California Watershed Management Forums
February 2, 2000
Forum #3 Objective: “To identify the commonalities among diverse interests for state and local watershed approaches and to suggest how a robust, collaborative framework for watershed management in California could be shaped.”
The Forum format involved four diverse groups (A-D) of participants rotating round-robin style to four different topics (I-IV) over the course of the day. A facilitator and a recorder kept the discussion moving in each session and developed the following list of comments. If there was sufficient time, each group member also indicated those comments on the charts which they agreed with by placing a “green” dot next to it and those they disagreed with by placing a “red” dot. Each session was recorded in a somewhat different style. No attempt was made to reach consensus.
Purpose: To review the various statements of watershed principles already in circulation in California (CBC, CALFED, WPRC, WMI, Sierra Nevada Alliance, and For the Sake of the Salmon) and make comments and suggestions for improvement, if needed.
Group A:
C More broad-based stakeholder involvement is better [2 Green, 1 Red]
C Inclusion of all affected parties through entire process is essential [4 Green]
C Inclusion of all affected parties is desirable / highly desirable [3 Green]
C Objective of the principles is to achieve effective watershed assessment and management in California [6 Green]
C Should synthesize all needs and values including: [12 Green] water quality, water quantity and supply, flood plain management, nonpoint source pollution reduction, ecosystem requirements, land uses and practices
C The above is Aintegrated watershed management@
C A robust framework would include protection as well as restoration [8 Green]
C A robust framework would include enhancement [2 Green]
C Protect the best, restore the rest
C Include economically and socially viable communities as a goal [4 Green]
C Commitment of staff and funding from state agencies [6 Green]
C State policy mandate for agency staff and funding
C A robust framework would include stabilization, restoration and protection [3 Green]
C Need two sets of principles: 1) One for addressing broad-based ecosystem needs (including human dimension), and 2) One for imperiled conditions, emergency needs. [7 Green]
C Watershed management may need to address trans-watershed animal communities [2 Green]
C Watershed management should include land use [9 Green, 1 Red] / add Avoluntary or recommended@.
C Adopt Massachusetts program of organizing agencies by watersheds [6 Green, 1 Red]
Group B:
C Include simultaneous concern for social, natural, and financial capital. [7 Green]
C Watershed principles need clear definition of terms (see below) [5 Green]
C Sustainability of social, natural and financial systems should be a goal of WSM [4 Green]
C A robust framework should include public safety concerns. [2 Green]
C Watershed management program needs to promote and encourage flexibility in meeting regulatory and statutory mandates [2 Green]
C Follow the Precautionary Principle: Do no harm under watershed management plan to resources of interest at the watershed scale through land / use management activities. [2 Green, 2 Red]
C Monitor the effects of management practices [3 Green]
C Measure changes in the watershed and assess progress [6 Green]
C Should require collection of baseline data [5 Green]
C Communication should be adequate so that all parties understand the goals / plans [5 Green]
C Create a guiding document for the local watershed [2 Green]
Group C:
C Decision-making should be collaborative
C Include community outreach and education about ecosystem management
C Say Amay@ not Ashall@ to local watershed groups
C Allow refinements at local level
C Address the problems at the appropriate place in the watershed (e.g., top-down for land use; bottom-up for fish migration barriers, etc.)
C Clarification of whether there are watershed management principles within the state agencies
C State-level framework should assist local groups
C Implementation should not be limited to public funding
C Strive to use education, incentives and stewardship over regulation as a first step
C No new levels / layers of government
C Act with due diligence with best available information
C Simultaneously address needs and interests of local groups and meet federal and state mandates.
C State program/ principles should focus on state=s goals. Principles reflect local priorities and resource allocation.
C State funding for agency participation and science and ...
C State funding for local offices of state agency (i.e., field staff) participation.
Group D:
C State should assist local groups to develop local leadership, capacity-building, organizational skills building.
C Develop leadership and culture
C Facilitate communication between engineers and soft-technology advocates.
C Think watershed function as part of infrastructure planning.
C Watershed not an afterthought in land use / infrastructure development
C Improve fit between natural system function and engineering function.
C Develop principles that apply to both rural and urban
C State should not use different standards for state agencies and private landowners (e.g., Caltrans).
C Agencies should reformulate their mission to incorporate watershed objectives.
Terms that Need Definitions (in alphabetical order) [suggested by Group B]
Adaptive management
Baseline conditions
Beneficial
Broad-based (stakeholders)
Collaborative
Community
Comprehensive
Degradation
Healthy
Locally-based or Local / Local group
Organizational / Skills building
Principles
Protected
Restore
Stakeholder
Success
Sustainable
Watershed
Some Suggested Definitions (proposed by individuals; no discussion or consensus)
Adaptive Management: "The process of setting goals, designing and implementing actions aimed at attaining those goals, measuring and assessing the progress of those actions over time, and periodically adjusting the goals and actions."
Baseline: A) "Point from which change is measured and program success/ failure is evaluated/ determined." B) "Level of resource (e.g., # of fish) or a parameter (e.g., temp.) that existed at the beginning of our point of reference."
Comprehensive: "Addresses as completely as possible the range of objectives / indicators / problems identified for the situation."
Degradation: "Reduction in utility, quantity, or quality of a natural or cultural resource below a level that meets a requirement / standard of "healthy", where "healthy" means maintenance / retention of all biological etc. features and processes of that scale."
Healthy: "Retain / maintain/ restore all naturally occurring biological, hydrological, geological features and processes at that scale."
Local: "Within the watershed boundaries"
Multi-objective: "Addresses a variety of identified objectives (including ecological, social, economic)."
Organizational skills: "Develop and teach goal setting, by-laws, running a meeting, public speaking, fiscal administration, taking minutes, agenda, leadership within watershed group. Dealing with "unlike" parties interested without alienating.
Stakeholder: "Any individual / institution with financial, geographical, resource use (e.g., consumptive water use), social, ecological, or hydrological connection with, use of, or dependence upon a natural or cultural process or feature."
Success: "Monitoring (or some data source) shows that one or more watershed attributes have improved from baseline conditions."
Sustainable: A) "A set of activities, practices, and processes that do not degrade or reduce the quality or quantity of a natural or cultural resource below a level that maintains that resource indefinitely." B) "Presence of processes, characteristics, and functions that allow the system to quickly recover from perturbation or upset."
“Parking Lot” Issues:
C Management principles tend not to guide management and implementation over the long-term.
C Issue: Translating plans into implementation
C Concern about State Principles conflicting with local principles or efforts
C Clash of paradigms between engineers and others
C Watershed as infrastructure
C Portland Metro model may be useful
C King County, Washington stormwater management model
C When thinking about infrastructure design (e.g., road, sewer) or implementation, use a watershed approach and consider watershed function.
TOPIC II. WATERSHED DEFINITIONS
Purpose: To review some existing definitions of basic terms and come up with a workable and supportable definition of each one.
** Strong agreement level, as based on all “green dots” and no red dots.
* Low agreement level, as based on mostly green dots and few red dots.
## Strong disagreement level, as based on all red dots and no green dots.
# Low disagreement level, as based on mostly red dots and few green dots.
“Watershed”
After discussion of several existing ones, the following was proposed by Group A and responded to by other groups.
Proposed Definition: “A watershed is a drainage basin that drains to a common outlet.”
Comments:
· Keep definition on a scientific basis, and make “watershed management” definition include the political or social aspect.
· EPA’s definition is similar to above.
· Definition needs to be able to include odd hydrologic situations like the Butte Sink so projects there can qualify as “watershed” projects.
· Definition should be “no brainer” and deliberation efforts should be directed to other terms.
· Scale is not an issue in definition of “watershed” term but is in application of management.
“Watershed Management”
Proposed Definition: “Watershed management is the process of evaluating, planning, restoring and organizing land and other resource use within a watershed to provide desired goods and services while maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. Embedded in the concept of watershed management is the recognition of the interrelationships among land use, soil and water, and the linkages between uplands and downstream areas.” **
Comments:
· List the values of watershed management as part of the definition (e.g.,water quality, water supply, aquatic habitat, soil protection,... etc. *
· List examples of Actions included within definition (e.g., floodplain management, fire and fuel management, habitat restoration, riparian protection, storm water management, ... )
Proposed Goal: “The goal of watershed management is to have a comprehensive, coordinated approach to addressing issues which affect the function of the watershed area, including protection, restoration and management.” **
Comments:
· Implies a manager but we have multiple managers and interests.
· Narrow vs. wide values are inserted into definition - maybe there can’t be “one” definition.
· We’ve progressed from single objective to multi-purpose to multi-objective goal over years.
· We have multiple managers and multiple objectives; are we top to bottom, or bottom to top?
· It may be premature to define now; need to build on what exists.
· Long-term time scale is important to consider or include.
· Keep “comprehensive” but eliminate “river system” from draft definition.
· Add “coordinated”. Add “hydrologic function”.
“Watershed Group or Council”
Proposed Definition: “A watershed group is a generic term to describe any group who focuses its mission on the watershed level.”
Proposed Definition: “A ‘watershed council’ is a generic term to describe a group involved in a process that combines: (a) the watershed approach for managing natural resources; (b) collaborative partnerships between public and private sectors; (c) a composition of diverse interests (stakeholders); (d) a local, community-based location; and (e) consensus as the basis for decision-making.”
Reaction to Oregon’s “Watershed Council” definition components:
· #1 (“voluntary, local group that represents a balance of interested and affected persons within the watershed”) is okay.
· #2 (“a voluntary local organization designated by a local government group convened by a county governing body (i.e., city, county, water supply district or sewer district)”) is problematic as it is very contradictory to a valued process. Drop government designation, or reword to state, “voluntary local entity (city, county, special district) organized to address watershed objectives”.
· #3 (“…shall consist of a majority of local residents, including local officials”) - Requirement of council membership being a “majority of local residents” would be a problem.
· #3 is okay.*
· Local government “sanctioning” of council should be required. ##
· If we wait for counties to endorse local councils, we will wait forever.
· Consensus won’t work as a requirement.
· Definition too narrow.
Reaction to Proposed Definition of “Watershed Council”:
· Accommodates most groups, except for consensus assumption.
· (a) and (d) most crucial parts.
· Definition too narrow.
Comments:
· Function or purpose of the group and its goals is most important.
· Composition should be based on the need: doing site-specific projects is different than doing watershed assessments or plans. **
· Need good information base to make decisions. The “What” is more important than the “Who”. **
· The make-up of the group is not as important as the ability of the group to receive different ideas and to accommodate them. **
· The diversity of who is involved in the monitoring effort is more important than the implementation group that designs and implements the projects. **
· Overall watershed planning is best done by a diverse group.**
· Important for group to have the capability to affect the issues (potential for effectiveness). **
· The Observer role is also valid for those who don’t want to be sucked into the process.
· Use Joint Power Agreements (JPAs) to bring together multiple agencies and groups within a watershed.
· Defining these groups may not be necessary.
· View a council as an aggregation of groups addressing parts of a larger area or region.
· Assumption of having multi-stakeholders involved as an up-front criterion helps to ensure eventual success.
· Who decides priority should depend on the agency or committee in charge of the funding.
· No need for group to be diverse to receive funding * / Need for group to be diverse to receive funding. #
· Don’t eliminate ground swell group efforts to implement improvements.
· Watershed groups are not all focused on obtaining funding.
· Funding projects and coordinators is different.
· Keep funding criteria for watersheds general so as not to close doors to any stakeholders, but may need to fund single focus groups to meet a need (e.g., “triage” with priority watershed).
Purpose: To continue the lively debate begun in Forum #2 on this topic by pursuing the ideas and principles that need more exploration. To suggest lessons that can be learned from the three state experiences we heard about in Forum #1.
Group A:
· Need to define “who” is a watershed group (some disagreement about need to address this – the conversation was not taken further);
· Be leery of state structuring watershed groups or selecting one
· Don’t want government to tell what must be – but help provide options for what could be;
· State role: conduct assessments in coordination with locals
· ensure peer review (not limited to academics – field people);
· provide public distribution;
· incorporate the best available information;
· recognize/build upon existing assessments;
· foster voluntary monitoring
· address hard data versus value of anecdotal data
· be aware of (some) perception that watershed groups “are hunting” for problems;
· State role: initiate demonstration (pilot) projects along with assessments
· need to recognize diversity of people
· need to recognize diversity of circumstances
· State role: build partnership among federal, state, local, landowners, public to address mandate issues.
· sometimes there is a problem in getting agencies to “buy-in” to a watershed approach;
· sometimes a problem in getting local interests to buy in to agency mandates.
· State role: identify, define “non-threatening” ways of implementing NPDS, TMDL, other mandates that impact local landowners;
· watershed/local landowners are faced with competing legal priorities and mandates – how clarify priorities;
· need working relationship, capacity to exchange information about what needs to be done and how;
· Clarification: “non-threatening” to locals not an option – it is the threat from the mandates that makes watershed approach work – create opportunity to solve the problem from the ground up. Need for incentives with mandates.
· Question: is watershed mandate driven. Sometimes yes – but is this sustainable? Is it more? Capacity building comes from development of agreed upon local goals and objectives that are woven into compliance with government mandates.
· Agencies also have problem of competing legal priorities and mandates – they need help in clarifying priorities; agency budgets are the only way to institutionalize changes in priorities (eg., getting sufficient staff/funding to support watershed efforts).
· existing mandates are not adequately funded to be implemented
· in emphasizing a watershed approach, are we asking agencies to abandon their mandates or to integrate them?
· SWRCB/RWQB: example of agencies that can build upon local watershed efforts to help implement WQ requirements at a watershed level.
· Need to define appropriate scale to address the various mandates – the watershed assessment is a tool that can help address coordination, scale.
· Need to use appropriate technology (scale/technique) to conduct assessment.
· State role: how prioritize which watersheds to invest in.
· Choice: all watersheds important so provide a little bit of funding for everyone (similar to Oregon program) or pick demonstrations projects;
· Choice: protect the best or fix the worst (may have different goals for different basins);
· Recognize different levels of capacity among regions (eg., some areas already have $$$ where others have none).
· State role: identify point of contact within agencies at a basin or watershed scale;
· State role: fund capacity building within watershed groups.
· need to recognize the lack of fluidity/flexibility of various funding sources.
· State role: create incentives:
· for local plans that achieve multiple objectives;
· for interagency integration;
· budget is the management tool for agency coordination
· for local groups to combine and integrate information at a basin scale (counter reductionist trend within watersheds);
· Need to define: role of local government at the same time as define role of state.
· Reaction to Group A notes: disturbed by theme that State is going to determine how watershed management is going to happen – recognize local role.
· Be careful about assumption who “local” means – there are those within communities who do not want to be involved;
· Be careful to keep “who” flexible – it may evolve over time.
· Goal of project: to create a statewide framework to foster watershed management.
· State role/local role in watershed assessments:
· state can/should do the data collection;
· data needs to be science based;
· concern: data collection can become threatening to local landowners because processes become heavily data driven;
· locals need to implement the land management actions based on data;
· concern: often there is no local mechanism for making decisions about what should be done. When data is collected who “tells” the rancher/landowner what to do. Perception – agencies go to court; regulatory mandates feed off of data collection.
· Need: regional organizing for watershed groups;
· state needs to provide support for capacity building among watershed groups;
· need intact groups to participate – need for watershed councils?
· Capacity building should be about sustaining watershed management locally;
· Concern: outside $$ driving local organizing;
· trust issues confound the above:
· state not trust locals to be representative or science-based so state drives the data side of assessment as a way to control the outcome;
· locals not trust state to generate information that the landowners need; perceive $$ going into data collection at the wrong scale or being used for regulatory/enforcement purposes;
· locals not anti- assessment – concerned about how it is being done, by whom, why and who is making the decisions.
· Given above, defining concepts:
· Watershed assessments should be neutral;
· The purpose of the assessment needs to be clearly defined;
· Participation in the assessment needs to be clearly defined;
· The assessment should address issues of how the work will be conducted:
· Uniformity of data collection
· $$
· Coordination with existing assessments
· How information will be used.
· Planning for activities in watershed
· What government/locals want to do
· How achieve implementation (mandate? Voluntary?)
· include strategy, next steps into assessment process
· Define appropriate scale of assessment to address integration of issues at a landscape level;
· need to identify what is missing from assessment because it could impact the implementation plan
· assessment needs to be peer reviewed
· assessment needs to be strategy based.
· Assessment needs to recognize that there is a lot of disagreement among experts about “what is good science.”
· Accountability/monitoring issues:
When define what need to be achieved, don’t just count widgets – need to focus on function as well.
Group C:
· Relationship between locals and state/federal agencies:
· $$ foster involvement of state in local watersheds;
· watershed groups form because of:
· $$$;
· threats (mandates, development);
· opportunity to address/resolve issues at community level;
· state agency role: come in as part of team with locals, build trusts. Can offer $$, locals don’t have to take money if don’t want;
· agencies should be partners in local watersheds;
· agencies should be partners in solving problems;
· agencies offer carrot/stick (mandate/incentives)
· Need more information: assess the success of incentive-based programs – are they working?
· Watershed approach addresses the attempt to shift from the “power” mode of enforcement to a “collaborative” mode of achieving outcomes.
· Purpose of watershed assessment:
· assess existing conditions
· assessment magnitude of the problem
· assess causes of the problem
· assess solutions
· Issue: most assessments stop at description of existing conditions and magnitude of problem. Causes and solutions become controversial, move into adversarial science.
· Strength of watershed approach: attempt to build trust so that can get beyond existing conditions to causes and solutions – need long term process to do this. This is the most successful way to get at solutions.
· Look for latitude in means by which agencies achieve enforcement of mandates;
· Specific recommendations for a state role:
· Make a commitment from top to all staff (eg., executive order) to support collaborative efforts to identify barriers to collaborative approaches to implement solutions;
· Put into writing all funding decision and reasons for funding decisions to address accountability and trust issues.
· Invest in local watershed organizations (versus putting $$ into a pool which enable generic coordinators to be hired for a time, but no real capacity building within organizations);
· Create standardized forms for reporting data;
· Require every project that receives state funds to have a final technical report where information goes into a central (state) data center;
· Where State provides incentives/technical assistance, require follow up by both the agency and recipient on the work that was done, what happened;
· Require education component for restoration projects – part of technical assistance.
Group D:
· Accountability: there are problems in addressing both widgets and function;
· Don’t have appropriate techniques for measuring outcomes;
· Need multiple reporting mechanisms;
· Need comprehensive monitoring and reporting on a watershed basis;
· Need to tie monitoring organization to more sophisticated, long-term commitment so that can detect cumulative changes and watershed trends;
· Need adequate baseline (problem baseline is usually inadequate);
· Require monitoring as part of watershed assessment plan;
· Local involvement in monitoring – track what and where being done.
· Need willingness to assess and discuss problems without immediately moving to regulatory methods;
· Lessons from Oregon model: if locals take steps to address issues, agencies should agree to work out/pull back on mandated actions;
· Process: key to building trust to get to the end point.
· Caution: can’t have regulated and non-regulated parts of the landscape – back to how to enforce regulations fairly across all communities but provide non/less threatening modes to achieve outcomes.
Purpose: To identify reasonable expectations and to explore a framework to address voluntary and regulatory approaches and other needs for watershed management integration.
Asterisk indicates substantial degree of support for the point (e.g., lots of green dots).
· Watershed projects are frequently at odds with local government policy and land-use practices; at least there is room for them to be more closely coordinated.
· Contra Costa Co recently held a forum dealing with this issue—bridging real estate and watershed action interests.
· Local government is interested in whether there is a constituency for any issue; e.g., floodplain management/administration representatives need to be involved in local projects (in particular there is the issue that FEMA does not look at future conditions, only current. Another example: sediment study above and below Nevada City put watershed issues on radar screen of local government.
· DWR is trying to identify local valuation of resources; use economics as a door to involvement.
· Local government is involved in some projects and areas; e.g., Sonoma County and Lake County. Do we need another layer of administration…?
· Can we develop regulatory incentives for watershed management? Or use existing regulations by applying them geographically not politically.
· *There are too many different program endpoints in current regulatory framework. Agencies need to integrate their requirements—perhaps through a local watershed plan. For example: document desired watershed condition to be a template for future land-use practices. Integrate what’s desired at the agency level.
· *The Watershed Protection and Restoration Council was to have developed a survey of programs and policies, then develop a program to coordinate these efforts. This hasn’t happened. Why not? It would be very useful.
· On the North Coast, for example, there is no assurance that satisfying TMDL requirements will help achieve ESA requirements; in fact, one may conflict with the other. Landowners need to see consolidation of requirements—and incentive-based programs.
· *There is a challenge in getting a basin-wide view of watershed issues. Landowners do not want information/potential problems from their private land made public. This is a significant problem. In the Garcia, for example, there are just a few landowners and they don’t want to be individually targeted. Perhaps work can be done by not identifying property owners specifically; keep plans general? In some areas, UC Cooperative Extension acts as a “buffer” for information and this has worked pretty well.
· Issues here are 3rd party lawsuits and release of proprietary information that might benefit a competitor. Companies could decide not to cut timber based on regional planning. There could be an anti-trust violation involved in sharing info.
· *Summary offered for the several preceding issues:
· Government can, in coordination with stakeholders:
· Identify desired condition (very important)
· Identify types of data needed
· Compile a watershed view of the resources
· Use agency-developed monitoring programs to see if desired conditions are met.
· CALFED is moving toward this approach, but it’s still too top-down.
· Need to include small-scale assessment to have useful information. May need single owner-scale to effectively implement voluntary practices.
· Put emphasis on end result, on performance—then let the landowner be responsible. Monitor to see if end result is achieved. Don’t argue endlessly about methods; focus on results wanted.
· Let landowners “do it themselves” without tax dollars—so government strings aren’t attached. Examples: range management improvement plans; Deer Creek watershed project; French Creek (others noted that agency participants were at the table in these projects); CDF and DFG have done a great job tracking SB271 projects.
· A dissenting view: requiring agency coordination prior to watershed planning will unnecessarily slow the planning/assessment process.
· There would be great value in developing a state clearinghouse of projects and environmental data. Produce an end-of-year summary with appropriate reports? e.g., GeoWBS database is by watershed, with end-of-year reporting.
· Need also better packaging of existing data, and resource data put into economic and social context; e.g., the Sierra Business Council indicators projects.
· To gain broader support for watershed management work, we need to focus on “what moves people”; e.g., good graphics, simple trend information, GIS, visual and spatial coverage of issues.
· Face-to-face meetings are essential for clarifying, increasing understanding, networking—though they require a lot of time.
· More coordination between watershed groups and county government is a critical piece. e.g., amend General Plan guidelines to consider the nexus between county resources and the work of local groups; align land-use authorization with resources; integrate watershed planning with community development planning. Examples: Deer Creek, French Creek. Placer County is having a workshop to apprise county government of watershed group activities. Use “Area Plan” as a tool—enabling a relationship between the Area Plan and the County General Plan. A problem is that the planning director may be gone 18 months after the General Plan amendment. Solution: get the county to allocate $ to do updates.
· State should provide resources to counties—especially for mapping; enter via the Area Plan.
· Quality of input is important to Boards of Supervisors. It’s very hard to revise the whole General Plan—variability of landowner perspectives.
· Note diversity of population growth; using the same guidelines for all is not appropriate.
· Use water as a mechanism to drive land-use planning.
· People want options to meet standards; leave open potential for creativity in meeting standards.
· Five NW counties successfully collaborated on a five-county review of their General Plans.
· For revisions, all agreed that 1) all decisions would be watershed-based, 2) all streams and most roads must be inventoried. Problems with this cooperative venture: mistrust, failure to integrate thoroughly with local watershed groups, doesn’t deal with drinking water, the counties were seeking $ that could go to watershed groups.
· Competing mandates vis-à-vis regulations and standards are a substantial problem. The Regional Board (which one?) is trying to address this issue by having a single staff person deal with multiple programs and requirements. Limitation: not enough resources and time for all potential assignments. Also, it’s important to choose the right type of person for this sort of assignment.
· Performance requirements should specify desired condition. A good (non-regulatory) example is the design competition sponsored by the Great Valley Center. Simple criteria for urban development in the Valley were specified. The project elicited a variety of methods and approaches.
· Data issue: private property rights vs collective need for information. Many landowners don’t want investigators on their land. One solution: commitment not to report data on less than a section basis (protect anonymity). If data are gathered with public funds, there is NO guarantee of protection of the privacy of information. Landowners have data but are reluctant to share. They believe data provided during Spotted Owl studies were used against them and are now reluctant to provide info re Coho studies. To help solve this:
· DFG offers to help find $ to mitigate problem if one is found.
· CDF offers “safe harbor” incentives to landowners.
· Also, it’s important to clarify why data are being gathered and how the information will be used. Use attributes by reach and not by particular landowner’s land.
· To integrate information and approaches, it is important for watershed groups to know what other groups are doing—locally (within a region) and among regions of the state.
· It is difficult to get local government interest in watershed meetings. Need to build a constituency and bring that to the Board as relevant to their interests.
· Some agencies serve many groups, but don’t have the resources to serve all the groups; e.g., NRCS and DFG.
· State needs to support this sort of exchange of information. Ideal would be to have someone come into the field and interview coordinators, develop database and disseminate the information widely; e.g., for KRIS data, someone will go and get the data and enter it.
· Agencies have no mandate to integrate information or to coordinate.
· Need inventory and assessment data that are designed by users. University sometimes comes to the table with “the answer”—instead need to be open to suggestions about nature and use of information.
· Integration within agencies, between agencies, and between agencies and local groups is needed. In working with groups, their stage of development is important to acknowledge and understand—to be sensitive to what is needed at any given time.
· One model is regional coordinators supported by the state—to assist local coordinators.
· The word integration implies giving up yourself/your identity. Better to use coordination.
· Statewide funding for coordination is needed. State should pay for data management/retention. Such coordination would not be for funding or to control decisions, but to assist local processes.
· May be difficult to separate coordination from more bureaucracy if it’s state-funded.
· Might consider one position funded for a person who coordinates data and meetings of several groups; e.g., circuit rider model for a person who provides GIS assistance to several groups.
· Forest Science Project: private $ supports data collection, then info is aggregated at UC at larger scale. Landowners prefer aggregation for anonymity.
· What are appropriate functions/status for a regional coordinator?
· Best to have an independent contractor, not an agency person; an entity like the RCD could administer $. Perhaps work through UC Cooperative Extension—with emphasis not on research but service and outreach.
· Groups could have this person attend state meetings/workshops and report back.
· Consider Oregon model for framework for coordinators.
· Need state-supported regional representative, plus greater involvement from UCCE.