1998: A1.

Scott T. McCreary, Ph.D., Principal
Austin McInerny, AICP, MRP, Associate

CONCUR, Inc.
1832 Second Street
Berkeley, California, USA< BR > (510) 649-8008
concur@igc.apc.org
www.concurinc.com