| RARITAN BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT | |
| Public Involvement and Decision Making Process |
|
| New Jersey Water Supply Authority | |
| December 2002 | |
Overview of the Characterization & Assessment Process
Public Involvement in Characterization & Assessment
Key Issues Identified by Stakeholders
Public Involvement in the Characterization & Assessment Process
Overview of the Plan Development Process
Public Involvement in Plan Development
Decision-making Approaches Used in Plan Development
Key Decisions of the Stakeholder Participants
Criteria for a Good Watershed Management Plan
Components of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan
Consultant Projects to Improve Capacity for Watershed Management
Subwatershed Implementation Projects
The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan was funded by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Water Supply Authority, working in cooperation under two Memoranda of Agreement (1999 and 2000). Hundreds of people were involved in the development of this plan and the associated characterization and assessment reports over a four-year period from 1999 through 2002. We wish to acknowledge the enormous effort of all individuals and organizations that gave of their time, expertise (and more time), during this period. While there are too many people to name individually for their efforts, the following stakeholders were involved in the following components of this large project:
Characterization and Assessment Project Team: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Water Supply Authority, North Jersey Resource Conservation and Development Council, Rutgers Center for Environmental Communication, South Branch Watershed Association, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Geological Survey, Upper Raritan Watershed Association
Characterization and Assessment Phase:
Work Group
Executive Committee
Characterization Committee
Planning Phase:
Getting Organized Work Group (2000-2001)
Watershed Issues Work Group (2000-2001)
North & South Branch Watershed Management Area Committee
and work groups:
Dave Peifer, Chair 2001-2002; Bob Colburn, Chair 2002
Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area Committee and
subcommittees:
Michael Rogers, Chair 2001-2002; Steve Barnes, Chair 2002
Millstone Watershed Management Area Committee and
subcommittees:
George Hawkins, Chair 2001-2002; Shing-Fu Hsueh, Chair 2002
Raritan Basin Council and committees: Nick Polanin, Chair 2001-
Technical Advisory Committee: Rocco Ricci, Chair 2002-
Basin Education & Outreach Committee:
MaryBeth Koza, Chair 2001-2002; Jeannine Der Bedrosian, Chair 2002
NJ Water Supply Authority, Watershed Protection Programs:
Daniel J. Van Abs, PhD, PP/AICP, Manager
Kathy Hale, Watershed Specialist
Sally Kean, Administrative Assistant
Deborah Newcomb, Watershed Specialist
Amy Shallcross, PE, Senior Watershed Specialist
Tom Stanuikynas, Geographic Information Specialist
New Jersey Water Supply Authority Commissioners:
Bradley M. Campbell
Commissioner, NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Serves as Chair of the Authority, ex officio
Gary Sondermeyer, Chairman pro tem
Susan Blew
Donald L. Correll
Peggy Haskin (1981-2002)
Shing-Fu Hsueh, PhD, PE (2002-)
Louis C. Mai
Steven Picco (2002-)
Warren H. Victor (-2002)
Executive Director:
Thomas G. Baxter, P.E. (1995-2002)
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2002):
Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner
Ernest Hahn, Assistant Commissioner, Land Use Management
Lawrence J. Baier, Administrator, Watershed Management
Kerry Kirk Pflugh, Chief, Raritan Region Bureau
RARITAN BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Public Involvement and Decision Making Process
The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Project began through the efforts of a group of Basin stakeholders that lead to a Memorandum of Agreement between the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the NJ Water Supply Authority (NJWSA). NJDEP is the lead state agency for water quality and water supply planning, among other responsibilities. NJWSA is a state-owned water supply utility with primary responsibility for management of State water supply facilities in the Raritan River Basin.
The first Memorandum of Agreement was signed in February 1999 and addressed the process of developing a Characterization and Assessment of the Raritan River Basin. The two agencies developed a second Memorandum of Agreement, signed in October 2000 and lasting through FY 2003, which addressed the development of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan. Both Memoranda called for NJDEP to fund much of the project ($1.8 million in total NJDEP funds), with NJWSA providing approximately $100,000 per year in staffing and overhead costs. A General Scope of Work controlled each phase. Due to the length of the second phase, detailed work plans also were developed for each fiscal year. The process was ended early by NJDEP as part of its statewide reassessment of the watershed planning process, and over $600,000 in NJDEP funds were not provided as a result. The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan was completed in December 2002, though without some components called for in the project scope of work.
The characterization and assessment process involved a number of stakeholder interests, but was managed differently than many watershed projects in New Jersey. It was only after signing of the second Memorandum that a stakeholder involvement structure was developed that more closely reflected “standard” practice. However, even in this case the structure was somewhat different due to the large geographic area, covering three watershed management areas. In both cases, though, stakeholders reviewed the issues and directed generally the work of committees, subcommittees and NJWSA staff.
At the early stages of the project, the Rutgers Center for Environmental Communication helped the Raritan Project team develop evaluation tools used to develop the project scope and gauge participant reactions to the process. Participants provided evaluations to the Raritan Project at each major meeting. In addition, a survey of participants at the end of the first full year of committee operations provided an interesting overview of participant reactions to the process to date.
Overview of the Characterization & Assessment Process
This first phase of the project ran from March 1999 through August 2001, overlapping with the second phase by approximately 9 months. During the characterization and assessment process, NJWSA and a project team developed a series of seven technical reports and two additional background reports. In addition, the project team developed a series of fact sheets to explain the reports in lay terms. Project team members were the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S.D.A.-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rutgers University’s Center for Environmental Communications, and four non-profit organizations: the North Jersey Resource Conservation & Development Council and the South Branch, Stony Brook-Millstone, and Upper Raritan Watershed Associations.
Stakeholders were involved at each step to guide the scope, depth and technical methods used in developing the reports, and also reviewed each product. Meeting evaluation forms were provided to participants at each meeting, and strong pressure was exerted to get the forms filled by each person. Rutgers Center for Environmental Communication (CEC) initially handled the entire evaluation process, and later trained NJWSA staff so that NJWSA could continue the process indefinitely. Evaluation summaries for each meeting were then provided at the following meeting. In addition, Rutgers CEC also coordinated and wrote an extensive Stakeholders Needs Assessment to provide guidance on key technical and planning needs of a wide variety of stakeholders, including a number of interests that did not routinely (or ever) attend the meetings. See also Evaluation of Raritan Project.)
During this period, NJWSA began development of its Web site at www.raritanbasin.org. Given the explosion of Internet and Web use and the wide availability of personal computers among the public participants, NJWSA came to rely heavily on email and the Web site. Agendas, meeting directions, minutes, meeting evaluation summaries, draft and final written products, photographs, maps, educational opportunities and many other informational items were posted on the Web site. However, any member of the public could request and receive information in hard copy form at any time in the project. Initially, many people did so, but over time the trend was toward greater access by electronic means, and less through the regular mail.
Public Involvement in Characterization & Assessment
In March and April of 1999, stakeholders from a wide spectrum of interests met to discuss the project. The stakeholders addressed two critical topics. First, what issues must be examined by the Characterization & Assessment Reports if they are to be a credible foundation for planning? Second, how should the public be involved in the process?
Key Issues Identified by Stakeholders
Stakeholders identified a number of critical issues early in the process, in terms of the substantive issues, procedural issues and attributes of the characterization and assessment reports. They are listed in the following table:
|
Public Issues Regarding the Raritan River Basin |
| Water Quality, Supply and Flow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aquatic Habitats
|
|
Land Uses and Management
|
|
Desired Attributes of the Planning Process
|
|
Desired Attributes of the Plan
|
NJWSA and the Project Team used this list in developing technical methods for the reports, where the issues were applicable to technical analyses. The points regarding the planning process were used in developing the public involvement process.
Public Involvement in the Characterization & Assessment Process
During the April public meeting, the participants decided to minimize the organizational complexity of the process. The formation of a Public Advisory Committee/Technical Advisory Committee structure, as was used in a NJDEP pilot watershed management project (and later mandated for all subsequent watershed planning projects), was specifically rejected until the project “had a story to tell.” Stakeholders felt that it was important to focus staff time on the technical work, rather than a large number of public meetings. Further, they felt that policy and plan development must rest on sound technical information, and the formation of a policy group was premature. Therefore, they established an “Executive Committee” to oversee project activities and make sure that all is going according to plan, but not to “make decisions for the stakeholders.” The Executive Committee met approximately monthly from 1999 through late 2000, and had the following membership:
Each member of the Project Team
Water Supply Purveyor from the Raritan Water Users Association
Municipal Wastewater Utility
Development Industry
County/Local Government
Agricultural
A “Work Group” was also established to periodically meet for progress reports and general discussions, comprised of the full group of interested people. Quarterly meetings were recommended. However, only one Work Group meeting was held, because the meeting evaluations indicated that the participants were already involved in the third stakeholder body and did not see the need for additional meetings.
Finally, a “Characterization & Assessment Committee” was established to provide detailed input on each phase of the technical process. This committee brainstormed issues, developed report outlines and decided on technical methods used in the reports, in cooperation with NJWSA and the project team. They also reviewed reports and provided input to NJWSA.
The Characterization and Assessment Committee was the focal point of stakeholder involvement during the first phase. Membership was open to all. Meeting attendance shifted somewhat according to the topic, but generally ranged from 20 to 40 participants. Some members routinely attended, while many others attended only when the topic was of specific interest to them. A wide variety of technical specialists were involved and provided considerable input to the process. Non-technical attendees were invaluable in making sure that the report results would be useful to planning boards, environmental commissions and other interests who may not have the technical expertise to use a scientific study. Under stakeholder guidance, the technical reports evolved to use extensive summaries of technical studies, the results of research conducted specifically for this project, and executive summaries that minimized technical jargon.
Overview of the Plan Development Process
The planning phase of the Raritan Project began in October 2000. The Characterization & Assessment Reports were not all complete; four of seven had been released, and one of the two background reports was complete. However, the Executive Committee decided that it was appropriate to begin the development of a more formal, comprehensive public involvement process while the technical work was being completed. Therefore, four public meetings were held from October 2000 to February 2001, at which two work groups were formed to draft a new public involvement structure and focus the planning on key issues identified through the first phase. Unlike the first phase, there was no project team for the planning phase. Rather, NJWSA staff provided technical, planning and administrative support to the public process and oversaw consultants who provided additional technical support. NJWSA staff during this process consisted of a manager, GIS specialist, three Watershed Protection Specialists (one for each watershed management area) and an administrative assistant.
The planning phase ran from October 2000 to December 2002, approximately six months less than originally planned. The schedule change was in response to NJDEP’s decision to completely revamp its approach to watershed management, balanced by the Raritan Basin stakeholders’ interest in completing a plan. The comprehensiveness of the plan was also affected by delays in the development of surface water quality models, caused by both national and state rule making regarding the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) process. During the process, up to 22 committees, subcommittees and work groups operated simultaneously, with over 125 participants extensively involved. Many more were involved sporadically or tracked the project as it continued. Use of the Raritan Project Web site continued and intensified, with the addition of on-line slide presentations and other low and high intensity uses.
Public Involvement in Plan Development
The participants in the meetings of October 2000 through February 2001 developed a public involvement structure that reflected their needs and the nature of the Raritan Project. Unlike other watershed projects in New Jersey, the Raritan Project includes three watershed management areas instead of one. Therefore, participants decided to form a two-level structure (see Organizational Chart, Figure 1), using an issue paper developed by NJWSA -- “Public Involvement Structure for Management Planning” – and their own experience. The core participation structure consists of three Watershed Management Area (WMA) Committees. To provide coordination among these committees and to address resource allocation and conflict issues, the Raritan Basin Council was established with representation with each WMA Committee and a set of nine major interest groups, as follows:
| Raritan Basin Council Membership> | |
| Raritan Basin Council Chair | County representative |
| Technical Advisory Committee Chair | Municipalities representative |
| Upper Raritan WMA Representative | Environmental Commissioner |
| Upper Raritan WMA Representative | Business & Industry representative |
| Lower Raritan WMA Representative | Land Development Industry representative |
| Lower Raritan WMA Representative | Watershed Association representative |
| Millstone WMA Representative | Basin Agriculture Committee representative |
| Millstone WMA Representative | Water Supply Utilities representative |
| Wastewater Utilities representative | |
These positions were all filled except for the representative of the development industry. Numerous attempts were made to fill this position through the project, but development representatives indicated that a combination of personal schedules, lack of expertise and concerns about being “in the minority” were dissuading development interests from either attending or having representatives attend for them. A few development representatives were involved in the Watershed Management Areas, but not at the Council level.
The Council chair could be chosen from outside the Council or from among the Council members, but in the latter case that person could not hold two positions and therefore must be replaced in terms of their original representative role. The chair for 2001 and 2002, Nicholas Polanin of Rutgers Cooperative Extension, was chosen from outside the Council.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed also, answerable to the Raritan Basin Council but intended to provide technical support and assistance to the WMA Committees. The stakeholders decided that the TAC should not be limited in membership, but it should have a targeted set of technical specialties that would provide a full spectrum of views for consideration:
|
Technical Advisory Committee Specialties |
|
| Biologist | NJDEP Liaison |
| Civil engineer | Open Space Specialist |
| Economist | Public health specialist |
| Funding specialist | PR/Communications |
| GIS specialist | Wastewater specialist |
| Hydrologist | Water quality specialist |
| Land use planner | Water supply specialist |
| Legal specialist | Wetlands ecologist |
| Natural resources management | Wildlife specialist |
It should be noted that the TAC membership was limited to technical specialists, both those listed above and others as needed. The “general public” could attend meetings but could not be a TAC member. The TAC chair and vice chair could be chosen from among the TAC membership or from outside, but must in either case be qualified to sit on the TAC by virtue of technical expertise. The TAC chair, Rocco D. Ricci (former Commissioner of the NJDEP and retired professional engineer) and vice chair, Robert Tucker, Ph.D. (former NJDEP Director of Science and Research) were both recruited from outside the TAC with the TAC’s approval.
The Council and Committees were formed in March and April 2001. Each of the WMA Committees then developed their own operating structures, without need of approval from the Council. Each WMA Committee chose a somewhat different approach. The North & South Branch WMA Committee was structured as a “committee of the whole” with three vice chairs (Dave Peifer, Robert Colburn, and Geoff Knapp) who rotated the chair’s role among them annually, and had work groups to focus on specific issues. As work groups completed their efforts, other work groups could be established. The Lower Raritan WMA Committee formed seven subcommittees and a Steering Committee comprised of a chair (Michael Rogers, followed by Steve Barnes) and two vice chairs, subcommittee chairs, each affected county, representatives from local watershed associations, and five municipal representatives (one from each of five watersheds within the area). The Millstone WMA Committee formed five subcommittees and a Steering Committee comprised of a chair (George Hawkins, followed by Shing-Fu Hsueh, PhD), two vice chairs, and the subcommittee chairs.
The Council, in turn, formed one new committee, the Basin Education & Outreach Committee, to coordinate efforts of Education & Outreach subcommittees or work groups from the WMA Committees, to develop basin-wide efforts as needed, and also to allocate available funds for public education and stakeholder training. The first two chairs, Mary Beth Koza and Jeannine Der Bedrosian, were chosen from among the Committee members.
Finally, an Evaluation Committee was planned for, although it was never formed due to changes in NJDEP’s watershed program direction, and subsequent changes in the project schedule and budget. This committee was to be comprised primarily of experts from outside the Raritan Basin who could provide detailed, focused and useful critiques and advice on improving the overall project. Although the original approach called for the Evaluation Committee to include representatives of the Raritan Basin Council and the NJDEP, the Council in March 2002 decided to have all Evaluation Committee members come from outside of the Raritan Project process.
Decision-making Approaches Used in Plan Development
The WMA Committees and Raritan Basin Council were directed by the stakeholders to develop operating principles that would guide stakeholder conduct in and outside of meetings regarding the Raritan Project, and to establish a framework for decision making. The Raritan Basin Council developed draft operating principles and communication guidelines, which the WMA Committees then reviewed. The Council and Committees then formally adopted the Final Operating Principles by consensus. Perhaps the most critical component of the operating principles addressed the decision making process, as follows:
Decision-making Approach – in order of preference
Full consensus (all Council/Committee members agree with the decision)
General consensus (nearly all Council/Committee members agree with the decision, and those who do not agree with all aspects of the decision are willing to accept the decision, taken as whole, to move forward)
Separate views (there are opposing views that cannot come to general consensus). All of the views on an issue must be documented, including the areas of agreement and disagreement and the reasons why disagreements continue to exist. For discretionary plan components, the Council/ Committee will reach full or general consensus where possible, and defer decisions until a later planning cycle where no consensus exists. In such cases, the “separate views” will be recorded as a foundation for further discussion.
Robert Rules of Order are not used (i.e., no motions, seconds, votes, etc.)
Mandatory Plan Components – The NJ Department of Environmental Protection has final authority regarding legally mandated components of the plan (e.g., TMDLs), which must be consistent with applicable federal and state law. Other plan components are discretionary. Because the watershed management plan will be most successful where decisions evolve from stakeholder consensus, every effort will be made to maximize consensus decisions on mandatory plan components, with a goal that such decisions all are based on consensus.
Therefore, legally mandated components shall be identified as early as possible. The planning process shall emphasize attainment of consensus for such components. However, where consensus on the mandatory plan components is clearly not possible by established deadlines, the Council will use “separate views” for these components, and defer to NJDEP for final decisions. The NJSWA will confer with the Council/Committee Chair and NJDEP, compile the separate views (see 1.c, above) and implement steps as necessary to move forward.
Through process there were no instances where any stakeholder invoked the “Separate Views” provision. However, it should be noted that the accelerated completion of the Raritan Plan resulted in a heavy schedule of implementation strategy development and review, resulting in a less-than-complete stakeholder “buy-in” to the results. Plan implementation could suffer due to time constraints in the review process.
Key Decisions of the Stakeholder Participants
The Raritan Basin Council, WMA Committees, Basin Education & Outreach Committee and Technical Advisory Committee worked both independently and in concert to develop the following decisions that, while not part of the plan itself, were important to the process.
Criteria for a Good Watershed Management Plan
The WMA Committees brainstormed criteria for a watershed management plan that stakeholders felt were critical to the success of the plan. Participants were concerned that the plan must have a great deal of credibility when completed. The Raritan Basin Council then worked with NJWSA staff to develop a minimum set of criteria that reflected the WMA Committee’s ideas; the following ten criteria were accepted by consensus of the Council and WMA Committees:
The plan should be results-oriented and achievable
The plan should adapt to change, new information and technology
The plan should have a clearly stated vision, mission and goals that articulate a preferred future
The plan should include clear milestones and a process to periodically evaluate progress
The plan should apportion benefits and responsibilities as equitably as possible among those affected by the plan
The plan should be easy to understand and use by different audiences and those affected by the plan, and should include exciting summaries backed by technically robust information
The plan should portray trust developed in the process and results, through sound planning, clear conclusions and solutions based on good science
The plan should foster support for strategy implementation by addressing issues in ways that are positive, beneficial, justified, and sensitive to their social, economic and political context.
The plan and the process to develop the plan should stand upon and encourage strong and effective public participation
The plan’s strategies should achieve plan goals in ways that are broadly applicable but with flexibility for tailored applications
Components of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan
The Raritan Basin Council developed a structure and preferred components of this plan, which are reflected in the plan document. Consensus was achieved with the WMA Committees on this structure.
Critical Issues for the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan
Early in the planning process, in 2001, the Issues Work Group and later the Raritan Technical Advisory Committee developed an intensive compilation of issues (i.e., existing problems, projected problems, or beneficial situations that should be maintained) from the Characterization & Assessment reports. They developed a ranking system that determined, based on best professional judgment, whether the issues were valid (that is, confirmed, perceived and supported by evidence, perceived without evidence, or perceived contrary to science but based on strongly held views), important to the Basin, and having feasible strategies for solving the issue. The results of this process helped the WMA Committees understand the issues before them.
Consultant Projects to Improve Capacity for Watershed Management
The General Scope of Work for the Raritan Project allocated approximately $200,000 for sub-contracts that would help with development of the management plan. WMA Committees were asked to develop ideas on the most critical pieces of “missing information” that could, if developed through consulting contracts, greatly improve management of the Raritan River Basin. These ideas are provided in “Consultant Needs for the Raritan Project (Non-TMDL),” along with the Technical Advisory Committee’s recommendations that were a synthesis of several WMA Committee priorities. The Raritan Basin Council then accepted the TAC’s proposals in March 2002 and rough scopes of work have been developed. However, Raritan Project funds that were allocated to this effort (approximately $250,000) were not released by NJDEP. The TAC and Raritan Basin Council are pursuing alternative methods of implementing these projects.
Subwatershed Implementation Projects
The General Scope of Work allocated $180,000 to an innovative concept – the development of implementation plans for nine subwatersheds (generally less than 50 square miles) using the approach advocated by the Center for Watershed Protection in their “Rapid Watershed Management Handbook” of 1998. Two requests for proposals were released, resulting in the selection of eight projects by the Raritan Basin Council. However, funding for this effort was not released by NJDEP due to the change in direction for the overall statewide watershed management process.
The General Scope of Work allocated $21,500 to outreach and education mini-grants, as a means of developing new involvement in the Raritan Project through organizations and agencies with access to constituencies that have not become involved in the project. A request for Proposals was released in April 2002, and the Basin Education & Outreach Committee selected three projects for funding. However, funding for this effort was not released by NJDEP due to the change in direction for the overall statewide watershed management process.
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Projects
The Raritan Basin Council reviewed FY 2002 proposals to NJDEP for grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, regarding nonpoint source pollution control. Of the five priorities identified by the Council, four were funded by NJDEP for a total of over $400,000.
As noted above, stakeholders were involved at each step to guide the scope, depth and technical methods used in developing the reports, and also reviewed each product. Several approaches were used regarding participant evaluations.
Meeting evaluation forms were provided to participants at each meeting, and strong pressure was exerted to get the forms filled by each person. Rutgers Center for Environmental Communication (CEC) initially handled the entire evaluation process, and later trained NJWSA staff so that NJWSA could continue the process indefinitely. Evaluation summaries for each meeting were then provided at the following meeting. These evaluation summaries have been compiled for each year of the project for the major committees (not WMA subcommittees or work groups):
At the beginning of the Raritan Project, Rutgers CEC also coordinated and wrote an extensive Stakeholders Needs and Resources Assessment to provide guidance on key technical and planning needs of a wide variety of stakeholders, including a number of interests that did not routinely (or ever) attend the meetings. Over 40 stakeholders from a very wide range of interests were interviewed, resulting in thoughts on priority data needs, data sources, uses of the characterization and assessment reports, interest in participating in the process and who the stakeholders trusted to represent their interests. Following completion of Phase 1 – the Characterization and Assessment Reports – Rutgers CEC then prepared a “Lessons Learned” report based on interviews of stakeholder participants. The report emphasizes the importance of leadership and individual (not just organizational) commitment, flexibility in the project structure, funding, using lessons from others, using multiple communications channels, simplifying technical information, allowing sufficient time for data acquisition and assessment, and evaluation.
NJWSA also conducted a survey of stakeholder participants (Results of the Participant Survey, April-May 2002) after a complete year of committee meetings by the Raritan Basin Council and WMA Committees. That report showed a continuing interest in participation in the Raritan Project but at the same time, an uncertainty as to whether the results of the project would be used by NJDEP.