Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Berton L. Lamb

Publications and source records attributed to Berton L. Lamb.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

Legal mechanisms for protecting riparian resource values

Riparian resources include the borders of rivers, lakes, ponds, and potholes. These border areas are very important for a number of reasons, including stream channel maintenance, flood control, aesthetics, erosion control, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and water quality maintenance. These diverse functions are not well protected by law or policy. We reviewed law and policies regarding endangered species habitat designation, land use planning, grazing management, water allocation, takings, and federal permits and licenses, along with the roles of federal, state, and local governments. We discuss the politics of implementing these policies, focusing on the difficulties in changing entrenched water and land use practices. Our review indicates a lack of direct attention to riparian ecosystem issues in almost all environmental and land use programs at every level of government. Protection of riparian resource values requires a means to integrate existing programs to focus on riparian zones.

Water Resources Research

Managing the rippling stream: decisionmaking in natural resource administration

This article addresses the conflict which exists within the water resources decisionmaking arena over the allocation of water for instream uses. The discussion reviews the literature on public administration regarding decisionmaking, and is based on research performed by the authors which synthesizes a model of decisionmaking. This model can be used as both a description of agency behavior, and as the basis for developing a prescription for strategy formulation.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio

Meeting the challenge of policy-relevant science: lessons from a water resource project

Water resource scientists face complex tasks in evaluating aspects of water projects, but relatively few assessment procedures have been applied and accepted as standard applications. Decision-makers often rely on environmental assessments to evaluate the value and operation of projects. There is often confusion about scientists' role in policy decisions. The scientist can affect policy-making as an expert withess, an advocate or a surrogate. By understanding the policy process, scientists can make their work more “policy relevant.” Using the Terror Lake hydro project in Alaska as a guide, three lessons are discussed: (1) not all problems are able to be solved with technology; (2) policy-relevant technology is rarely imposed on a problem; and (3) the scientist need not just react to the policy process, but can have an impact on how that process unfolds.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio

Negotiation techniques to resolve western water disputes

There is a growing literature on the resolution of natural resources conflicts. Much of it is practical, focusing on guidelines for hands-on negotiation. This literature can be a guide in water conflicts. This is especially true for negotiations over new environmental values such as instream flow. The concepts of competitive, cooperative, and integrative styles of conflict resolution are applied to three cases of water resource bargaining. Lessons for the effective use of these ideas include: break a large number of parties into small working groups, approach value differences in small steps, be cautious in the presence of an attentive public, keeps decisions at the local level, and understand the opponent's interests.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio

Fort Collins Science Center: Policy Analysis and Science Assistance

Most resource management decisions involve the integrated use of biological, sociological, and economic information. Combining this information provides a more comprehensive basis for making effective land management and conservation decisions. Toward this end, scientists in the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) of the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) contribute expert knowledge for natural resources management by conducting biological, social, economic, and institutional analyses of conservation policies and management practices. PASA's mission is to integrate biological, social, and economic research so that resource managers can use the resulting information to make informed decisions and resolve resource management conflicts. PASA scientists pursue and conduct scientific analyses that help agencies and Native American tribes to (1) identify impending policy controversies and areas where social and natural science research is needed to address future policy questions; (2) develop methods and approaches to assist researchers in preparing scientific evidence; (3) assess habitat alteration in a manner consistent with policy needs; and (4) evaluate policy options. Branch scientists also evaluate policy options (e.g., effects of different land treatments, fish and wildlife management practices, or visitor/recreation management practices) in response to specific questions faced by policymakers and managers.

Fact Sheet

Citizen knowledge and perception of black-tailed prairie dog management: Report to respondents

What do citizens know about black-tailed prairie dogs, and where do they get their information? When management decisions need to be made regarding an animal such as the black-tailed prairie dog, an understanding of the species and its relationship to humans is necessary. This includes knowing the biology of the animal, where it lives, and how it interacts with other animals. But it is equally important for those making decisions about the species to understand citizens’ knowledge and perceptions so managers can effectively communicate with the public and help the public participate in planning and decision making activities. Unfortunately, what is known about public knowledge, perception, and preferences concerning prairie dog management is limited to data from only a few areas. This study attempts to answer the question: What do people in the short-grass prairie region of the United States know and think about black-tailed prairie dogs? In the summer of 2000, we sent a survey by mail to citizens of rural, urban, and suburban counties in the short-grass prairie region of the United States. This area includes all or part of 11 states: Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (see Figure 1, p. 4). A total of 1933 citizens completed the survey for a 56% response rate (Table 1). This report provides a summary of the answers for all the questions in the survey. (Extra copies of this report can be downloaded from our website: http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/seias.) The results show that although people do not believe prairie dogs are a big environmental issue, they favor a balanced approach when dealing with such problems. When asked about their views on environmental policy, respondents reported being more conservative than liberal: 40% reported slightly conservative or conservative environmental views, 24% reported moderate environmental views, and 19% reported slightly liberal or liberal environmental views. Ninteen percent (19%) said they did not know or had not thought about their environmental values. When asked how important black-tailed prairie dogs are compared to other environmental problems, 69% said they are less important than other issues or not an issue at all. Thirty one percent (31%) said prairie dogs are about the same or more important than other issues.

Open-File Report

Instream water use in the United States: water laws and methods for determining flow requirements

Water use generally is divided into two primary classes - offstream use and instream use. In offstream use, sometimes called out-of-stream or diversionary use, water is withdrawn (diverted) from a stream or aquifer and transported to the place of use. Examples are irrigated agriculture, municipal water supply, and industrial use. Each of these offstream uses, which decreases the volume of water available downstream from the point of diversion, is discussed in previous articles in this volume. Instream use, which generally does not diminish the flow downstream from its point of use, and its importance are described in this article. One of the earliest instream uses of water in the United States was to turn the water wheels that powered much of the Nation's industry in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although a small volume of water might have been diverted to a mill near streamside, that water usually was returned to the stream near the point of diversion and, thus, the flow was not diminished downstream from the mill. Over time, the generation of hydroelectric power replaced mill wheels as a means of converting water flow into energy. Since the 1920's, the generation of hydroelectric power increasingly has become a major instream use of water. By 1985, more than 3 billion acre-feet of water (3,050,000 million gallons per day) was used annually for hydropower generation (Solley and others, 1988, p. 45)-enough water to cover the State of Colorado to a depth of 51 feet. Navigation is another instream use with a long history. The Lewis and Clark expedition journals and many of Mark Twain's novels illustrate the extent to which the Nation originally depended on adequate streamfiows for basic transportation. Navigation in the 1980's is still considered to be an instream use; however, it often is based upon a stream system that has been modified greatly through channelization, diking, and construction of dams and locks. The present (1987) inland water navigation system in the conterminous United States consists of about 12,000 miles of maintained waterways, over which about 500 million tons of cargo is carried each year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, p. 16). Although not so widely practiced in recent years, streams have been used to dispose of raw waste products from homes, communities, and factories. This use has been discouraged by law and public policy because of public health concerns and the damage it causes to the environment. Beginning in the mid-1960's, other instream uses gained new prominence in the water-resources arena-the assertion of a legal right to a free-flowing stream for biological, recreational, and esthetic purposes. These uses themselves, however, are not new. Riverine habitat always has produced fish, and the beauty of flowing water always has evoked a strong sense of esthetic appreciation. What is new is the emerging legitimacy and awareness of these noneconomic uses under State and Federal laws and regulations. In the past, environmental uses of flowing water were ignored, for the most part, under a long-standing legal tradition that favored offstream uses and certain instream uses that had a strong economic basis. The history of instream-flow policy debate really concerns those recently recognized types of interim uses. Although the more transitional water uses have been protected by law, the recognition of other in stream uses has resulted in substantial changes in State water laws. Although methods for determining the volume of water needed for most traditional water uses are relatively straight-forward and well-established, methods for determining water requirements for the in stream uses have been developed only recently and are continuing to evolve. Water laws that have favored the more traditional water uses, the inherent nature of conflict between instream and offstream water uses, and the special kinds of technological and philosophical problems posed by the "newer" types of instream uses are described below. Water laws that have been passed to accommodate the more recently recognized instream uses are summarized.

Report