Watershed Partnerships:
A Strategic Guide For Local Conservation
Efforts In The West

Watersheds serve as a useful unit of focus for a number of reasons. They can be aggregated to include large streams and even major rivers or separated into small, local areas. A watershed is a natural integrator of issues, values, and concerns which are clear to see as the stream flows along its course. It exhibits clear evidence of consequences.

As in other parts of the nations, local watershed partnerships have sprung up throughout the West. By working together, everyone with an interest in the watershed can solve problems, ensuring healthy land and water. Typically, partners represent wide interests: local communities, various groups, and government agencies.

To work, watershed partnerships must be a size where people feel they can influence outcomes and visualize the consequences of actions. The scale should invite and reward citizenship. At the same time, no matter what scale is selected, there are larger communities -- that of the river basin, states, the nation -- which must be kept in mind.

The biggest successes from watershed partnerships often result from influencing change in everyday practices, budgets, plans, and programs, not from simply creating a new entity. If partnerships can get the community of people and institutions with authority and interest to cooperate and coordinate over time, they can make a major difference, far exceeding that of what they do as a group with typically limited resources. Watershed partnerships challenge us to rethink the way we traditionally manage water and land in a way that enhances local empowerment and good stewardship.

Strong leadership, a clear focus, sound organizational structure, and financial resources to get started are essential. This guide suggest ways to achieve those. They don't just happen. Conditions need to be "ripe" and someone needs to recognize it. Some still argue that a crisis is needed in order to change thinking and

galvanize action. A crisis is seen as healthy because it calls attention to needed changes in traditional resource management, creates the environment for change, and leads to proactive thinking that prevents future crises. Others suggest that prevention is better than treatment, and that early recognition of potential crises can be a prime benefit of partnership approaches. They argue that crisis may help create partnerships, but that sustaining partnerships will help avoid future crises.

Increasingly, ripe means recognizing opportunities. The opportunity may be to protect the health of the system. It may be to increase efficiency or to supply new uses. It may be to improve water quality or groundwater recharge conditions. It may be to protect riparian areas or uplands or to improve habitat. It may be to develop alternatives to costly litigation or onerous enforcement measures.

Important opportunities exist with watershed partnerships to bring science into community issues and decisions. In virtually all cases opportunities exist to avoid duplication of efforts through coordination. In addition, opportunities exist to integrate concerns and benefits which result when actions to manage one resource affects other resources and uses or when action in one geographic area affects others. For example, actions to improve land conservation such as terracing or changing cover plantings can affect the quantity or quality of water, and actions upstream directly affect those living downstream.

Most watershed partnerships build better community relations as participants learn to understand and respect each other. Perhaps the most appealing opportunity is for locals to gain more control over their own affairs. They can do this by helping others understand their needs and by demonstrating that they will provide stewardship in collaboration with agencies which have mandated responsibilities.

Getting Started

To get started, someone recognizes the potential for working together. A landowner may realize that conditions are deteriorating for a piece of land or stretch of river. Members of a local conservation district may see that new management practices will bring benefits. Local members of a national environmental group may learn about decling populations for a local species. Often times a government employee, at any level, who has a mandate to act on a given concern will propose partnership approach to address the concerns.

The foundation for success ... rests on local people who have a vision for what can be accomplished and the determination to put it in place.

The initial nucleus of concerned people often gropes toward some understanding of issues and problems facing the watershed and of interests which will be affected. It will begin assessing potential players and their response to partnership approaches. Gradually, the initial nucleus grows to include additional core "founders." Once there is tentative agreement about the need for a partnership, issues that need solutions, and key players, the nucleus will agree that it is worthwhile going ahead, which often means "going public."

Going public usually involves finding a host organization that will convene formal meetings to discuss possibilities and/or to provide initial resources. As familiarity with watershed partnerships has grown, finding a host and help has grown easier. Many states are turning to watersheds as a preferred way to plan and manage water. Growing numbers of federal, state, and tribal agencies are providing information, funding, and staff assistance to local watershed groups. The foundation for success, however, rests on local people who have a vision for what can be accomplished and the determination to put it in place.

The first meeting will usually end with participants agreeing there is a need to keep talking. They may consider who else needs to be part of the conversation and identify missing information. Perhaps one or more groups will be identified or selected to provide organizational support (mailings, arrange for a facility, perhaps provide a facilitator, etc.). Often, early meetings will result in a written plan or proposal for initial structure.

However they get going, most successful watershed partnerships incorporate the following principles:

1. The partnership has to be a bottom-up effort where local representatives are empowered to contribute, recognizing the best solutions often come from the local level.

2. Sustainability, both economic and environmental, should be part of the goals in order to set a long term framework and to secure agreements which are good for the overall watershed.

The group should recognize that outcomes will probably result in improvement, not perfection.

1. The issues. Issues tend to define participants. The bad news is that there are usually many issues. The good news is that watersheds provide a way to identify and examine them at the same time, with the same group, rather than having multiple efforts that are out of synch in time, purposes, and consequences.

Potential substantive issues may include: water quality problems from both point and non-point sources (including impacts from grazing, mining, logging, hydro, agriculture, urban development, and military bases), public health, erosion, reforestation, water supply and water rights, fish and wildlife, habitat, wetlands, riparian management, floodplain management, groundwater, recreational uses, tribal rights, and local and regional economic and social conditions.

2. Holders of authority. Those who have property interests in land or water resources which may be affected by activities in the watershed must be assumed to have a right to representation. This includes private individuals and companies, tribes, and agencies of government which own or manage resources or have authority to regulate the uses of others.

3. Potential funders. Special attention to potential funding sources is sensible. The most likely sources for initial funding include local, tribal, state and federal agencies; local districts; foundations; business; and conservation organizations.

4. Anyone who brings something essential to the table. The "something essential" may include knowledge and expertise or technical skills, such as those available from extension agents, local colleges, groups with expertise, or long-time residents. Those in related activities such as historical preservation, land trusts, or economic development may

6. Others who are affected and who think they are affected. The goal is usually to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. Leaving someone out in the initial meeting can become a problem if he or she feels "avoided." However, it is important to think through carefully how to include the general public. While desirable, it is important to include the public in a way that doesn't destroy the incentive of critical players to participate or hobble capacity for effective functioning. Free and candid communications are essential.

An issue that is likely to come up early in determining membership in a local watershed partnership is "who is local?" Often local members may want to define membership as those in the community and not think of those outside the community who may have legitimate interests in the outcome or be affected by decisions of the partnership. For example, if public lands are involved, environmental groups may want to be represented even though they do not live in the community. This will be especially true if wilderness areas or national parks are involved. Migratory bird groups may have an interest if the area is important migratory bird habitat. Those who are dependent on the water supply or who will be impacted by changes in water quality will want a voice. And those involved with regional issues may want input. These decisions should be agreed to through the process of the partnership so that every one is welcome at the table.

Process can mean different things to different people. In this guide, the term "process" refers to the way meetings and the partnership are organized and operate. Process can also refer to group planning techniques such as adaptive management or strategic planning or to typical group cycles. For example, groups will typically begin with problem recognition and assessment; move to identify potential solutions, select initial efforts, and implement actions; assess results; and then redefine goals and the problem agenda. That starts a new cycle of assessments, action, monitoring, and revised planning. All these forms of process can be relevant to partnerships and are intended to be included within the scope of this guide.

Agreement on the initial purpose, rules of conduct, and process must be reached before on-the-ground action can proceed. A number of techniques exist for reaching agreements among group members. They include such activities as brainstorming, small group breakouts, having members write their thoughts down and sharing them with the group one at a time (for example, doing "storyboarding"), and voting with dots or other symbols to establish priorities. Assistance with design of the process for the partnership is frequently available from government agencies, nearby colleges, or community planning or process consultants. The brief reference section at the end of the guide includes other sources which explain the process in more detail or provide examples and case studies.

Purpose

The first question the group needs to discuss is its purpose, why people are there and what their shared values are.

1. Purpose of the meeting: agree on the scope of concerns the group wants to address.

2. Purpose of the partnership: agree that there are common concerns and perceived opportunities if partners will work together.

3. Purpose of the process: use a cooperative process to accomplish more and to avoid conflicts.

The group should develop and endorse very early on their own set of groundrules.

1. Consensus. The definition of consensus is important -- whether everyone has to agree, whether everyone simply has to be able to live with it, or whether just no one says "no." The group needs to decide what to do if there is deadlock. Will some form of super majority vote be required? Will they use "parking lots" to place issues until agreement can be reached? Or will they just not act if disagreement exists?

2. Who is considered a member. This involves deciding what interests need to be at the table, who picks the representatives of those interests, whether the group will allow alternates for members, and whether all members will be expected to have authority to speak for and commit their organizations. This is where the question of who is "local" is likely to be raised. Rules for members, such as the numbers of meetings allowed to be missed, timing and location of meetings, etc., should also be discussed.

3. How members will behave with each other. The group will usually consider the need to show respect for others, how to interact with the media, how to avoid "blame," and similar questions.

4. How information is to be generated, shared, and legitimized. Unless all group members are comfortable with the information being used, disagreements may result over whose information is "right," what the real on-the-ground needs are, or which system of monitoring and evaluation is to be used.

5. Commitment. The group should agree to invest the time, energy, and resources necessary; to be there in person rather than sending representatives; and to work to implement consensus decisions.

Once the groundrules are established, the group will want to reach agreement on goals. Closely related to purpose, proceeding through the goals development process provides a way of moving from the big picture to specific actions and responsibilities. Goals are dynamic and will need to be revised occasionally. As some are reached or conditions change, the goals are likely to change. It is important to stress that there is no one "correct" model ("cookie cutter") to use, and any process may need to be modified to best serve the needs of the group. Depending on what the group needs, some or all of the following can be developed:

1. Shared Vision. The vision statement is usually what the group wants the watershed to be like in a given amount of time, e.g., "Those concerned with the watershed work together to assure the sustainability of resources and quality of life so that our children can find jobs in the future, the watershed is a desirable place to live, and wildlife and other resources of the land and water are in healthy condition."

2. Mission. The mission statement defines what the group wants to do to achieve the vision. A statement of intent, it can also clarify what the group does and does not want to include. "This watershed partnership will do the following ... to serve ... in order to ...."

3. Goals and objectives. Goals generally lay out desired outcomes to carry out the mission, while objectives are specific ways to attain the goal. An example of a goal could be, "Citizens and other interested parties understand watershed issues and act in concert with others." The objectives for the partnership might include developing education materials, convening conferences, working with teachers, and developing a recognition program.

Some groups will substitute a needs and options step for that of goals and objectives. Determining "needs" or "issues" may be easier for participants to relate to than the more abstract concept of "goals." Similarly, "options" or "alternatives" may be easier to think of and to tie to needs than "objectives." Still other groups may choose to do a SWOT analysis -- identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Others may use a tool called "SWAPA + H." That identifies needs associated with soils, water, animals, plants, and air plus humans. The goal of all of these techniques is to get more specific about what is needed and what can be done.

Opposition should be seen as additional information and a reality check. Failures should be seen as mistakes or learning opportunities.

5. Monitoring and evaluation. The vision, mission, and goals can be translated to desired outcomes which can be quantified to facilitate measurement and evaluation. Continuing with the example of a public education goal, the partnership could measure the number of articles in the paper, before and after attitudes at a conference, number of students or volunteers participating in on-the-ground activities such as clean-up or plantings, or number or quantity of actions identified for recognition.

Generally some of the goals will involve the desired future condition of the watershed, such as goals to protect healthy areas, stop degradation, improve current conditions, restore areas to natural conditions, mitigate for areas which have been degraded, or improve or enhance water supply. Other important goals involve empowering local citizens, rebuilding local economies, achieving economic sustainability, or providing certainty for future uses.

Development of the group as a team.

Just because people meet together doesn't mean they will function as a team. One person stated, "When group members move from worrying about what they need to guard against to wondering what they can contribute, they have become a team."

To encourage that development, the facilitator or chair can:

remind people to leave their uniforms or positions at the door and to focus on resource goals.

incorporate games, exercises, small group break-outs, social times, and other ways for people to get to know each other as people, rather than as roles or positions.

schedule field trips to look at the resource to encourage personal interactions as well as move everyone to a common awareness of the issues.

focus discussion on common desires for the watershed and away from differences.

People who withdraw should be allowed to reenter later if they wish. Dispute resolution options should be included. Opposition should be seen as additional information for the group and a reality check. Failures should be seen as mistakes or learning opportunities. In the end, the group should recognize that there are many causes of the problems and that they must work together to solve them.

In addition to keeping participants informed, members of the group will need to let others know what they are doing.

1. Members of their own organizations will need to be kept informed.

2. Additional members of the community or watershed should be kept up to date in order to seek their involvement.

3. If the broader community understands the needs and decisions made by the partnership, it will be more likely to change behavior in ways consistent with the partnership's purposes.

In addition to local audiences, others may want to know about partnership activities.

1. New partnerships elsewhere will be interested in learning what has happened so they can better design their own processes.

2. Other partnerships or organizations in the larger basin will want to track or dovetail related activities.

3. Government agencies and others with an interest in watershed efforts may invite partnership participation in conferences, workshops, etc.

4. Media -- local, regional, and national -- could become interested. Hopefully the group will have considered in their groundrules how to deal with the press.

Comfort with the pace of decisions and actions.

The pace can be tricky, because while the process is getting designed, members will be eager for action. Partnerships take time. Adequate time is needed to get accurate information, build trust, communicate, and educate people. Prior work and related efforts should be evaluated. Many unanticipated problems will emerge. As Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) practitioners put it, "Why is there never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it over."

At the same time, people want to feel that progress towards on-the-ground work is being made. The best advice is to have a crisp process with clear timing for moving through it. The facilitator or coordinator should explain clearly to

Accountability

Accountability is often overlooked in initial planning, but is important for gaining and keeping confidence in the process.

1. Workplans should answer who, what, when, where, why, how, and how much.

2. Financial accountability is critical. Some partnerships handle sizable amounts of funding from a variety of sources and need to ensure adequate capacity to track expenditures and report funding.

3. Monitoring results is also important, both for measuring achievements and for fine tuning the group's plan. Changes in resource conditions, achievement of goals and objectives, and changed external circumstances will all create a need for revisiting plans. Meeting processes should build in evaluation and adjustment.

Roles

Various models exist for structuring partnerships, but the following are common elements. Again, what is needed will vary with the complexity of the situation. Smaller watershed partnerships may not need committees or workgroups. A facilitator may only be needed for the first few meetings in order to be sure the design of the process and structure will work.

1. Coordinator. Most successful watershed partnerships have a coordinator to perform administrative and daily requirements and to coordinate funding. The coordinator is also a person who advocates for the collaborative project.

2. Facilitator. In addition, partnerships usually benefit from having a neutral facilitator, at least at first, to help with the meetings and strategic planning. The facilitator should be someone skilled in designing and guiding meetings and have no vested interest other than the planning process.

3. Chairman. The partnership itself will usually elect a chairman from their membership to serve as spokesman and leader.

4. Steering Committee. The steering committee will be made up of individuals and organizations who represent the broader community. The steering committee needs to have decision making authority to act between partnership meetings.

5. Technical Advisory Committee. The technical advisory committee is usually made up of government representatives, private individuals, and organizations with the technical expertise to advise the steering committee and to answer technical questions as they arise.

6. Work Groups. As activities get underway, one or more workgroups may be needed both to get the work done and to save the whole group from having to do everything. These may include project groups, an outreach group, a fundraising group, and others as needed.

In general, it is useful to build on existing structures and institutions, rather than reinvent the wheel. However, there are exceptions. If biases within existing institutions could be a problem, it may be good to start with independent efforts and let them lead back to what is already in place. The organizations which need to change may be more willing to make changes to accommodate an independent conclusion than if the request came at the beginning as a precondition. In other situations, existing laws or regulations may need to be changed because they are a significant part of the problem.

The voluntary nature of partnerships is both a strength and weakness. It is critical to have buy-in from all key participants and that is more likely to happen when it is freely given. In fact, often individuals may go much further by volunteering something than if it were required of them. At the same time, because these partnerships are voluntary, they may not have the authority needed to do what they want or to enforce compliance with agreed-to plans. They may also be limited by members who don't concur or participate in a reliable fashion.

be scheduled for the convenience of the local members.

have preliminary contacts, phone calls, preparatory work, and adequate public notice conducted prior to the meeting.

have a well thought out purpose, agenda, an adequate facility, adequate lighting, and adequate seating.

include refreshments so people feel welcome and taken care of.

run on time and be sensitive to time demanded of participants (keep meetings as short as possible while still getting needed work done).

have adequate materials (flip charts, tape, pens, audio visual equipment, etc.) available at the meeting.

have the opportunity for general comments at the end.

have briefing and follow-up materials distributed on time to all participants.

1. Preliminary watershed assessment. To start, the group will want to gather baseline data, inventories, trend data, evidence of problems, and possible causes. All partners should contribute their relevant information to get a comprehensive picture.

2. Monitoring information. As actions take place, there will be a need for information to describe trends, current conditions, causes of change, and assessment of effectiveness of actions.

3. Management tools. These include applied research; assessment of the experience of others; technology such as satellite imagery, geographic information systems (GIS), models, maps, graphics, etc.; social sciences including community planning processes; and identification of gaps in information, authority, and responsibility. Access to information which is understandable and can be acted upon should be a key goal.

4. Information systems. Closely tied to the need for information is the need for systems to deliver it -- teleconferences, fax, e-mail, and the Internet. Although such technology is not yet uniformly available, especially in rural areas, the convenience it provides in communication and reducing the need for meetings indicates it is worth the group's time to figure out how to provide access for all.

Appropriate roles will vary by level of government. Ideally, all levels will play a supportive role to assure positive results. Success depends on responsibility, flexibility, and accountability covering all levels.

Federal agencies are most likely to have the legislative mandates governing programs and regulations, and will represent the national interest in a certain purpose or area. States may be the implementers for both federal and state programs, and will play pivotal roles in translating between federal and local levels and in integrating various program areas. Local agencies and tribes are most likely to know what is needed in specific areas, and will feel they have the most at stake.

Preferably, initiation of partnerships will come from local groups. Local participants will quickly take ownership of the process that way. In practice, government is often the initiator as it seeks to be more collaborative in fulfilling legislative or regulatory directives. Federal and state governments can encourage local governments to assume leadership. When government initiates a partnership, it is critical that agency representatives work with local interests so they can understand and support the government effort.

A number of roles are common to all levels of government. Government can provide a foundation of support to watershed partnerships by:

encouraging employees to participate and speak for the agency; supporting, as much as possible, decisionmaking at ground levels; offering financial support and other incentives; providing flexibility in program requirements, regulations, employee assignments and other rules that can get in the way of partnership problem solving; and giving priority, within their mandates, to implementing the results.

Government can offer various kinds of assistance to advance local partnerships:

technical assistance, including information and expertise;

process assistance, including funding for facilitation, team building, and conflict negotiations;

authority to solve problems, as allowable under law; and

sidebars provided through law to assure local solutions fall within national goals and standards. The sidebars should include basic standards recognizing private rights, public processes, and access to information.

Government can foster agency ability to work on a watershed basis. Few agencies or political jurisdictions are structured on a watershed basis. Both the number and governmental levels of agencies and programs make coordination in goals, plans, and actions difficult indeed. Perhaps the most important thing government can do is to make the suite of government agencies (and their laws, regulations, offices, levels, and programs) easily, or at least coherently, accessible to those on the ground.

In addition, agency administrators can encourage and reward watershed collaboration through interpretations of laws and regulations, delegation of authority, budgeting, personnel evaluations, and sharing agency resources such as information or technical support across department lines to make a more complete watershed effort. Government can also pull together different regional agency offices within a watershed. In other words, if there are two or more National Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, BLM, state NRCS offices, or EPA regional offices involved, the federal government should have them coordinate internally rather than having multiple voices from the same agency. This principle applies with equal force to state and other complex units of government or other large organizations.

Government should participate as a member of the community. Many government employees become active participants in community affairs. Repeated studies show that people trust who they know. Building on community pride and contributing to community quality of life is one of the most effective ways that government employees can achieve their goals.

Because government agencies operate under authority of law, have access to public funds, and have agency missions directing certain activities, some agency representatives may adopt a we-know-best attitude that is guaranteed to fail. Again and again, local groups make it clear that they want government employees to forget cookbook solutions, be flexible on mandates, and be a "rower" rather than a "steerer" once the group is operating on its own.

Defining the Watershed

One of the advantages of using watersheds as a focus is that they have relatively clear hydrological boundaries. However, small watersheds aggregate into larger watersheds which eventually aggregate into major basins. Rural areas intermix with urban areas, and some watersheds have been altered through engineering to include transbasin diversions.

In considering the initial scale of the watershed, early discussions should consider whether to start small and expand if needed, or to start large and have subgroups focusing on individual pieces of the watershed or basin. There are tradeoffs to each approach. Starting small may be more manageable, but it can be difficult to add new players once the process is underway if there is a need to expand. Starting large offers the best chance for including all the relevant concerns and opportunities. However, although it is fairly easy to have subgroups, large partnerships are more expensive and complicated to organize.

The question of who defines the scale may be a source of conflict. Is it done by the initial group, by the individual(s) who conceived the idea for a watershed partnership, or by political or governmental jurisdictions? Is it selected by consensus, by a vote, by geography, or by fiat of a powerful constituency within the watershed? Are all the affected interests part of the decision or a subset deciding for them?

Whatever initial scale is accepted, the group needs to constantly be aware that they are part of a larger watershed or basin. Decisions made in the selected area may affect others. Or, activities elsewhere may affect the selected watershed. If needed, links need to be made to other portions of the watershed to exchange information and perhaps aggregate plans and coordinate activities. Two projects in the Northwest, involving the Willamette River and the Columbia River, are designed to link separate partnerships together on a river basin basis.

Similarly, there may be other kinds of natural boundaries which the group should consider. Associated groundwater, which usually has

Whatever initial scale is accepted, the group needs to constantly be aware that they are part of a larger watershed or basin.

The reason for thinking about motivations is to guide the process to overcome distrust.

Bioregions, which rarely follow hydrological boundaries, may be important for wildlife concerns, especially if threatened or endangered species are involved. Air quality groups may have a focus on a particular airshed, especially if there is a concern about acid rain or visibility. The point is that the "problemshed" which the watershed partnership will need to be aware of may be more than just the stretch where the water collects and runs through.

Urban Reaches of the Watershed

There have been some very successful rural/urban partnerships as well as strictly urban ones, but more often watershed partnerships focus on rural areas where various natural resources are of concern. In that case, rural partnerships may not know how to deal with urban areas.

An urban area may change the entire hydrology of its area of the watershed in the way that it collects water, pipes it around, and treats it before discharge. Urban areas are likely to change the temperature, the flow regimes, the water quality, and the sediment discharge. Urban areas have large populations, most of whom won't know or care about the watershed as long as clean water comes out the tap and disappears down the drain. When urban residents think of rural stretches of the river, it will usually be to fish, raft, swim, camp, or recreate in other ways.

Determining who the relevant urban parties are, what kind of constraints they have, how their priorities mesh with rural ones, and whether they will empathize and see themselves as interdependent with the rural areas of the watershed can seem overwhelming.

Motivations to participate

When inviting people to participate, groups should be aware of differing motivations to participate. In the beginning, motivations can vary widely and lead to different kinds of participation. Sometimes not all participation will start out positive. The reason for thinking about

A frequent question is "How do you keep people at the table, especially if the watershed effort is complex and long term?" The answer is complicated by whether participants are being paid to be there or whether they are volunteering.

All participants will continue to participate if common interests are well defined, progress is being made, and a belief ensues that the group is creating a better life for their children. Quick successes which are recognized and celebrated by all provide encouragement. Expectations that further success will follow is also important. If failures are treated as learning experiences, they will not become disincentives. Willingness to forego litigation and/or onerous enforcement of mandates or availability of increased funds are clear symbols of achievement to most members. And a well-structured process reassures participants they are not wasting their time.

Volunteer participants often are local residents with strong feelings for their watershed and its concerns. But for economic or other reasons, they may have to put other priorities first. If they have financial costs for travel or lodging in order to participate, it is helpful to defray those costs where possible.

Other incentives are to recognize participants' contributions and treat their input as meaningful. And don't forget "fun": pleasant locations, an opportunity to socialize, partnership T-shirts or caps with logos, snacks and beverages at meetings, and an opportunity for them to share their history in the watershed.

Finally it is important to reward those who ask for action with action, but not to force action on those who don't want it.

Those paid to participate will also respond to the incentives for volunteers, but they will have a different set of institutional needs. Unlike volunteers, they often will not participate unless paid by their organizations to do so, partly because pay is obvious recognition by the agency that the time and effort spent is important to the agency. Other ways that organizations can demonstrate the importance of the employee's participation are to support the employee in sharing data and other resources, back up commitments made at the field level, and provide recognition and/or rewards within the agency, including encouragement that participation meets agency expectations. Local participants can provide support for agency employees by notifying employees' supervisors and by endorsing agency actions which are consistent with watershed plans.

Lack of adequate money, information, and technical support. This can be especially difficult when partnerships begin. A lot of energy is required before resources become available. Generally, information and technical support will be easier to obtain initially than the funding, just because it is easier for agencies to make an in-kind contribution which doesn't affect budget requests. With determination, persistence, and dedication at the local level, funding will usually follow. As distinct activities get identified, it is common for various partners to finance those that fall within their organizational mission. Funding for general coordination is often more difficult to obtain because that usually means agencies or organizations have to pool and give money to someone else, something that can be very difficult for them to justify to their organizations. One way of solving this problem is to see whether one agency or organization has a person they can assign as coordinator. States (Oregon), the Environmental Protection Agency, and Bonneville Power Administration have funded a number of coordinator positions located in other entities, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service has provided assigned personnel.

Funding and agency support for recommendations. Partnerships sometimes find that agency funding may not be available or that agencies won't be able to implement group recommendations, even when an employee of the agency took part in developing the recommendation. There are a variety of reasons for that. For one thing, because of the way government programs get established, most agencies have a hard time funding non-structural alternatives. That is changing, but it can be frustrating. Second, frequently agencies will want to be "good neighbors" and will participate in partnerships, but will have difficulties selling solutions to upper echelons of the agency. Third, the concept of local partnerships is relatively recent and both Congress and the executive branch are unsure of where and how they fit. Questions remain whether adding local partnership solutions together on a broader geographic scale results in comprehensive resource management.

Almost no government or organizational boundaries will match those of the watershed, and authority will be fragmented.

Integrating the exercise of authority at the watershed level. Usually the group will discover rather quickly that it needs to develop a way to integrate the exercise of authority at the watershed level. Because no government or organizational boundaries match those of the watershed, authority will be fragmented. Integration includes functions such as planning, funding, evaluation and refinement of programs, sharing of information, cost sharing, and monitoring. What that means is that a watershed may cross municipal, county, state, and even international boundaries. It may include different national forests, different regions of federal agencies, and different state offices of federal agencies. It will almost certainly contain a mix of federal agencies, state agencies, and others. Even groups such as the National Audubon Society or The Nature Conservancy may split on chapter, state or regional lines.

In addition, bottom up initiatives such as watershed partnerships need to be linked with top down initiatives coming from higher levels to ensure that authority, funding, and organizational channels match. In other words, if the agency has adopted priorities at the headquarters level, such as EPA's community-based planning, the on-the-ground partnership should think about EPA grant programs being established for community-based planning, whether the partnership fits as a model for EPA to embrace, how to work with the regions so they identify the partnership with community-based planning, etc. The classic example of a mismatch, although it didn't concern partnerships, was the Forest Service's planning process during the '80's, where forest plans were separate from headquarters planning and neither were connected to the budget process. The group is likely to spend considerable time working out both the delegation and integration of authority among themselves and with higher echelons of organizations.

Most partnerships have had to deal with these problems, at various levels of complexity. There are no established models for doing it. It takes patient and enterprising local or regional representatives from various organizations and agencies who do their best to work it through their respective systems. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. High visibility partnerships are more likely to attract the attention needed to cut

Legal and regulatory barriers, both real and perceived. Because many laws and regulations are created for what is called "knucklehead management" (management for the less-than-one-percent who act like knuckleheads) or to prevent someone from getting away with something, they may be very constrictive. At the same time, these same laws provide funding, authority, and direction for making positive change. Oftentimes solutions can be found within the partnership by agency people working with others who have different, non-agency perspectives. At some point, congressional or state relief may be needed to foster trust and a sense that change is possible. That relief could take the shape of permission to test new ideas within a limited scope with a fall back in place if they don't work. Other legal restrictions may come from interstate and international laws or compacts.

Defining Success

Perhaps the most important is that the partnership makes a positive difference in the health of the watershed. Another common way to define success is that the process of the partnership has improved relations in the community as various interests have come to understand and respect each other. The process may improve communications so that various agencies, levels of government, or non-profit groups better coordinate their activities.

The definition of success may vary over time -- short- or long-term successes, or what is considered a success may change over time. Some will debate whether success needs to be collective, for the whole watershed, or whether individual or small group satisfaction is success. It is also true that success will be measured by different persons at different levels for different purposes. One person's success may be another person's failure. Others may see failures, but if important

lessons are learned from those failures, they may be successes. The group should achieve success in relation to its own shared vision and desired future conditions for the watershed. At the same time, it is worth reminding the group there are many other kinds of successes they can feel good about.

External Factors

WORKSHEET

Relevant Legislation:

Federal

State

Tribal

Local

Funding

WORKSHEET

Funding:

Potential Needs

Potential Sources

What Are the Lessons Learned?

Members of existing partnerships stress the following lessons they have learned from their experiences.

1. In summing up points already made, the key factors of success are:

Leadership. Clear focus. Good process and organizational structure. Coordination, both among group members and the broader community. Money, coming in a measured, timely way. Flexibility and adaptive management -- the ability to try things to see what works and modify as needed. Innovation, by definition, means solutions that will be outside the norm. The removal of barriers when there is a willingness to act. This includes steps such as one-stop permitting, relief on deadlines, alternative compliance, and waivers of liability. A commitment to implement results. Empowerment which results from taking charge of one's own affairs, the enhancement of certainty, and shared vision of the potential. Persistence and longevity.

2. Be aware of the role institutional culture plays in how people behave. Institutional culture causes differences in language, time tables, procedural requirements, the use of technology, openness to innovation, goals, strategies, politics, and reward systems. Overt acknowledgment of different cultures may help the group recognize when conflicts are resulting from cultures rather than personal differences of opinion or personality conflicts. Cultural differences often require identification and strategizing to figure out how to reconcile or avoid triggering them, while personal differences are more likely to call for negotiations or mediation.

3. Be sensitive to differences in people as well as their organizations. In particular, respect everyone, especially those with little experience in consensus processes. Recognize that preconceptions can be decisive if they don't change. There is a saying that "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." Avoiding the potential consequences that can flow from "first impressions" takes conscious attention.

4. Be prepared for setbacks and the need to modify solutions. Solutions will evolve over time, as both the facts and the group evolve. One person described the never ending changes as an "ongoing correction of transitory circumstances."

5. Stay focused on actual outcomes, not just the process. Stay focused on the facts, not on judgments of success, failure, or fault.