Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Agency Partnerships in Collaborative Watershed Groups: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest Experience

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaborative watershed group experiences reveal commonalities in their approaches to facilitate decentralized and inclusive watershed planning and management in the United States, and increasingly around the world. Although watershed groups are widely recognized in the United States for positive accomplishments across local, state, and regional scales, the role of government agencies as watershed group partners often remains ambiguous and inconsistent. This paper details results of a survey used to determine the status of Pacific Northwest (PNW) watershed group-agency partnerships relative to planning and management. Specific inquiry was directed toward: (1) the role of technical information flow; and (2) watershed group needs. Mail surveys were administered to 304 watershed group participants in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Sixty-nine percent of the surveys were completed and returned. Based on the collected survey data, PNW watershed groups rely heavily on agency officials for technical watershed information. Respondents perceive support of state government to be the highest relative to federal agencies, local governments, and university Extension offices. However, evidence from the survey suggests that partnerships are underutilized across all agencies and organizations concurrently vested in watershed planning and management in the PNW. Sustained operational funding, increased group participation, and baseline watershed data are the most pressing needs of PNW watershed groups and present a significant opportunity for expanding watershed group-agency partnerships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In our survey instrument we used the phrase “unbiased, technical watershed information” to an attempt to inquire about data and information that was scientifically derived (“unbiased”) and ecological or physical in nature (“technical”) and used to achieve specific outcomes such as monitoring programs, restoration projects, or water quality improvements.

References

  • Allen WJ, Kilvington MJ (2005) Getting technical information into watershed decision making. In: Hatfield JL (ed) The farmers’ decision: balancing economic successful agriculture production with environmental quality. Soil and Water Conservation Society, New York, pp 45–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Barham E (2001) Ecological boundaries as community boundaries: the politics of watersheds. Soc Nat Resour 14:181–191. doi:10.1080/089419201750110976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson D, Jordan A, Cook H, Smith L (2013) Collaborative environmental governance: are watershed partnerships swimming or are they sinking? Land Use Policy 30:748–757. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg BL (2011) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidwell RD, Ryan CM (2006) Collaborative partnership design: the implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 19:827–843. doi:10.1080/08941920600835585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnell JE, Koontz TM (2007) Stumbling forward: the organizational challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Soc Nat Resour 20:153–167. doi:10.1080/08941920601052412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borisova T, Racevskis L, Kipp J (2012) Stakeholder analysis of a collaborative watershed management process: a Florida case study. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:277–296. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00615.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burroughs R (1999) When stakeholders choose: process, knowledge, and motivation in water quality decisions. Soc Nat Resour 12:797–809. doi:10.1080/089419299279326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr DS, Selin SW, Schuett MA (1998) Managing public forests: understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environ Manag 22:767–776. doi:10.1007/s002679900146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin BC, Mahler RL, Wulfhorst JD, Shafii B (2012) Collaborative watershed groups in three Pacific Northwest states: a regional evaluation of group metrics and perceived success. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:113–122. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00599.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark LR (2001) The evolution of watershed councils and the Oregon plan. J Sustain Forest 13:205–221. doi:10.1300/J091v13n01_02

  • Clark BT, Burkardt N, King MD (2005) Watershed management and organizational dynamics: nationwide findings and regional variation. Environ Manag 36:297–310. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-1039-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey A, Atkinson P (1996) Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A, Byron I, MacKay J (2005) Integrating socio-economic and biophysical data to underpin collaborative watershed management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:549–563. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03754.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakins ME, Long JD, Hart M (2005) Collaborative environmental decision making in Oregon watershed groups: perceptions of effectiveness. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:171–180. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03726.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Melani Christian L (2008) Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Floress K, Mangun JC, Davenport MA, Williard KWJ (2009) Constraints to watershed planning: group structure and process. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45:1352–1360. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9724-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genskow KD (2009) Catalyzing collaboration: Wisconsin’s agency initiated basin partnerships. Environ Manag 43:411–424. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9236-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy SD (2010) Governments, group membership, and watershed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 23:587–603. doi:10.1080/08941920802534572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard M, Lurie S (2006) Some community socio-economic benefits of watershed councils: a case study from Oregon. J Environ Plan Manag 49:891–908. doi:10.1080/09640560600946974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoornbeek J, Hansen E, Ringquist E, Carlson R (2013) Implementing water pollution policy in the United States: total maximum daily loads and collaborative watershed management. Soc Nat Resour 26:420–436. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.700761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idaho Department of Environmental Quality [IDEQ] (2009) BAGS and WAGS. Surface Water, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/overview.cfm. Accessed 14 Dec 2009

  • Kenney DS (1997) Resource management at the watershed level: An assessment of the changing federal role in the emerging era of community-based watershed management. Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder

  • Kenney DS (1999) Historical and sociopolitical context of the western watersheds movement. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:493–503. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1999.tb03606.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney DS (2001) Are community-based watershed groups really effective? Confronting the thorny issue of measuring success. In: Brick P, Snow D, Van de Wetering S (eds) Across the great divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Island Press, Washington, pp 188–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler B, Koontz TM (2007) Citizen participation in collaborative watershed partnerships. Environ Manag 41:143–154. doi:10.1007/s00267-007-9040-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Johnson EM (2004) One size does not fit all: matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sci 37:185–204. doi:10.1023/B:OLIC.0000048532.94150.07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government?. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane MB, McDonald G (2005) Community-based environmental planning: operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. J Environ Plan Manag 48:709–731. doi:10.1080/09640560500182985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Resour Plan Manag 127:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Anal Manag 21:645–670. doi:10.1002/pam.10079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurie S, Hibbard M (2008) Community-based natural resource management: ideals and realities for oregon watershed councils. Soc Nat Resour 21:430–440. doi:10.1080/08941920801898085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (2001) Organizational commitment to integrated and collaborative management: matching strategies to constraints. Environ Manag 28:421–431. doi:10.1007/s002670010234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD, Whitall D (2004) The challenges and implications of collaborative management on a river basin scale. J Environ Plan Manag 47:407–427. doi:10.1080/0964056042000216537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh L (2002) Watershed solutions: Collaborative problem solving for states and communities. National Policy Consensus Center, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore EA, Koontz TM (2003) A typology of collaborative watershed groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 16:451–460. doi:10.1080/08941920390190087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC] (1999) New strategies for America’s watersheds. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board [OWEB] (2009) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. http://www.oweb.state.or.us/OWEB/index.shtml. Accessed 14 Dec 2009

  • Patton MQ (2001) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD (2004) Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol 34:193–239. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00152.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc [SAS] (2008) SAS Online Document 9.1.3. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiff LR, Van House NA, Butler MH (1997) Understanding complex information environments: a social analysis of watershed planning. In: Proceedings of the ACM Digital Libraries Conference, Philadelphia, July 23–26, pp. 161–186

  • Smith CL, Gilden J (2002) Assests to move watershed councils from assessment to action. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:653–662. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb00987.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolko BA, Huberd RR, Tam-Davis N (2002) Creating meaningful stakeholder involvement in watershed planning in Pierce County, Washington. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:981–994. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb05539.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szaro RC, Berc J, Cameron S, Cordle S, Crosby M, Martin L, Norton D, O’Malley R, Ruark G (1998) The ecosystem approach: science and information management issues, gaps and needs. Landsc Urban Plan 40:89–101. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00101-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennoe LM, Henssonow MT, Surhone SF (2010) Snowball sampling: sociology, statistics, sampling frame, sampling. Betascript Publishing, Beau Bassin

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1996) Watershed approach framework. Office of Water. http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/framework.cfm. Accessed 15 Sept 2009

  • Viessman W, Feather TD (eds) (2006) State water resources planning in the United States. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Department of Ecology [WADOE] (2009) The watershed planning act. State of Washington Department of Ecology. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/misc/background.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2009

  • Weber RP (1990) Basic content analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  • Wondolleck JM, Ryan CM (1999) What do I hear now?: an examination of agency roles in collaborative processes. Negotiation J 15:117–133. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1999.tb00186.x

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee SL, Phillips AF, Frentz IC, Hardy PW, Maleki SM, Thorpe BE (1996) Ecosystem management in the United States: an assessment of current experience. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the USDA-NIFA 406 Program for providing funding assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 CEOAS Administration Building, Corvallis, OR, 97331-5503, USA

    Brian C. Chaffin

  2. Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS 2339, Moscow, ID, 83844-2339, USA

    Robert L. Mahler

  3. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS 2334, Moscow, ID, 83844-2334, USA

    J. D. Wulfhorst

  4. Statistical Programs, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS 2337, Moscow, ID, 83844-2337, USA

    Bahman Shafii

Authors
  1. Brian C. Chaffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert L. Mahler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. D. Wulfhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bahman Shafii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian C. Chaffin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaffin, B.C., Mahler, R.L., Wulfhorst, J.D. et al. The Role of Agency Partnerships in Collaborative Watershed Groups: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest Experience. Environmental Management 55, 56–68 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0367-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0367-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation