Grading Rivers: Why?
By Ken Lubinski, US Geological Society, Retired
(This is part two of a three part series. Read part 1.)
In Part 1 of this series I explained how important grading rivers can be, but also how difficult the process is. If done well it can lead to more effective river policies and management. The difficulty of the process stems from the multi-functionality and complexity of river systems, as well as the diverse publics that want to use rivers for different purposes.
People create river report cards for many reasons, some of which are clearly and openly stated, some not. At least three fundamentally different intentions have driven recent report cards:
1. To attract attention to a river
This kind of effort is intended to access outside support. The resulting report card is designed to persuade a source of funding or influence to invest in a river. But the report card can wind up being a simple restatement of the creator’s pre-conceived opinion, as opposed to an objective synthesis of the river’s condition.
Reporting once on a single river demands little in terms of replication, consistency, or quality control. Since these things require energy and time, they are often skipped. I’m reminded of a sports writer that grades a home team’s performance on Sunday and publishes the grades on Monday. It may sell papers, but it doesn’t improve the team. And who is to say the home town reporter is better at grading than the one writing for the visiting team?
Many rivers need more public attention, so the intent is admirable. But people that are trying to attract attention to a river may want to ask whether a report card is the most forthright way to communicate their position. A well-written proposal or white paper could accomplish the same thing while being more open, candid, and descriptive of the group’s goals and values.
2. To compare (objectively and/or quantitatively) multiple rivers
A pre-requisite for this kind of effort is that the rivers must be seen as comparable. The existence of a management program for the suite of rivers usually satisfies this requirement. The resulting report card can be used to set goals for the program, select or prioritize protection and restoration strategies, and evaluate the performance of management practices.
This kind of report card requires more labor, energy, and time than the other two. Consistency of raw data across the rivers, regardless of their condition, is vital. People change jobs, and have different ideas of what variables are important. The grading process needs to minimize the effect of these sources of subjectivity. The meaning of the grades should be matched to the operation and authority of a management institution. If a river gets a grade of D+ for example, is there an institution that knows what to do and is ready to accept the responsibility?
3. To initiate a discussion of new management or policy options
River management is moving away from reductionist and toward holist approaches. In the past, fish and wildlife managers, having a limited tool box and little time for monitoring, focused on relatively simple (in retrospect) ways of measuring success. They set (and still do) size and bag limits for target species, and observed changes in size and age classes of the species to understand if and how much they were helping a river. Now eco-hydrology, habitat complexes, and fish and animal communities (measured using functional as well as structural metrics) are being considered as management targets. Even broader scopes have been proposed, some that consider economic prosperity, cultural integrity, and ecosystem health as parts of a systemic whole. Such social-ecosystem plans require more inclusive vision than assessment.
A report card can serve as a reference document in these efforts, but the dialog needs to focus on future rather than past conditions. In the case of social-ecosystem approaches, the players need to accept that the parts of a river system interact with each other, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and that the parts can’t be managed independently. The commitment of different publics to work towards holistic river goals needs to be tested. Potential individual and shared sacrifices need to be fully exposed. Open debate within the system is more important than attracting outside help.
Each of the above reasons for developing a river report card is legitimate, but alternative forms of communication may be more effective. In all cases, understanding “Why?” a report card is needed is critical to deciding whether to create one, as well as how.
A river report card can function as an integral piece of an action plan. But whose actions are we talking about? The last part of this series will discuss the “Who?” questions.