ISSN:
1752-1688
Source:
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
Topics:
Architecture, Civil Engineering, Surveying
,
Geography
Notes:
: In Washington's watershed analysis program, scientific analysts identify watershed areas that are sensitive to forest practices. Land managers then develop watershed-specific rules or ‘prescriptions” that condition forestry activities in those sensitive areas. Prescriptions are intended to provide greater protection than existing, or 'standard,” rules where necessary to avoid cumulative effects on public aquatic resources (fish habitat and public works). To assess strengths and opportunities for improving Washington's watershed analysis, we evaluate prescriptions from 20 analyses conducted from 1993 to 1995. We ask: (1) Are prescriptions watershed specific, compared to the general, or 'standard” forest practices rules? (2) Are prescriptions scientifically sound? (3) What promotes or limits development of watershed-specific and scientifically sound prescriptions? We find: (1) Prescriptions tend to be similar to standard rules. One reason is that some components of the scientific assessment methodology incorporate approaches or assumptions from the standard rules, some of which are untested or unsupported. Another reason is that while other assessment methods are not patterned after the standard rules, resulting prescriptions do not necessarily integrate assessment information. (2) Many prescriptions lack a scientific rationale and are unproved in meeting their stated objectives. Despite the experimental nature of many prescriptions, they generally lack an evaluation component. (3) Washington's watershed analysis can be strengthened by: testing assumptions of some scientific assessment methods; basing prescriptions more rigorously on scientific assessment data and published scientific literature; and addressing uncertainty in whether prescriptions meet their objectives.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04118.x
