BACKGROUND
Concern for river conservation and protection in Arizona formally began in 1965, the year AORCC released Outdoor Recreation in Arizona, the first statewide outdoor recreation plan. The 1965 recreation study contained Arizona's first formal recommendation that portions of the state's streams be designated as natural rivers (SCORP, 1965). Between 1966 and 1988, resource management and regulatory agencies, private interest groups, and the State Legislature addressed a number of important stream and wetland conservation issue in Arizona (SCORP, 1989a).
In 1985, Governor Bruce Babbitt summed it up best when he said:
"What is needed is the implementation of a comprehensive legislative mandate for the protection, conservation, and rehabilitation of riparian ecosystems. Previous efforts have addressed only pieces of the whole. Legislation must include all aspects of riparian systems and address all levels of involvement—federal, state, local, and private—to be effective (Johnson et al., 1985)."
In 1989, the Arizona State Parks Board published the milestone Arizona Rivers, Streams, & Wetlands Study as part of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). It contained a wealth of information about the ecological and economic importance of streams and riparian areas, documented threats to these resources, and identified strategies for their protection and management (Arizona Rivers Coalition, 1991), one of which was multi-objective river corridor planning. The 1989 SCORP recommendation stated:
The State of Arizona should identify river areas where corridor planning may be beneficial and take the necessary steps to initiate such planning.
The study goes on to describe what multi-objective river corridor planning is, which States have successfully implemented such planning efforts, and how Arizona could begin such an endeavor. The study suggested that possibly the most productive way for the state to establish a river corridor planning program would be to focus initially on one stream that could serve as a model for future projects. The study also developed a preliminary list of river corridors in Arizona that should be given consideration as priorities for future river corridor planning. The Verde River was at the top of the list.
Local Efforts
There has been a variety of past efforts designed to plan for and protect the Verde River. The Forest Service, which manages much of the upper and lower Verde River, began its land management planning process in the late 1970s soliciting public opinion on how national forest lands, including the Verde River, should be managed. Public meetings and studies for designating wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and trails have provided impetus for further discussions.
In the late 1980s the Verde Natural Resource Conservation District attempted a multi- group association to begin planning for the wise use of the Verde River, but the conflicting issues became too overwhelming to resolve through a volunteer effort. However, the Verde NRCD continued to pursue individual projects, such as the highly successful Verde Riparian Project (see Other Protection and Management Actions section).
Several communities have been working hard to enact and implement local policies and ordinances to manage and conserve the resources along the river corridor. The Town of Camp Verde has drafted a sand and gravel ordinance and has begun a water plan. Both state and county agencies have assisted communities in the preparation of general development plans.
Many individuals have worked tirelessly over the past decades to enhance the Verde River and its riparian corridor. Several groups have been formed with the intent of assisting riverfront landowners and residents in caring for the river and developing floodplain lands while enhancing the riverine values.
Members of the local communities joined together in 1989 to establish a new tradition, Verde River Days, which is designed to increase awareness and appreciation of the river and its importance to the Verde Valley and its people. The first annual event was held at Dead Horse Ranch State Park in September 1989 and was highly successful. Each year promises to be better than the last with more participation and enthusiasm from all sectors of the community.
Many other events have occurred in the Verde Valley sparking considerable public awareness and concern over the fate of the Verde River Corridor. Water, always a controversial topic, dominated the headlines when the issue of water transfers began. Several cities, agencies, and Indian tribes looked into a number of possibilities, such as exchanging Central Arizona Project allocations, pumping water out of the Verde, and pumping water out of an adjacent basin into the Verde to resolve individual problems. The potentials are still being studied. But all this interest in the Verde River's water roused the residents of the Verde Valley and spurred local action.
MULTI-OBJECTIVE RIVER CORRIDOR PLANNING
During this period of time the Statewide Planning Division of Arizona State Parks began its first effort at a comprehensive planning endeavor called multi-objective river corridor planning. Corridor planning refers to initiatives by public and private interests to address problems and opportunities associated with a river and its riparian lands through the development of a broad-based plan.
The objective of corridor planning is to look at the river area as a whole and to devise meaningful strategies for conservation and wise use. This process acknowledges two simple yet essential ideas about river management:
1) no public action can replace wise use of a river by those living along it, and
2) effective river management cannot succeed without local consensus and support.
To be successful, this effort usually necessitates a cooperative planning process that addresses concerns held by a variety of interests including landowners, river users, management authorities, and the general public. Ultimately, the success of these efforts can be measured by the extent to which all affected interests are willing to support the proposed management concepts.
This type of planning effort began as a nationwide movement to look at the totality of rivers, not just at one aspect or use. Too often past river planning efforts have focused solely on one issue such as building a new dam, providing recreational facilities, or preserving a threatened species. For most rivers that pass through communities, single purpose planning is not feasible. All uses must be taken into consideration before decisions can be made. This is the goal of multi-objective river corridor planning.
When and if river corridor planning occurred in the past it was for a single purpose. All across the country we can no longer afford this luxury as the pressures mount from an ever increasing population and a multitude of rising demands on unique river flora and fauna. Historically, communities have looked to rivers for life; today a river must look to communities for its future survival. By caring and planning together the legacy of a quality riparian environment can still be given to future generations.
Multi-Objective River Corridor Planning is the joining of public and private interests to discover and define the problems and opportunities associated with river resources and to seek agreement and decisions regarding them. The goal of this process is to recognize all of the valid public and private uses and to develop a plan that provides the most benefits to the community with the least adverse impacts on these significant river resource values.
Through corridor planning, community members can look at the river area as a whole and devise purposeful strategies for conservation and wise use. A successful corridor planning process requires commitment and a cooperative effort. It addresses concerns held by a variety of interests including landowners, river users, management authorities, the general public and, in addition, addresses the effects of these uses on the future quantity and quality of the water in the river. Such a process is intended to achieve a suitable balance among these economic, natural, cultural, agricultural, recreational, tourist, scenic, historic, and other similar values associated with rivers and their corridors.
A community based corridor planning project can shape the future of a river's resources through the use of these specific actions:
Coordination: Find creative ways to coordinate existing programs at the federal, state, and local level to address the problem of overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent agency actions; improve coordination/cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, and private groups; establish public and private partnerships; develop the means to achieve balanced participation by all river corridor users.
Education: Develop public awareness of identified river corridor values and their relationship to land uses to encourage active public participation in river planning efforts.
Assistance: Provide technical and financial assistance to local, state and federal governments and private groups and individuals to encourage the appropriate future uses of river corridors.
Information: Gather and make available information regarding river values, projects, case studies and other technical data to promote more comprehensive, objective decision-making and conflict avoidance between competing river uses.
Legal: Identify the appropriate means/agents to ensure adequate public access to river corridor land and water while considering property interests and ecological systems.
Public Involvement: Develop creative mechanisms to identify and develop river corridor constituencies and effectively involve the public as early as possible and continuously in the planning and decision-making process.
Planning: Ensure that planning for river corridors is coordinated between all levels of agencies and interests; address the full range of resources, problems, opportunities and river interests; use consistent systematic and objective approaches for planning; encourage environmentally sound conservation and resource management strategies; identify opportunities for economic and commercial development; and establish priorities for a range of uses.
Policy: Establish and encourage national, state and local policies and programs for river corridors to promote consistency and coordination and to encourage a balance between social/economic needs/issues while retaining or restoring resource values and reducing conflict.
Resource Management: Develop balanced planning and management which provides the opportunity for both conservation and development of the river resources, coordinated among all landowners and users, interest groups, and agencies.
This outline of the goals of multi-objective river corridor planning was developed from a series of six workshops held across the nation in 1989 to determine what priority actions Congress and the Federal Administration should take to help support local, state, and federal governments and private organizations in their river planning efforts (Multi- objective River Corridor Planning Workshops, 1989). Legislation has been submitted by Congressman John McDade from Pennsylvania with recommendations for policy development, a coordination body, demonstration projects, federal technical assistance, a National River Register, public involvement in future decision-making, and consideration of private property rights.
VERDE RIVER CORRIDOR PROJECT--THE PROCESS
Beginning the Process
In early 1989 the Arizona State Parks and Arizona Department of Commerce began discussions with local groups, elected officials, and agencies in the Verde Valley to explore the issues and concerns associated with the Verde River and its corridor lands. In September, several public meetings were held throughout the Verde Valley to see if the local communities would be willing to join together and begin a "multi-objective" river corridor planning effort for the Verde.
From the initial meetings, it was clear that local people had a strong concern about issues affecting the Verde and a strong desire to become more involved in decision-making about the river. The nearly three hundred people who attended these first meetings agreed to the project and to allowing Arizona State Parks and Arizona Department of Commerce to facilitate, but they wanted the decisions to come from the local residents. It was to be a citizen-directed project. The Project Planning Team developed a strategic planning process state (Figure 6) which was accepted by the group. At the same time, a process for involving a wide range of people, groups, and agencies was developed, with input from the public state (Figure 7).
One of the earliest tasks involved identifying the key issues facing the Verde River. The Project Planning Team held several public meetings and sent out questionnaires soliciting comments from as many people as possible. The team set up an exhibit on the planning project at the first annual Verde River Days and an additional thousand people had the opportunity to comment on issues of concern to them. At these initial meetings, held in September and October, 1989, an exhaustive list of river issues and concerns was recorded, and then grouped into major categories.
Major Issues Categories
• Access Water
• Environmental Problems
• Land Management
• Flooding & Erosion
• Sand & Gravel Mining
• Private Property Rights
• Law Enforcement
• Pollution
• Special Area Designation
• Economics
• Recreation
• Zoning
Establishing the Committees
At the same time, the Project Planning Team sent out letters to the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors and the mayors of the three main communities along the Verde River—Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and Clarkdale—asking them to submit names of interested people from their communities to serve on a steering committee. The three mayors and a county supervisor were included on the steering committee. To ensure representation from all interests, additional people were also asked to serve on the Steering Committee, which totalled 26 members.
Due to the size of the Steering Committee and the enormity of the planning process, five working subcommittees were established to explore each of these major issues and consider possible actions for resolving identified problems. Local residents and knowledgeable people were encouraged and invited to participate on the various subcommittees. The subcommittees include:
- Economics & Commercial Uses
- Land Conservation
- Private Property
- Recreation
- Water
To better utilize the expertise contained in the many local, state, and federal agencies, and private organizations not represented on the Steering Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee of over fifty people was established. Committee members were encouraged to contact these groups for specific information, past studies, concerns, and recommendations and solutions.
The Project Planning Team, which facilitated the VRCP, included staff members from Arizona State Parks and Arizona Department of Commerce. The Steering Committee, five subcommittees, Technical Advisory Committee, and Project Planning Team, as well as over 400 people on the VRCP mailing list, were considered the main participants of the Verde River Corridor Project (Figure 7).
The Steering Committee was committed to extensive citizen-based participation in all phases of the plan's development so that the final plan would be wholly produced by members of the community in which it would be implemented and would thus have a broad base of support. The VRCP involved a six-step process:
1) assessing the special resource values of the Verde;
2) identifying the issues of greatest concern to area residents;
3) ensuring a broad cross-section of the community participated in or contributed to the VRCP;
4) setting goals based on the identified issues and resources;
5) considering alternatives for resolving the identified issues; and
6) developing a final set of recommendations and a plan of action.
Gathering Resource Information
Arizona State Parks, through a grant from the State Lake Improvement Fund, worked with the Arizona State Land Department to produce a series of GIS maps (geographic information system) of the Verde River Basin that highlighted existing information such as land ownership, county and municipal boundaries, roads and trails, watercourses, and vegetation.
State Parks also contracted with Yavapai County Flood Control District to create special flood maps showing the various flood designations in relationship to land ownership. The agency also arranged for new aerial photography so that the project would have the most up to date information available. Each subcommittee received sets of the different maps and resource materials for its own use and reference.
At the committees' recommendation, Arizona State Parks and the Department of Planning at Arizona State University conducted a resource inventory, site restoration analysis, and a visual assessment of the corridor. Also, the University of Arizona chose the Verde River to continue its long-term study of public opinion about the state's rivers and their resources. A survey was sent to a broad cross section of Verde Valley residents to determine their attitudes and concerns. Two other rivers had already been included in the study enabling a good comparison of community attitudes on river issues across the state (see Supporting Studies section).
Public Involvement
Arizona State Parks published an informational brochure about the project and distributed it throughout the Verde Valley to inform the public of the corridor planning process and how they could be involved. Local newspapers and radios stations were committed to releasing meeting notices and progress reports of the planning process.
Each subcommittee met periodically between November 1989 and April 1991, researching, discussing, determining goals, objectives, and strategies, and setting priorities and recommendations for consideration by the Steering Committee. Many subcommittees scheduled field trips, special presentations by experts, and interagency and public workshops to learn more about the various issues. When the subcommittees fimalized their recommendations, they were presented to the Steering Committee for discussion and approval.
Public participation efforts included the establishment of the twenty-six member steering committee and five working subcommittees comprised of approximately fifty other individuals. The Technical Advisory Committee included another fifty individuals representing various agencies and organizations. Many additional people did not belong to a particular committee, but attended and actively participated in the public meetings regularly.
Usually 50 to 75 people atended the public meetings. The special meetings attracted well over 125 people. Nearly 500 people asked to remain involved with project developments via the mailing list.
This consistent level of long-term public involvement, attendance, and commitment, especially in a relatively non-controversial planning process, is extremely rare in Arizona. It is proof of the enormous amount of grassroots support and interest in local planning and decision-making.
As the working subcommittees identified specific areas of concern, they scheduled special forums for some of the more problematic issues. These forums brought in a variety of experts representing the many sides of a particular issue. Forum structure consisted of knowledgeable presentations followed by a question and answer period for the public. Attendance at these forums confirmed the public's tremendous interest in these issues and their desire to have a say in the decision-making process.
The forums and special presentations included:
• Water Transfers and Exchanges Forum
• Sand and Gravel Mining Forum
• Clean Water Act—404 Permit Process
• EPA/FWS Advanced Identification Study
• Environmental Defense Fund Water Conservation Study
• Private Property Issues
• Recreation Assessment
• Visual Resource Assessment
• Hunting and Trapping
• Public Opinion Survey
• Salt River Project
• Dead Horse Ranch State Park Developments
• Arizona Water Resources Plan
Also, many other agencies and groups began to call in and request time before the Steering Committee to present their issues and proposals, recognizing that the VRCP was an excellent vehicle to reach the Verde Valley residents concerning their programs and plans and solicit public comments. This cooperation was mutual, opening up lines of communication between local residents and state and federal agencies. An important aspect of the project was to bring local people together to begin thinking and talking about the future of the Verde Valley, and to agree on ways to deal with some of the problems affecting the river.
Committee Tasks
The Steering Committee's general charge was to participate in and oversee the development of the VRCP (see appendix). After considerable discussion, the members agreed upon a general purpose and several goals to guide the process. The Steering Committee determined that the purpose of the VRCP was to:
Identify and recognize all uses of the Verde River Corridor, encourage protection of the Verde River and its natural and cultural resources, and promote coordinated decision-making for the continued enjoyment and use of the Verde River by future generations.
In addition several major goals for the project were set by the Steering Committee and the project participants early in the process:
• Achieve a balance of economic development and conservation practices
• Improve and maintain the riparian corridor and water quality and quantity
• Improve cooperative management of the land and water resources
• Develop education programs related to river resources and river use
When the Steering Committee was formed, each member received a loose leaf notebook to assist them through the project. The notebook contained names and addresses of committee members including the technical advisory committee, outlines of each of the committees' roles and responsibilities, a series of forms to record issues, goals, strategies, and actions as they progressed through the planning process, and an appendix of pertinent material. Additional sections for future correspondence, meeting summaries, and handouts to be added kept all VRCP materials organized and easy to reference.
As the planning process began, the members of the VRCP held fast to one fundamental belief: even though the Steering Committee and subcommittees would be dealing with controversial issues, they must always remember they had one common interest--the Verde River. However, rather than avoiding conflict, the committees had to work together with all groups and interests, even those they may have considered to be 'opponents.' Involving these diverse groups early in the process helped to address their concerns and may to help diffuse opposition in the future.
As each working subcommittee was formed, a member of the steering committee volunteered to chair each group and most other members chose to work on one or more subcommittees. The general charge of each subcommittee was to discuss and research issues, prioritize the feasible issues, develop alternative strategies to resolve those issues, seek public input, and propose recommendations and a plan of action to the Steering Committee (see appendix). In every letter and news release that went out, the public was encouraged to attend all meetings and to participate in the work of the subcommittees.
In catalyzing local action, the VRCP found that:
1) citizens living along the river, and those using it, have invaluable expertise necessary for developing realistic expectations of what conservation of the Verde means, and
2) by understanding and embracing their role in the planning process, citizens will make legitimate, workable decisions about what can be accomplished.
The result of this planning process is a strategy for land and water management in and along the Verde River that is uniquely suited to its special qualities and the demands of the local communities.
