Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Summer/Fall 2003

Buckeye Basins is produced by the Ohio State University Extension, Community Based Watershed Management Team. It is compiled quarterly for watershed coordinators, Extension specialists, and natural resource professionals to include within their newsletters, programs or however they see fit.

In This Issue:

• How to Get the Best Out of Best Management Practices?
• Community Capacity Building Essential for Water Resource Protection
• Opportunities for Stakeholder Involvement in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process: An Update from the Stillwater and Neuse River
• Getting the Most from Your Area Assistance Team
• Upper Scioto Watershed Update
• Let Us Know About Your Upcoming Events and Success Stories

 How to Get the Best Out of Best Management Practices?

Dr. Brent Sohngen, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University

Most of us agree that Best Management Practices (BMP's) have uncertain benefits for water quality. Providing a cost share payment that reduces the farmer's cost for buying a no-till drill can make it easier for them to decide to implement conservation tillage, but it does not guarantee a large reduction in sediment downstream. Alternatively, requiring farmers to install expensive manure storage structures or to write nutrient management plans does not ensure reductions in nutrient loads. For the most part, we agree that that people are at least as important as new technology for solving pollution problems. Nevertheless, most of our pollution control methods rely almost entirely on the technological aspects (i.e. requiring people to install certain practices), and they forget about the people (i.e. providing incentives for people to manage the technologies effectively). Too often, we ignore the simple things that people can do to reduce pollution, and we thus miss out on many low cost opportunities for pollution abatement.

Technology, of course, is important. Applications of existing technologies or introduction of new technologies can and will solve many, or even most, environmental problems. But it always falls back to people to install the technology, to run it properly, and to make sure it is upgraded on a regular basis. Farmers cannot simply install new manure management facilities and walk away. To actually make technologies effective, farmers must operate the technology efficiently, and they have to pay attention to the nutrients applied to farm fields in order to solve water quality problems. Without considering the human element to pollution control, we cannot hope that our current cost-share programs will achieve the lofty goals we have set for them.

The current focus on technological fixes to environmental problems affects more than just the amount of pollution abatement weÇll get for the dollars we currently are spending. It affects our entire dialogue about water policy. How many times have you sat in a room and argued about the effectiveness of one best management practice or another for reducing a particular pollution problem? At the state or local level, we often expend large amounts of energy arguing with each other about which BMP is actually best. WouldnÇt it be more productive to consider how we are actually going to get the people in the watershed to do something different than what they are already doing, not only now, but also in the long-run?

A potentially more productive and rewarding experience for watershed groups might be to find ways to tap into the innovative nature of regular people like you and me. Few people pollute on purpose, but most people need a purpose to reduce pollution. Providing a purpose and incentive for reducing pollution is likely to be more cost-effective than simply asking for or requiring the installation of new technology and then forgetting about it.

Of course, the most difficult task in any environmental program is to provide the right incentive. A group at the OSU Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics recently explored how a contract could be designed to give farmers stronger incentives to reduce pollution for voluntary incentive payments. Rather than making all payments occur up front, in the contract they considered, payments would instead be tied to improvements in water quality downstream. Groups of farmers along a single ditch or tile main would voluntarily agree to reduce pollution (i.e. nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment, or pesticide loads) in exchange for payments. They would get an initial payment, and then each year of the contract in which they meet water quality objectives downstream, they would get additional "bonus" payments. Individual farmers would have the responsibility to choose the methods they would use for reducing pollution. To help ensure participation, farmers set their own payment levels by bidding the size of payment they would need to cover costs (and potentially to profit). Thus, the farmers were guaranteed payments if they met their pollution reduction targets.

Such a mechanism makes farmers directly responsible for learning about how their land management practices affect water quality. Watershed groups, Natural Resource Conservation Service personnel and others would provide valuable inputs and suggestions along the way, but the responsibility to succeed rests with farmers, not with the agency personnel. In exchange for success, farmers would be rewarded with the bonus payments. Sure, most farmers (like everyone else) want to avoid difficult decisions about nitrogen applications, pesticide management, or tile drain management. But who is better suited to making decisions that work both for the environment and for the farm operation? We must find ways to give landowners the incentive take control of solving pollution problems themselves, and the incentives described above would do just that.

Clearly, this idea could be implemented with government incentive payments, such as the USDA Environmental Quality Incentive Program or the USEPA section 319 program, but it does not always have to be that way. Water quality trading is one example where it may be possible to use payments tied to actual reductions in pollution in a stream segment. Unfortunately, trading cannot work in our current technology-first world because BMP's are not tradable commodities. It is hard to conceive of a trading system that would allow a point source to increase their pollution loads in exchange for purchasing BMP's from farmers. BMP's provide too little certainty in terms of reductions in pollution loads (It is equally amusing to laugh at ourselves for buying into the implicit assumption in Stormwater Phase II or CAFO regulations that requiring developers or farmers to install best management practices or manure management structures will solve pollution problems). If we could find a way, however, to make pollution a contractable commodity, then why couldn't we have pollution trading? The contracts described above provide hope for assuring that actual reductions in pollution outputs entering streams occur, and thus provide hope for trading.

The point here is not to dismiss technology, but instead to elevate the idea that we can and should be more innovative in how we develop watershed plans and regulations. Technology will always be important, but rather than focusing entirely on which technologies we think will work best today, we need to focus more energy on designing local systems to encourage innovation and change. My belief is that there are some relatively simple ideas, like toeing BMP cost share payments to actual improvements in water quality, that could be included in all watershed plans, agreements, or cost-share contracts. Properly designed incentive agreements in turn would encourage individuals to innovate and to enhance their efforts. Making those changes, I believe, would go a long way towards improving the efficiency of providing water quality improvements.

return to top

Community Capacity Building Essential for Water Resource Protection

Dana Oleskiewicz, Watershed Management Agent, OSU Extension

Part 1: The Community-Based Approach

Water resource protection historically has been a top-down, command and control endeavor by regulatory agencies. In the 1960s, at a time of social unrest, the top-down approach of addressing pollution problems was challenged1. There arose a greater societal awareness and expectation for the environment as the public recognized the limitations of traditional regulations. Open decision-making and a commitment to allowing the public to participate was the result. Thus, community-based watershed management became widely accepted in the 1980s.

Community-based watershed management is the process of protecting water resources through the efforts of the people in the communities, or stakeholders, within the watershed. It can be defined as Ïad hoc, voluntary, and regionally-oriented partnerships that have organized in hopes of addressing and resolving resource and management problems that established institutions and organizations have failed to solveÓ2. Water resource problems are complex. Solutions to these problems exceed the capabilities of one entity; therefore, collaborative decisions and actions in a community-based approach are necessary

Communities have a vested interest in good water quality for their residents. It is critical that the local people in the community are involved in watershed protection and restoration. Ultimately, these individuals can define the options that are most likely to work in their community. They can enact and enforce the management measures that have been decided on and are better able to monitor their effectiveness. Local decision-making and community adoption of protection efforts is key to the community-based model of water resource protection.

ÏPart 2: The Social AspectÓ and ÏPart 3: Successful ParticipationÓ will be presented in the Fall and Winter Buckeye Basins, respectively.

1Steelman, T.A., 1999. ÏCommunity-Based Environmental Management: Agency- and Community-Driven Efforts.Ó Presented at the 21st Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado: Boulder, CO.

2Kenney, D.S. and W.B. Lord, 1999. ÏAnalysis of Institutional Innovation in the Natural Resources and Environmental Realm: The Emergence of Alternative Problem Solving Strategies in the American West.Ó Research Report (RR-21). Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law: Boulder, CO.

return to top

 Opportunities for Stakeholder Involvement in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process: An Update from the Stillwater and Neuse River

Anne Baird, Extension Agent, Watershed Programs

The Stillwater River has its headwaters in Indiana and northern Darke County, Ohio; the confluence is with the Great Miami River in Dayton. Nutrient enrichment, organic enrichment, and habitat degradation are the primary causes of impairments cited in the recently released draft report of the Stillwater TMDL process. Nutrient loading, and flow in the Stillwater River was simulated using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) in order to calculate load reductions for total phosphorus and nitrite and nitrate. Degraded or poor habitat was also addressed in this TMDL as a non-load based impairment. Specific aspects of habitat that are degraded at particular points were identified in the report and benchmarks were set for habitat goals. (Ohio EPA, 2003)

Small groups of stakeholders met several times throughout the process to discuss the impairments and propose strategies to address them. In addition, a number of public meetings were held. These meetings allowed a broader audience to learn about the monitoring and modeling efforts, and provided a way to obtain input from elected officials, agency professionals, and residents on the social, political, organizational, and economic aspects of the TMDL issues. As a facilitator, I found the public meetings a great opportunity to refine the draft implementation plan. For instance, the Stillwater TMDL on-site septic system subcommittee, working on the implementation plan began with a recommendation to promote general awareness and education. At a subsequent public meeting, stakeholders (including health department and elected officials) were able to clarify specific target audiences and add another strategy. In addition to awareness and education, they proposed an increase in coordination and collaboration between watershed planning representatives, village councils, planning and zoning commissions, and health departments. In order to accomplish this goal a number of actions were discussed including collaborating on on-site inspection plans, and joint participation in realtor meetings, planning and zoning hearings, and comprehensive planning.

To refine implementation plans you can ask different groups of stakeholders to rate the effectiveness of the proposed implementation strategies on relevant performance criteria. In the Stillwater TMDL process we rated different management strategies on the following performance criteria: reduction in total phosphorus, increase in Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) scores, potential to increase scientific and public understanding, and potential to obtain partners to share costs. Stakeholders gave each management strategy a high, medium, or low score on each of the criteria and shared their rationale for their rating. This created some worthwhile discussion on uncertainties, new strategies, and approaches to improve the current strategy. For example, the Stillwater animal waste subcommittee, proposed alternative was to promote the Livestock Environmental Assurance Program (LEAP). After the ranking exercise suggestions were made to refine that strategy by adding a voluntary monitoring component in conjunction with this program.

Utilizing the same criteria for ranking implementation strategies, the Stillwater TMDL stakeholders prioritized which impaired hydrologic assessment units should be addressed first. This exercise allowed the stakeholders and the technical experts the opportunity to integrate the modeling results along with stakeholder values. For instance they looked to the modeling results to determine which hydrologic assessment units required the biggest load reduction in phosphorus and then discussed which units would have the greatest potential in terms of landowner willingness to participate in conservation practices. This allowed them to narrow down two hydrologic assessment units to work in first and they plan to continue this prioritization exercise at the subwatershed and stream segment level.

During this prioritization exercise some interesting points were raised including: current land ownership (e.g., public vs. private), and implementation of BMPs since the TMDL monitoring took place

Maguire (2003) recently published the results of her evaluation of the Neuse River TMDL (total maximum daily load) process for reducing nitrogen entering a North Carolina estuary. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led the effort. Maguire, Associate Professor of the Practice of Environmental Management with Duke University, facilitated and evaluated the process with respect to standards of good practice for stakeholder involvement. Her standards included:

Stakeholder interaction with model development:

• Involve stakeholders and decision makers early and often in model development to demystify the process and create a sense of buy-in over the results.
• Involve stakeholders in decisions regarding spatial and temporal scales for modeling, assumptions to incorporate, and approaches to dealing with uncertainty.

Interaction of the Science and Stakeholders:

• Share information and participate in fact finding with both stakeholders and technical experts
• Discuss scientific disagreements so stakeholders can understand policy implications.
• Use models to delineate consequences of proposed alternatives.
• Use face-to-face meetings of scientists and stakeholders to create trust and enhance communication.
• Avoid overly complex models that may inhibit stakeholder understanding.
• Make models available for use by stakeholders but provide assistance to make models run.
• Express the modeling and monitoring results in terms that are meaningful to stakeholders.
• Review scientific information prior to debating policy options.
• Make sure that modeling efforts are well connected to the policy debate so that modeling results will be useful to decision making and so that decisions will be backed by sound science.
• Use follow up monitoring to promote adaptive learning.

For further information on structured approaches to promoting effective stakeholder involvement visit: http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/toolshed/participation/part6.html

Maguire, Lynn. (2003). Interplay of Science and Stakeholder Values in the Neuse River TMDL Daily Load Process. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management, 129. 261-270.

Ohio EPA. (2003). Stillwater TMDL Draft Plan

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/StillwaterTMDL.html

return to top

Getting the Most from Your Area Assistance Team

J.P. Lieser, Watershed Agent, OSU Extension

As many of you know working on watershed projects can be both very challenging and rewarding. If you are a watershed coordinator sometimes you may feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues you need to address. In fact, at times you may feel that you are all alone in your work to improve local water quality. As a coordinator you are often seen as the project manager, spokesperson, fundraiser, water quality expert as well as a myriad of other things. You have to deal with a variety of questions, tasks, meetings, requests, reports, etc. Obviously, skills like time management, prioritization, planning, volunteer recruitment and delegation, and networking are essential to a successful project. However, you are only one person and may be proficient in some of these skills, but completely out of your element in others. Who is there to ask for advice? Why, of course your friendly Area Assistance Team members. While, the AAT members might not have all the answers for you, or be able to handle taking over part of your project, they can be a wonderful resource and ally. Below are a few thoughts about how to work effectively with your local team. This list is not comprehensive, but I hope it provides some insight into how you might better access these individualsÇ talents.

Do not hesitate to pick up the phone and give them a call.

Some AAT members might not initiate regular contact with you, but that does not mean they are not interested in helping out. Please, remember that these individuals have their own job responsibilities, meetings, and projects to address. With that said they will attempt to help in anyway possible. If they do not have the expertise to help they will try and steer you towards those who might.

Also, sometimes you may just need to speak to someone who is working with similar watershed issues. Many of us work in offices with other professionals that do not have watershed/water quality related jobs. When you feel the need to talk watersheds or just vent call one of your fellow coordinators or AAT members. All of us have been in that situation and often will welcome the call.

Finally, take the time to get to know your local AAT members at any one of the many watershed gatherings. By personalizing your relationship you will be much more comfortable asking for assistance. Team members might not make it to your watershed meetings regularly, but often will be able to provide assistance behind the scenes.

Try and communicate specific questions and or requests.

If find yourself in need of assistance try and be specific about what you need and your deadline. This will allow Assistance Team members to better understand your situation and provide the best possible advice. Also, from time to time when planning think of ways that AAT members may be of service to your project. Then contact them as soon as possible to get on their schedule. Typically one month or more is necessary.

Have realistic expectations.

AAT members are often capable, caring professionals that enjoy what they do and would like to be of service in any way that they can. However, if you have an immediate need or wait until right before a deadline to contact someone for assistance you might not find anyone with the time necessary to provide assistance. Also, keep in mind that AAT members may expect you to be equally involved in projects that you desire assistance with. You might be disappointed if you are hoping they will simply take something over from start to finish.

Keep them up to date on your project.

Make sure you forward your accomplishments, recent and ongoing projects and needs to your AAT members. Keep them in the loop as much as possible and it will help them to be able to analyze the status of your project, and brainstorm ways to assist you. If an AAT member calls to check in try not to tell them that everything is fine or that you have everything under control. Fill them in the best you can on how things are going and they will be much more likely to keep you in mind when they hear of something that might be of interest to you.

Let them know if they have truly been of help.

AAT members like all people like to feel as though they are being helpful and productive. They work in this field because they care about people and our natural resources. Let them know if they have truly been of help. Also, be tactful if there assistance has been less than satisfactory. These people can be your friends and allies, and will appreciate feedback. In addition, they may need to provide reports to their supervisors of the quality and quantity of assistance they have provided. If someone has been especially helpful with your project maybe you could take the time to write a short letter of support to their supervisor. Small gestures like this can go along way in garnering support in the future.

Area Assistance Team Members can be of great assistance to Watershed projects when called upon for help. It will benefit you if you try to understand their job responsibilities, talents, and personalities. I hope the thoughts provided are of help. In the next issue of Buckeye Basins I would like to follow up with input from Watershed Coordinators on how AAT members could do a better job of serving your watershed projects. I would welcome any ideas coordinators might have.

return to top

Upper Scioto Watershed Update

Robert McCall, Watershed Agent, OSU Extension

Background

In January of this year Paul Gledhill was hired by the Delaware Soil and Water Conservation District as the Upper Scioto River Watershed Coordinator. He received a BS from Muskingum College in Environmental Science in December 2002. While in college he interned with the Ohio EPAÇs Water Quality Modeling Section. In summer and fall of 2002, Paul interned with Crossroads RC&D as a water quality intern for the Wills Creek Watershed. These two experiences gave him an understanding of watershed assessment and management as he began work in the Upper Scioto River watershed.

Currently...

The Upper Scioto River Watershed Project is in the process of creating a watershed action plan for the nine-county, 718 square mile area. In August, two public picnics were held to determine the residentsÇ priorities with regard to watershed issues and to introduce them to potential implementation strategies a watershed project could bring about. The Upper Scioto River watershed is primarily used for agriculture production, and several agricultural best management practices have been discussed as potential actions to support. Paul is currently writing the watershed inventory for this action plan using the resource information he has collected. Formal watershed action plan meetings will begin in January 2004. These meetings will allow stakeholders to discover ways of addressing water resource concerns and their feasibility. When the action plan is finished it will be submitted to Ohio Department of Natural Resources for endorsement. Once endorsed, funding will be located for the actions outlined in the plan and the implementation process will begin.

In The Future...

The ODNR-Division of Soil and Water Conservation is looking for ways of state/local match needed for a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) proposal to be approved by USDA. Getting CREP in the Upper Scioto would allow 191 million dollars spent on improvements to the watershed. A good deal of discussion took place at a September 25th committee meeting concerning the CREP buffer acceptance of highly erodible land in addition to areas next to water courses. Some other unique land use classifications are included in the CREP proposal.  A brochure outlining the proposal can be viewed by clicking here: CREP Update. Also at that meeting it was pointed out that money for CREP practices will be split up among counties based on the amount of land a specific county has in the total Scioto River watershed. 

return to top

 Let Us Know About Your Upcoming Events and Success Stories

We at Buckeye Basins would love to know about your upcoming events and or success stories. Please, email us with anything that you would like to have mentioned in Buckeye Basins. We will make every effort to make sure it gets included in the next edition.

return to top