<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>California Watershed Management Forums
April 2000
To initiate a statewide dialogue among diverse interests involved with watershed management in California, a series of four one-day forums was held at U.C. Davis. A 10-page Questionnaire was prepared based on statements gleaned from the 55 pages of summaries of the first three forums held between Sept. 1999 and Feb. 2000. Sent to the invitation list of 173 names, respondents were asked to rank each statement on a 0 to 5 scale (0=can’t live with it; 1= strongly disagree; 3=neutral; 5=strongly agree). While only 20 people responded, they represented a wide range of opinion leaders. The numeric ratings were not averaged or applied in any statistical way. Instead, the range of opinion was listed for each statement: 0-5 meant No Agreement; 3-5 meant Yes, Apparent Agreement; & only a few dissenting views meant Maybe or Near Agreement (with perhaps minor word changes or more dialogue).
“*” = areas of strong agreement
1. Principles should apply to both rural and urban areas of the state. *
2. Leadership is needed from state agency directors that watershed activities are important. *
3. Statewide principles should focus on state’s goals.
4. A state-level framework should direct state assistance to local groups.
5. Watershed terms must be clearly defined when used in a Principle statement.
6. The purpose of Principles is to clearly and briefly describe the distinguishable ingredients which comprise the character of the program.
7. Ideally the Governor would provide the leadership to direct that state agencies to coordinate at the watershed level.
8. The State must think in terms of watersheds instead of political boundaries to address its natural resource issues.
1. Watershed management must integrate the needs and values of water quality, water quantity, flood plain management, ecosystems, and land use.
2. Active partnership is promoted among all participants in watershed management.
3. Watershed assessments need to be “neutral” (e.g., objective, not biased).
4. The watershed approach attempts to build trust in order to develop solutions through a long-term process.
5. Agencies must coordinate among themselves on a watershed basis.
6. State commits to continuous improvement in coordination and communication vertically within agencies and horizontally between agencies and other entities in each watershed basin.
1. Watershed function should be incorporated into all infrastructure design, planning, and implementation.
2. Government should apply the same [or greater] watershed protection standards to its own projects that it applies to others.
3. Restoration funding should not be distributed by political districts (“pork”) but on the basis of watershed need.
1. 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.”
2. A watershed council is a generic term best defined as “ 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 and stakeholders; d) a local, community-based location.
1. It is important that the watershed group have the potential to be effective in the local watershed. *
1. Capacity-building should be about sustaining watershed management locally.
2. Regional coordinators, to provide organizational training and supported by the state, would benefit local watershed coordinators and their groups in being more effective.
3. The state should invest in building the capabilities of local watershed organizations and not just put funds into a pool to hire short-term watershed coordinators.
4. Multi-year grants are needed to help with the organizational capacity of local watershed groups.
1. State needs to establish an equitable and rational process to distribute proposition (bond) funds.*
2. A point of contact within state agencies needs to be identified for each watershed.
3. Performance requirements of state should clearly specify desired condition.
4. State needs to commit to provide contract and payments to local groups in a timely manner.
5. State needs more funding to administer their restoration grant programs well and efficiently.
6. A streamlined restoration granting process should be a high priority of the state.
1. State should provide funding for longer term (5-10 years) post-project evaluation.
2. Project effectiveness needs to be documented with credibility and commonality of technique.
1. State needs to survey its own programs and policies and then develop a program to coordinate these efforts.
2. Getting the right type of person is critical for serving on these partnerships.
3. Not enough state staff people (e.g., DFG, CDF) are available in local or regional offices to provide technical assistance to each local watershed group.
4. Some watershed groups are presently being well assisted by state agency staffers.
5. Staff need to view local watershed programs as being a significant factor in their achieving their own agency goals.
6. To succeed at technical assistance, the state needs to have technical expertise built in as a purpose and a deliverable for that agency.
7. Agencies will learn that the watershed approach of doiing increased assessments, monitoring, and projects will actually expand the capacity of their agencies to get work done.
8. Skills training should be provided for state staff involved in local watershed partnerships.
1. Funds should not only go to priority watersheds.
1. Incentive-based programs in the state should be assessed to evaluate their success.*
2. Local groups do not have to take state incentive funding if they don’t want to.
3. More technical assistance is needed to help landowners with better watershed practices.
4. We need the public to better appreciate the beauty of using watersheds as the way to fit many issues.
5. We need to eliminate disincentives to local involvement and action.
6. Agencies need to have incentives to integrate across missions and disciplines.
7. We need to credit the people who have done a good job at stewardship.
1. Participation in the assessment needs to be clearly defined. *
2. Watershed assessments should be used to develop watershed action plans and monitoring strategies. *
3. Watershed assessments should be the basis for a watershed restoration strategy.
4. Local stakeholders and government together can: a) identify desired condition, b) identify types of data needed, c) compile a watershed view of the resources, d) use agency-developed monitoring programs to see if desired conditions are met.
5. The state does not have to do the data collection in order for the data to be science-based.
6. Assessment needs to be peer reviewed.
7. Assessment needs to identify areas of missing information.
8. Monitoring should be required as an element of a state-funded watershed assessment.
9. More funds need to be available to prepare local watershed plans.
1. It is important for watershed groups to know what other groups are doing within their region and within the state.
2. Local water and sewer districts should play an active role in local watershed groups.
3. Local watershed groups should seek active partnerships with county government.
4. Communication is important between local watershed groups and local government.
1. Some federal agencies provide more flexibility in grant programs than state agencies.
2. Federal land managers (e.g., USFS, BLM) need to be members of local watershed groups where their property is located, just like the private landowner.
3. Federal land management agencies can provide valuable technical assistance with local watershed groups.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ratings (on a 1-5 scale) were very closely bunched in “agreement” (3,4 or 5), with only 1-3 respondents giving the opposite rating. Perhaps a few minor word changes could bring these statements into more uniform agreement, if needed.
1. A statewide watershed management program should not create new layers of government.
2. The Legislature must endorse the watershed approach to provide continuity through different administrations.
3. “Random acts of kindness” are not sufficient to achieve watershed health.
4. Legislative leadership is a requirement for getting a statewide watershed program.
1. Natural resource problem-solving becomes place-based at the watershed level.
2. Watershed approach addresses the attempt to shift from the “power” mode of enforcement to a “collaborative” mode of achieving outcomes.
3. Watershed approach uses an inclusive stakeholder-based process from beginning to end.
4. A framework for a watershed planning program should include five principles: 1) an assessment; 2) plan development; 3) plan implementation; 4) monitoring and evaluation of success; and 5) outreach and education.
5. Watershed partnerships, especially at the local level, are a “grand social experiment” that are worthy of trying.
1. “Precautionary Principle”: A watershed management plan and/ or restoration project should do no harm to the resources of concern through land use and management activities.
2. Watershed restoration should assure the preservation of existing healthy conditions by removing known threats and protecting from future threats.
3. Restoration projects should be evaluated after 1, 5, and 10 years for effectiveness.
1. A watershed is best defined as “a drainage basin that drains to a common outlet.”
2. Watershed management is best defined as “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 is the recognition of the interrelationships among land use, soil and water, and the linkages between uplands and downstream areas.”
3. The definition of “watershed management” should also include a list of its values, such as water quality, water supply, aquatic habitat, soil protection, etc.
4. The definition of “watershed management” should also include a list of the actions involved, such as floodplain management, fire and fuel management, storm water management, riparian protection, and habitat restoration.
1. The diversity of who is involved in the monitoring effort is not more important than the implementation group that designs and implements the projects.
2. Defining “who” does watershed management should stay flexible as it may evolve over time.
1. The state should fund capacity-building within all local watershed groups.
2. State should provide funding for data management and coordination at the local level.
3. Foundations may be better able to provide multi-year funding for local group capacity-building than the state.
4. The Coordinator of a local group should: a) not be aligned with an agency and b) be full-time.
5. State should build on existing framework of RWQCB watershed coordinators to assist local watershed groups.
6. The State cannot provide sufficient financial and technical assistance to all local watershed groups.
7. The State should define at what watershed scale (hydrologic unit) that it will fund groups for capacity-building.
1. Data (e.g., monitoring, project) should be reported to state on standardized forms.
2. Each project that receives state funding should be required to have a final technical report with “lessons learned” and where information goes into a central state data center.
3. Accountability is difficult because we don’t have appropriate techniques for measuring outcomes.
4. Emphasis should be put on performance or end result rather than on method or expectation of government funding.
5. There would be great value in developing a state clearinghouse of project results and environmental data (e.g., annual summaries by watershed).
6. Projects do not need to show benefits for at least 20 years in exchange for state funding.
7. Adaptive management (“learning from experience”) within the watershed needs to be implemented and documented by local groups as a requirement of continued state funding.
1. Agency budgets are the only way to institutionalize changes in priorities (e.g., getting sufficient staff / funding to support watershed efforts).
2. Existing mandates (e.g., TMDLs, Watershed Management Initiative) are not adequately funded to be implemented.
3. Competing mandates (e.g., regulations and standards) are a substantial problem to getting sufficient state participation.
4. State agencies need a mandate from above (Governor and/or Legislature and/or Secretary) to integrate information and to coordinate with each other and with local agencies.
5. Field staff of state agencies need to have support all the way up to Sacramento in order to be effective with local partnerships.
1. State should reflect the watershed goals established by the local watershed group.
2. State should help support those regions lacking other funding sources.
1. State must create incentives for local groups to combine and integrate information at a basin scale.
2. State should look for latitude in the means by which agencies achieve enforcement of their mandates.
3. State needs to enforce regulations fairly across all communities but also provide less threatening modes to achieve outcomes.
4. Watershed plans should be general and not landowner specific (e.g., names) in order to avoid perception, or disincentive, of feeling targeted or sharing proprietary information.
5. Individual landowners should have their anonymity protected when sharing data or providing access for watershed monitoring programs.
6. “Safe Harbor” incentives under ESA should be offered to landowners as an incentive to participate in watershed monitoring or assessment efforts.
7. Provide a central location (in different regions) where the state agencies dealing with watersheds (e.g., grants, permits, technical assistance) would all be available for the public and local entities.
1. Watershed assessments should be “neutral” (e.g., not politically motivated).
2. The State should provide a framework or guidelines for scientific (e.g., neutral and uniform) assessment.
3. Purpose of the assessment needs to be clearly defined.
4. Assessment should address the issues of how the work will be conducted (e.g., funding sources, methodology, existing assessments, etc.).
5. Assessment needs to acknowledge areas of disagreement among scientists.
6. The purpose of a watershed assessment is to: a) assess existing conditions, b) assess the magnitude of the problems, and c) assess causes of the problem.
7. An assessment should also assess the solutions.
8. Assessment data collection needs to be designed by the users.
1. There is room for watershed projects to be more closely coordinated with local government policy and land use practices.
2. Local government has the interest & time in attending local watershed group meetings.
3. Cities and counties (or a representative) should be a member of local collaborative groups.
4. Local watershed groups need to be very adept at leveraging state, local, federal, and private funds and thereby extend the capability of state funds.
1. California needs to get more technical assistance for local groups and landowners from NRCS (i.e., increased budget for staff) to help make watershed partnerships more successful.
2. Sharing federal monitoring data and information through standard protocols and data forms would be helpful to local watershed efforts.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. The state program should promote and encourage flexibility in meeting regulatory and statutory mandates.
2. State principles should not conflict with local principles or efforts.
3. Watershed approach needs to be a bottom-up (e.g., grassroots) process only.
4. Watershed approach needs to combine bottom-up process with top-down process.
5. California lacks a unifying theme (e.g., salmon) to help make the watershed approach work statewide.
1. Watershed programs should be oriented to achieve measurable outcomes so performance can be evaluated.
2. A consistent and formal state organizational structure is needed in California to accomplish watershed management.
3. Watershed management services by the State should be delivered on the basis of regional basins to meet the diverse needs of California.
4. A State Watershed Council, similar to the WPRC, should be reorganized as a coordinating body for state agencies.
1. All restoration projects should include an educational component.
2. Restoration projects should require cost-sharing in order to promote direct and personal responsibility for solving problems.
1. A watershed group is a generic term best defined as “any group that focuses its mission on the watershed level”.
2. A watershed council should also be defined as one that uses consensus as the basis for decision-making.
3. Success with watershed management means that “monitoring (or some data source) shows that one or more watershed attributes have improved from baseline conditions.”
4. If you don’t express clear goals about what you’re trying to accomplish with watershed management, you’re going to end up with everybody’s worst fears of what that means.
1. Overall watershed planning is best done by a diverse group.
2. Composition of the group should be based on the need of what the group must accomplish.
3. The more broad-based stakeholder involvement in watershed management, the better.
4. There should never be a requirement for a group to be diverse in order to receive funding.
5. Stating that multiple stakeholders must be involved as an upfront criterion helps to ensure eventual success.
6. State agencies should be partners in local watershed groups.
7. Local agencies should be partners in local watershed groups.
8. Federal agencies should be partners in local watershed groups.
9. State funding programs should give greater priority to proposals from groups with a broad representation of interests in the watershed.
10. Watershed groups are not democratic and do not provide accurate representation of the local residents.
1. The state should fund capacity-building only for local groups with diverse stakeholders.
2. Full-time coordinator is essential for a group to see the return on everyone’s financial investment.
1. State should create standardized forms for reporting data.
2. While we need to have financial and contract accountability, we are losing track of the overall goals with our state watershed funding programs.
1. When state provides incentives or technical assistance (not just grants), both agency and the recipient should be required to follow-up on the work that was done and what happened.
2. Local applicants should document past project effectiveness before state will provide additional funding for similar projects.
1. The budget is the management tool for agency coordination.
2. State agencies need MOUs to specify that they will work together on watershed issues.
1. Protect and restore the best watersheds as a first priority.
2. Fix the worst watersheds as a first priority.
3. Develop regional committees to review and approve grant applications for state restoration programs instead of at the state level.
4. No watersheds should be given priority status; only projects should be given priority ratings.
1. State funding should foster the involvement of the state in local watersheds.
2. If locals take steps to address watershed issues, then agencies should agree to work out or pull back from mandated or regulatory actions.
3. The key to building trust in the process is to get to an end point.
4. Landowners need incentive from State through a consolidation of requirements on the watershed level (e.g., that satisfying TMDL requirements will help achieve ESA requirements).
5. Local control is essential in bringing in local involvement.
6. Landowners first need to understand what their role is in the watershed picture before they can rise to the bait of grants, tax incentives, etc.
1. Data collection can become threatening to local landowners if processes are only data-driven.
2. A mechanism is needed for making decisions about what the data means and how to implement land management actions based on the data.
3. Watershed assessments should be required to be completed before projects are granted state funds.
4. Requiring agency coordination prior to watershed planning will unnecessarily slow the assessment/ planning process.
1. A local watershed plan should document a desired watershed condition to be a “template” for future land-use practices by local government.
2. General Plan guidelines should be amended to reflect or integrate watershed principles as well as planning by local groups (e.g., in Area Plans).
3. Funding needs to be secured to allow community-based planning on a watershed basis.
4. Local watershed groups are often formed in response to inadequate direction of local agencies.
1. The federal role needs to complement but not conflict with California’s state or local roles in watershed management.
2. Federal agencies provide a sufficient “carrot” through federal grant programs for local watershed efforts.
3. The federal regulatory role is essential to get certain players to the table “voluntarily” for watershed partnerships.