Reporting is an essential component of any watershed management planning and implementation process. There are two main types of reporting that should be shared with stakeholders on a regular basis: implementation reporting & effectiveness reporting.

Regular reporting throughout the implementation of the watershed management plan process is a very important step for morale and overall success of the plan. Highlighting the successes of the plan helps inspire people to continue working towards the desired outcomes, and also emphasizes the transparency of the whole process, leading to greater trust in the process itself and confidence in the outcomes.

More information on reporting can be found in the Guide to Watershed Management Planning in Alberta (pages 39-40).

The members of the steering committee will continue to play a strong role in facilitating and tracking implementation actions. This includes any actions they were responsible for, as well as tracking other committees and sector’s actions and progress made towards achieving the plan’s outcomes. Ongoing communication is essential to successful implementation and achieving outcomes, therefore a regular reporting mechanism could be set up in order to provide regular evaluation of the plan.

There is no limit to the number or types of lake management actions, but they typically fall into the categories on the right.

Be careful of “quick-fix” technologies! Always ask about well-documented examples of the use of such technology for the specific type of lake management problem in question. These technologies may not be as practical as they seem, and some aren’t even legally allowed in Alberta. A summary report developed by the Alberta Government in 2012 lists some benefits and drawbacks of commonly used in-lake treatments and techniques to control nuisance blue-green algae blooms at Pigeon Lake.

The NALMS publication Managing Lakes and Reservoirs, provides information on guiding lake management groups through this step, and their website also lists a directory of Certified Lake Professionals with demonstrated experience in this field, including several that live and work in Canada. There are also some detailed scientific texts that deal specifically with steps taken to decide on management alternatives, which are referenced on page 44 of the Workbook.

Before identifying outcomes, objectives, and indicators, it helps to refine the plan’s vision statement. A vision should be inspirational, but also achievable. See the Sylvan Lake Case Study for an example of creating an effective vision statement.

For more information on selecting and evaluating indicators, see Table 3 (pages 24-25 in the Workbook), or consult the Guide to Reporting on Common Indicators Used in State of the Watershed Reports.

Detail how you will inform and engage the various committees, their networks, as well as the broader watershed community throughout the various stages and projects involved in the lake watershed management plan. Plan to inform, consult, involve and/or invite collaboration with the various stakeholders. For more information on public engagement, see the Case Study for Pigeon Lake, whose plan used a simplified version of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.

To help engage the public, the Pigeon Lake Watershed Association manages a website dedicated to information on their WMP

Some issues or concerns may have already been identified in the State of the Watershed report (Step 1), but it is also necessary to involve all of the stakeholders in selecting which issues and opportunities to focus on. Involve the advisory group members (which has broad stakeholder representation), by having them identify and list all concerns and opportunities regarding the watershed’s natural resources and economic trends that have an impact on quality or use. Another way to identify issues is through a watershed community survey. The NALMS publication, Managing Lakes and Reservoirs, provides information on conducting effective community surveys. Lac La Nonne provides a good example of this process in Alberta, and it is included on the Case Studies page.  

Online or mail-in surveys should be supplemented by phone interviews to ensure that the results are representative of the public opinion. Opinion surveying is a complex science, and provincial government agencies or universities have sometimes provided assistance to community groups in the past. Once surveying has been completed, the stakeholder advisory group should be asked to assess and prioritize the identified issues from the State of the Watershed and from the completed surveys. Use criteria such as:

• Is the group able to change the situation?
• Is the group motivated enough to address the concerns?
• Will the costs outweigh the benefits?
• Is it going to improve or maintain the ecological health of the lake and its watershed?

The Guide to Watershed Management Planning in Alberta outlines several tools to help select the priority issues to be addressed in the watershed management plan. Don’t try to tackle all of the concerns at one time! A watershed management plan is a continuous cycle, so choose to address priority problems over time or focus on specific watershed areas initially. Allow for regular re-confirmation of priorities before starting new projects.

People will come to the table from different starting points, and involving everyone and finding ways to respect and address the concerns will also help to speak to the concerns of the broader community that shares those concerns and interests. This step may be difficult, but considering all sides from the beginning will lead to better solutions and implementation in the end. Excluding some interests and viewpoints may jeopardize completion of the overall plan. A critical component of successful watershed management planning is that decisions are made and agreed to by consensus. Decisions made with all stakeholders in agreement are stronger and easier to implement. For more information on consensus decision making, check out this Consensus Decision Making Toolkit found on the Alberta Water Council webpage.

Principles & Practices of Successful Steering Committees

• Focus on the concerns identified, rather than assigning blame
• Resolve from the beginning to work toward common goals and understanding
• Be willing to set aside differences while working on areas where solutions seem possible
• Treat all members of the committee with respect
• Recognize that resource damage of the past and present are often unintentional, and often result from lack of knowledge or information
• Work for consensus, so that everyone will be committed to the actions proposed
• Make field trips and site visits to clarify problems and solutions and increase team cohesion
• Focus on specific, constructive actions that work, not on global environmental problems
• Know that nothing inspires people like success, get a few decisions made as soon as possible
• Have some fun and appreciate the contributions of all involved in a tangible way

The number of people involved in a watershed management plan depends on many factors. A multiple committee format is outlined in the table to the right, but a smaller lake may not require all of these. For detailed information on the roles of each committee, see pages 30-32 of the Workbook.

Helpful resources

Alberta Agriculture’s Guide for Creating Effective Land and Water Stewardship: Community Partnerships

Alberta Water Council’s Strengthening Partnerships: A Shared Governance Framework for Water for Life Collaborative Partnerships

To find contact information for Alberta Government Ministry Regional Offices, check www.alberta.ca, or call the information line: (area code) 310-0000

To contact a First Nation, you must first contact their consultation officers/manager. They act as a liaison and communicate ideas from the interested parties to the governance of the Nation. Contact information for a Nation’s consultation officer may be found on the Nation’s website, through their administration office, or via the Government of Alberta consultation contacts.