Publications by Colleges and Departments (MSU - Bozeman)
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/3
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item The patchwork governance of ecologically available water: A case study in the Upper Missouri Headwaters, Montana, United States(Wiley, 2023-09) Cravens, Amanda E.; Goolsby, Julia B.; Jedd, Theresa; Bathke, Deborah J.; Crausbay, Shelley; Cooper, Ashley E.; Dunham, Jason; Haigh, Tonya; Hall, Kimberly R.; Hayes, Michael J.; McEvoy, Jamie; Nelson, Rebecca L.; Poděbradská, Markéta; Ramirez, Aaron; Wickham, Elliot; Zoanni, DionneInstitutional authority and responsibility for allocating water to ecosystems (“ecologically available water” [EAW]) is spread across local, state, and federal agencies, which operate under a range of statutes, mandates, and planning processes. We use a case study of the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin in southwestern Montana, United States, to illustrate this fragmented institutional landscape. Our goals are to (a) describe the patchwork of agencies and institutional actors whose intersecting authorities and actions influence the EAW in the study basin; (b) describe the range of governance mechanisms these agencies use, including laws, policies, administrative programs, and planning processes; and (c) assess the extent to which the collective governance regime creates gaps in responsibility. We find the water governance regime includes a range of nested mechanisms that in various ways facilitate or hinder the governance of EAW. We conclude the current multilevel governance regime leaves certain aspects of EAW unaddressed and does not adequately account for the interconnections between water in different parts of the ecosystem, creating integrative gaps. We suggest that more intentional and robust coordination could provide a means to address these gaps.Item Ecological Drought: Accounting for the Non-Human Impacts of Water Shortage in the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin, Montana, USA(MDPI AG, 2018-02) McEvoy, Jamie; Bathke, Deborah J.; Burkardt, Nina; Cravens, Amanda E.; Haigh, Tonya; Hall, Kimberly R.; Hayes, Michael J.; Jedd, Theresa; Poděbradská, Markéta; Wickham, ElliotWater laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.Item A typology of drought decision making: Synthesizing across cases to understand drought preparedness and response actions(Elsevier BV, 2021-09) Cravens, Amanda E.; Henderson, Jen; Friedman, Jack; Burkardt, Nina; Cooper, Ashley E.; Haigh, Tonya; Hayes, Michael; McEvoy, Jamie; Paladino, Stephanie; Wilke, Adam K.; Wilmer, HaileyDrought is an inescapable reality in many regions, including much of the western United States. With climate change, droughts are predicted to intensify and occur more frequently, making the imperative for drought management even greater. Many diverse actors – including private landowners, business owners, scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and managers and policymakers within tribal, local, state, and federal government agencies – play multiple, often overlapping roles in preparing for and responding to drought. Managing water is, of course, one of the most important roles that humans play in both mitigating and responding to droughts; but, focusing only on “water managers” or “water management” fails to capture key elements related to the broader category of drought management. The respective roles played by those managing drought (as distinct from water managers), the interactions among them, and the consequences in particular contexts, are not well understood. Our team synthesized insights from 10 in-depth case studies to understand key facets of decision making about drought preparedness and response. We present a typology with four elements that collectively describe how decisions about drought preparedness and response are made (context and objective for a decision; actors responsible; choice being made or action taken; and how decisions interact with and influence other decisions). The typology provides a framework for system-level understanding of how and by whom complex decisions about drought management are made. Greater system-level understanding helps decision makers, program and research funders, and scientists to identify constraints to and opportunities for action, to learn from the past, and to integrate ecological impacts, thereby facilitating social learning among diverse participants in drought preparedness and response.