The Lindsay Creek Project: A Watershed and Community Based Land Use Assessment
Documents and Presentations
Project Description
Links
Strategy
Handbook
Project Evaluation
The Lindsay Creek Handbook (2.27 MB)
This Handbook introduces a process for collecting and combining available watershed and social data with the goal of improving land use decisionmaking in rural regions. The methods presented here are a practical approach to integrating watershed, social and land use information. Rather than focus on how to conduct a watershed assessment, a public participation campaign or land use analysis, all of which are relatively standard procedures in themselves, this Handbook does address adaptation and integration of these efforts. The result is information that will serve the community, local governments and state and federal governments in their efforts to more proactively address conservation of rural landscapes.
What?
People have recently begun to seek better ways for communities to grow in rural regions where they live: better ways to maintain a rural sense of community, working lands, open spaces, wildlife, clean water and opportunities for the future. This Handbook is a product of The Lindsay Creek Project (see ‘Case Study’, below), which considered ‘watershed infrastructure’ – streams, clean water, soil, forests, wildlife and other natural resources – as the foundation of land use planning. The project goal was to develop a proactive method of determining how to reduce risks and enhance existing or desired qualities associated with rural community development.
This Handbook suggests that rural community planning efforts can both accommodate growth and protect community and resource values if based on an integration of ‘watershed infrastructure’ and community desires. As a supplement to traditional land use planning processes, the techniques presented here are relatively straightforward and should be useful whether a community’s fundamental resource concern is wildland fire, a particular habitat or species, or, as in the situation for this case study, water quality and salmonids.
Traditional land use planning, in the context of this effort, is considered to be the legally mandated process by which counties develop land use plans. These are summarized for California in documents such as A Citizen’s Guide to Planning which describes, among other things, General Plans and their required elements. Required General Plan Elements particularly relevant to watershed related issues include Land Use, Conservation, and Open-Space; the Conservation element in particular “addresses the conservation of natural resources including water, forests, soils, rivers…”(California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2001).
Traditional planning involves the compilation and summary of baseline ecological data, but not inventory and assessment of watershed resources as the foundation and focus of the land use planning effort. Traditional land use planning includes assessment of environmental impacts after draft plan alternatives have been developed, however it does not include community watershed resources at the forefront of the planning process. Most often, the result of this style of environmental assessment is data available and practical for use at a project-specific level.
Why?
Why rural? Of course any planning process would benefit from the inclusion of both watershed and social data. Land use planners are commonly faced with a challenging mix of resource management, residential, habitat and aesthetic values, and issues. The focus of this effort on rural landscapes is motivated by the observation that most people would like to think that the natural attributes in and around their rural community will remain relatively constant – even when examples around them are to the contrary. In addition, rural regions contain the most ‘intact’ native landscapes and, therefore, have the most to lose from growth that does not maintain the health of natural systems.
Why ‘watershed- and community-based’? Watershed-based planning is not a new concept in the Western U.S. – John Wesley Powell recommended this technique in the 1870s. Using watershed boundaries for resource management purposes is the norm for many state and federal government agencies, particularly those related to water quality and fisheries. “We need to find ways to integrate human systems and natural systems to ensure that both can function sustainably” (Sierra Business Council 1997). And, when community members are engaged and empowered to determine the future of land use in their area, their commitment to seeing plans implemented is high (Local Government Commission 1997) and their desire to be good stewards is enhanced.
The importance of integrating watershed information and community participation is eloquently stated by the Upper Williamson River Watershed Group of Oregon:
We’ve come to understand that even with healthy, sincere, and dedicated local communities we can do serious damage to natural systems if we don’t know how they work. And, on the other hand, a flawless technical understanding of the functioning of natural systems is largely useless without the deep – and usually quite non-technical – commitment of the folks who live and work within particular landscapes (Connelly 2004).
Who?
This Handbook will be useful to those interested in the integration of watershed and social data into the land use planning process, particularly local government staff and elected officials as well as:
– Resource management agencies;
– Watershed groups and other natural resource-related organizations;
– Developers and planning professionals;
– Planning Commission appointees and members of other planning-related bodies;
– Community members interested in planning and watershed issues; and
– State land use planners and policymakers.
A Supplement or Stand Alone?
The process outlined in this Handbook has been designed to supplement traditional land use planning efforts. Watershed- and community-based land use planning would therefore be most effective when implemented by a local government as part of a General, Comprehensive or Community Plan Update process in collaboration with community- and watershed-based groups and organizations.
This proposed ‘supplemental’ process could also provide benefits if conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The optimal situation would be a collaborative partnership between the NGO and the area’s planning staff. If, however, the planning staff is unable or unwilling to collaborate, an NGO can independently use the methods outlined in this Handbook to add to the available natural resource data, provide valuable information to governmental planning processes, and/or simply to assess and synthesize land use, community, and watershed data for use by community stewards.
Documents and Presentations
Project Description
Links
Strategy
Handbook
Project Evaluation
The Lindsay Creek Handbook (2.27 MB)
This Handbook introduces a process for collecting and combining available watershed and social data with the goal of improving land use decisionmaking in rural regions. The methods presented here are a practical approach to integrating watershed, social and land use information. Rather than focus on how to conduct a watershed assessment, a public participation campaign or land use analysis, all of which are relatively standard procedures in themselves, this Handbook does address adaptation and integration of these efforts. The result is information that will serve the community, local governments and state and federal governments in their efforts to more proactively address conservation of rural landscapes.
What?
People have recently begun to seek better ways for communities to grow in rural regions where they live: better ways to maintain a rural sense of community, working lands, open spaces, wildlife, clean water and opportunities for the future. This Handbook is a product of The Lindsay Creek Project (see ‘Case Study’, below), which considered ‘watershed infrastructure’ – streams, clean water, soil, forests, wildlife and other natural resources – as the foundation of land use planning. The project goal was to develop a proactive method of determining how to reduce risks and enhance existing or desired qualities associated with rural community development.
This Handbook suggests that rural community planning efforts can both accommodate growth and protect community and resource values if based on an integration of ‘watershed infrastructure’ and community desires. As a supplement to traditional land use planning processes, the techniques presented here are relatively straightforward and should be useful whether a community’s fundamental resource concern is wildland fire, a particular habitat or species, or, as in the situation for this case study, water quality and salmonids.
Traditional land use planning, in the context of this effort, is considered to be the legally mandated process by which counties develop land use plans. These are summarized for California in documents such as A Citizen’s Guide to Planning which describes, among other things, General Plans and their required elements. Required General Plan Elements particularly relevant to watershed related issues include Land Use, Conservation, and Open-Space; the Conservation element in particular “addresses the conservation of natural resources including water, forests, soils, rivers…”(California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2001).
Traditional planning involves the compilation and summary of baseline ecological data, but not inventory and assessment of watershed resources as the foundation and focus of the land use planning effort. Traditional land use planning includes assessment of environmental impacts after draft plan alternatives have been developed, however it does not include community watershed resources at the forefront of the planning process. Most often, the result of this style of environmental assessment is data available and practical for use at a project-specific level.
Why?
Why rural? Of course any planning process would benefit from the inclusion of both watershed and social data. Land use planners are commonly faced with a challenging mix of resource management, residential, habitat and aesthetic values, and issues. The focus of this effort on rural landscapes is motivated by the observation that most people would like to think that the natural attributes in and around their rural community will remain relatively constant – even when examples around them are to the contrary. In addition, rural regions contain the most ‘intact’ native landscapes and, therefore, have the most to lose from growth that does not maintain the health of natural systems.
Why ‘watershed- and community-based’? Watershed-based planning is not a new concept in the Western U.S. – John Wesley Powell recommended this technique in the 1870s. Using watershed boundaries for resource management purposes is the norm for many state and federal government agencies, particularly those related to water quality and fisheries. “We need to find ways to integrate human systems and natural systems to ensure that both can function sustainably” (Sierra Business Council 1997). And, when community members are engaged and empowered to determine the future of land use in their area, their commitment to seeing plans implemented is high (Local Government Commission 1997) and their desire to be good stewards is enhanced.
The importance of integrating watershed information and community participation is eloquently stated by the Upper Williamson River Watershed Group of Oregon:
We’ve come to understand that even with healthy, sincere, and dedicated local communities we can do serious damage to natural systems if we don’t know how they work. And, on the other hand, a flawless technical understanding of the functioning of natural systems is largely useless without the deep – and usually quite non-technical – commitment of the folks who live and work within particular landscapes (Connelly 2004).
Who?
This Handbook will be useful to those interested in the integration of watershed and social data into the land use planning process, particularly local government staff and elected officials as well as:
– Resource management agencies;
– Watershed groups and other natural resource-related organizations;
– Developers and planning professionals;
– Planning Commission appointees and members of other planning-related bodies;
– Community members interested in planning and watershed issues; and
– State land use planners and policymakers.
A Supplement or Stand Alone?
The process outlined in this Handbook has been designed to supplement traditional land use planning efforts. Watershed- and community-based land use planning would therefore be most effective when implemented by a local government as part of a General, Comprehensive or Community Plan Update process in collaboration with community- and watershed-based groups and organizations.
This proposed ‘supplemental’ process could also provide benefits if conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The optimal situation would be a collaborative partnership between the NGO and the area’s planning staff. If, however, the planning staff is unable or unwilling to collaborate, an NGO can independently use the methods outlined in this Handbook to add to the available natural resource data, provide valuable information to governmental planning processes, and/or simply to assess and synthesize land use, community, and watershed data for use by community stewards.
RCAA Home
Last updated:
April 14, 2005