Watershed planning and management relies on a diverse range of stakeholders. Collabora-tive planning can provide an opportunity for those stakeholders to equitably share their knowledge and learn from other participants, but such an outcome cannot be assumed. This re-search explores the potential for improved knowledge integration in watershed planning through research of a community-based watershed planning initiative in rural Saskatchewan, Canada. Us-ing semi-structured interviews and document review, this research identifies different knowledge types involved in watershed planning, explains how that knowledge is integrated through the planning process, and derives lessons for future watershed planning initiatives. Four general knowledge types identified in the analysis—bureaucratic, administrative, local, and scientific—were also evident in the literature. Specifically, this research affirms local knowledge characteris-tics—that it is spatially constrained, heterogeneous, generated through a relationship with place, and accrued over time—described in the literature. Results also reinforce claims that clearly de-fining boundaries between knowledge types is difficult and even undesirable. Differing from the descriptions in the literature of bureaucratic knowledge as including aspects of administrative knowledge, this research proposes that a greater delineation between the two is advantageous to ensure adequate knowledge is present to support the planning process. Two broad themes of how different types of knowledge influenced the planning initiative are presented: cooperation for long-term planning—highly influenced by administrative and bureaucratic knowledge; and set-ting and achieving goals—dominated by scientific knowledge as an ecological narrative through-out the process. These themes echo the collaborative planning literature on the importance of in-cluding as many knowledge types as possible throughout the process, while also revealing the necessity of ensuring that all participants are engaged in deliberations in order to contribute their knowledge. To meet this need, context-appropriate planning activities must be selected to sup-port collaborative planning; amendments to the planning process used in the community-based planning initiative are proposed to meet these needs.