Summer 2004 Buckeye Basins Newsletter

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:

Point to Ponder

There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot... Like winds and sunsets, wild things were taken for granted until progress began to do away with them. Now we face the question whether a still higher 'standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free. For us of the minority, the opportunity to see geese is more important than television, and the chance to find a pasque-flower is a right as inalienable as free speech.

-- Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

Community Capacity Building Essential for Water Resource Protection

Dana Oleskiewicz, Watershed Management Educator, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

Successful watershed management requires a strong community-based effort with diverse stakeholder involvement, good partnership building with consensus, and effective and collaborative decision making on watershed Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Center for Watershed Protection has identified low stakeholder involvement and lack of local ownership as a primary cause of watershed project failures. Therefore, increasing the number of stakeholders, having more entities represented, and better effectiveness for their involvement becomes important for any local watershed protection venture.

Engaging stakeholders does not mean to simply invite the public to participate in an event. While citizens from the public are important, thoughtful consideration should be given to stakeholder groups that can bring resources (staff, knowledge, money, partnerships, efficiency, and legitimacy¹) into the project. For example, local libraries can help spread the word, tourism groups can assist in gathering industry support, and homeowner associations, realtors, and business organizations provide a real connection to local land use. For a comprehensive list of potential stakeholders, see "Getting in Step: Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed."²

Once the stakeholders have been identified, they must be invited. Make it a direct ask, preferably in person, and do so early on in the project. Do not exclude difficult stakeholders and plan to recognize and respect everyone's differences. Widely cast your net when fishing for participants. Only a very small portion of those you ask will be able and willing to be involved, so make a long invitation list.

Know your audience and carefully craft the message to each group. What brings the health department to the project will be very different than the message that "hooks" the local civic organization. Understand the needs of each potential stakeholder and address their issues and concerns in the work that you do. This will encourage continued involvement.

Be sure to keep all parties clearly informed and remember to be persistent in retaining their interest level. And, most importantly, make it easy for them to participate logistically and with appropriate tasks that speak to their strengths and interests. Provide plenty of advanced notice, have a strong agenda, plan for results, and effectively manage the process.

There is an art to successfully engaging stakeholders. You must commit the necessary resources to succeed. Be sure to set realistic project goals, establish milestones to celebrate, and give feedback and praise to your stakeholders for jobs well done!

¹Steelman, T.A., 1999. "Community-Based Environmental Management: Agency- and Community-Driven Efforts." 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.

²MacPherson, C and B. Tonning. 1999. "Getting in Step: Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed." Published by Tetra Tech Inc. in cooperation with USEPA. Available at http://www.ttwater.com/wmp.htm#stakeholder

Multi-stakeholder Watershed Planning: Getting to Decisions
That Make a Difference

Participants in multi-stakeholder watershed planning efforts often experience frustration with the quality of recommendations that result from planning processes. Planning processes can fail to result in high quality recommendations if they do not effectively incorporate both technical information and stakeholder values. Structured decision-making is one means to more effectively integrate the technical analysis of water quality impairment data with stakeholder deliberations on management alternatives. Structured decision-making is designed to help participants in watershed planning efforts generate and evaluate a broad range of management alternatives using both technical data and stakeholder values. For example, stakeholders use performance indicators to rate the desirability of management alternatives based on a variety of criteria, such as biological diversity and cost effectiveness.

Between January and September of 2003, members of the OSU Extension Watershed Team and the Ohio State University School of Natural Resources, in collaboration with the Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries (FACT), designed and facilitated a series of planning meetings in the lower Alum Creek Watershed. We reviewed the elements of the structured decision-making approach, provided example outcomes from the Alum Creek planning process, and offered recommendations.

Social Indicators: The Key to Preserving the 319 Program?

A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting at the USEPA Region 5 office in Chicago. The folks who oversee the non-point water pollution program at Region 5, which covers Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota, invited representatives from the state environmental protection agencies and the land-grant universities in the region to discuss ways to measure social outcomes (also called social indicators) of non-point source pollution prevention projects funded through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. I'll say more about social indicators later, but first, a little background is in order.

As many of you probably know, federal 319 dollars, which in Ohio are administered through the Division of Surface Water at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), are a primary source of funding for watershed protection and restoration projects, including the Watershed Coordinator Grant program. Recently, the 319 program has been under review by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Accounting Office. In their report of findings, OMB determined that "the [319] program has not collected sufficient performance information to determine whether it has had a significant effect on pollution."¹ In other words, the states that administer 319 grants have not collected enough data on measurable results to allow OMB to say whether or not the 319 program is an effective way to address non-point pollution. Although the report does not address what would happen if EPA fails to demonstrate measurable program results in the future, it seems reasonable to assume that reduction or elimination of the 319 program is a possibility.

In response to the OMB's findings, USEPA-Region 5 is working with the state 319 coordinators and land grant universities like Ohio State to develop more uniform ways to measure and track not only environmental, but also social outcomes of 319 funded projects and programs. Most of us can quickly think of some environmental indicators of a successful 319 project. For example, a watershed group with a 319 project aimed at reducing sediment loading from farmland could monitor total suspended solids (TSS) upstream and downstream from target areas. Reductions in TSS over time would be an environmental indicator (though not proof) of a successful sediment reduction project. But sediment load reductions could take several years to observe. How can project managers demonstrate short-term, intermediate outcomes for their 319-funded activities?

This was the question posed to the working group that was called to the USEPA Region 5 office in Chicago. We were asked to begin the task of developing social indicators that could be measured, analyzed, and reported to demonstrate intermediate progress toward achieving the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act resulting from projects funded through the 319 program. Essentially, social indicators are measurable changes in a community, organization, or individual that could be considered necessary precursors to desired environmental outcomes. For example, say your watershed group established a goal of reducing bacteria loading in the watershed resulting from failed home sewage treatment systems (HSTS) and you receive a 319 grant to educate homeowners about the importance of maintaining their systems and you provide cost share dollars to help upgrade failing systems. The ultimate environmental goal of your program is reduced bacteria in the stream. But several years may pass before you observe that outcome, so, in the meantime, you might choose to measure changes in homeowner knowledge and attitudes about HSTS maintenance. You might also be able to report that the County Health Department installed a mound system at a local park as a demonstration of an alternative HSTS design. Social indicators can include measurable changes in individuals' behavior, knowledge, skills, attitudes, or, at the organizational level, changes in policies and practices that are likely to lead to improvements in water quality. At the community level, a social indicator could be the creation of a watershed collaborative with representation and support from all key stakeholder groups.

What does all this mean for watershed groups? In the coming months and years, Ohio EPA will be developing a plan to identify and measure social indicators that 319 grant recipients can collect and report. Sometime in the near future, 319 grant applications may require applicants to describe how they will collect data on social indicators. If you have a 319 grant, you probably already report some social indicator data, such as the number of educational brochures mailed out or number of stakeholders attending watershed group meetings. In the future, 319 grant recipients will likely be collecting data that provide more concrete evidence that a change has occurred at the individual, organizational, or community level as a result of 319 funded activities--a change that can reasonably be expected to result in improvements in water quality. While this new emphasis on social indicators may require more resources to be put toward data collection and analysis, the end result should be more effective programs (we'll know better which programs are resulting in change and which are not) and, hopefully, more evidence that the 319 program and the activities funded with 319 dollars are indeed resulting in positive change toward reaching the goals of the Clean Water Act.

Oak Regeneration in Southern Ohio

A large percentage of the forests in southern Ohio are dominated by oaks. But, have you ever looked at the seedlings and saplings that are regenerating under these predominately oak canopies? Typically very little of the regeneration is oak. Often the seedlings and saplings are red maple, sugar maple and American beech.

Over time as the trees in the canopy die or are removed in a harvest they will be replaced by the seedlings and saplings that are already established in the understory. Without a change in management on many of our privately owned forests, the future forests will be dominated by species other than oak. Whether or not this is a problem depends on your point of view. For blue jays, woodpeckers, squirrels, turkey, deer and many other wildlife species acorns and hickory nuts are a large part of the diet that sustains them through the winter months. Also, southern Ohio's forest industry depends largely on the oaks to produce high quality lumber.

So why is oak not regenerating in the understory of our oak forests? We know some of the answers, but we still have much to learn. We know for instance that American beech and the maples require as little as three to five- percent of full sunlight to survive and grow. They can become established and grow well under the dense shade of other trees. Oaks on the other hand need closer to fifteen percent of full sunlight to become established and grow. Once maples and beech become established they create a sub-canopy that even further shades the forest floor preventing oaks and hickories form getting started.

We also suspect that fire and past land use played a role in the establishment of many of our oak forests in southern Ohio. Some species with thicker bark, including many of the oaks, can tolerate periodic fire better than other species like American beech and the maples. Oak seedlings have deep root systems which allow them to sprout multiple times if they are damaged by fire or other means. Maples and beech have shallow root systems and thinner bark and are not as likely to survive repeated exposure to fire.

Another possible explanation for the lack of oak regeneration could be white-tailed deer and other wildlife. In Pennsylvania and other northeastern states deer have been shown to greatly inhibit the regeneration of oak and many other tree species. Deer populations in Ohio are significantly lower than those in northeastern states, and their effect on forest regeneration is less certain.

To help us more fully understand the effects of fire and thinning on oak regeneration and the forest ecosystem, the U.S. Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Delaware is coordinating the Ohio Fire and Fire Surrogate Study which is a collaborative effort among the Forest Service, MeadWestvaco Company, ODNR-Division of Forestry, Ohio State University and Ohio University. This is part of a national study, which is funded by the U.S. Joint Fire Science Program, and is being conducted on Zaleski and Tar Hollow State Forests, and the Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest.

As part of this larger effort, Ohio State University Extension personnel from the South Centers, with funding from the National Fire Plan, are studying the effects of white-tailed deer on oak regeneration. Eight-foot tall fencing has been installed on several plots to exclude deer. Unfenced areas are being be compared to fenced areas to determine if deer are contributing to the oak regeneration problem by browsing oak seedlings and eating acorns. Early results indicate minimal effects of deer browse on existing oak seedlings; however, oaks sprouts appear to be more heavily browsed. As for acorns, the effect of deer is less clear. Since acorn crops vary greatly from year to year, we expect deer effects to be highly variable. After the first winter of the study over 2 1/2 times more acorns were found within the fenced areas, but in the second year acorn numbers were essentially the same inside and outside of the fenced areas. In order to more fully understand the long-term effects of fire, thinning and deer on oak regeneration, we plan to continue this study at least through 2005.

For specific information about the effects of deer on oak regeneration in southern Ohio contact: Dave Apsley, Ohio State University South Centers; phone: 740-289-2071; e-mail: apsley.1@osu.edu.

2004 Ohio Watershed Leaders Workshop

The stage is set for another gathering of the Ohio Watershed Community August 26-27 at the Cuyahoga Valley Environmental Education Center, located in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, near Cleveland. As of the registration deadline August 6th we have 50 attendees for this year's program.

OWLS is an informal hands-on workshop for watershed coordinators, agency professionals, watershed partnerships, and interested citizens. The event consists of field-oriented training while at the same time providing an opportunity to foster new relationships in a fun and relaxing atmosphere. To look at the agenda and other important details please click on this link http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/2004owls.html.

Around Ohio with Ohio Livestock Coalition (OLC)

During this time of year, livestock farmers are more likely to be thinking about making hay, wrapping up wheat harvest, and baling straw. They should also be making plans to avoid applying manure to frozen and/or snow covered ground later on this year and next year as well.

Over the past several years, manure application to farm fields has come under additional scrutiny particularly those made onto frozen and/or snow covered ground. Four months ago, issues surrounding winter manure application made the front page of 21 daily newspapers in the state of Ohio. Its a very critical issue that livestock farmers need to address in both the short- and long-term.

Speaking of the short-term, hopefully the summer and fall weather will provide farmers with more ideal conditions for manure application than this past spring. If so, farmers should definitely take advantage of this opportunity to apply manure onto wheat stubble, hay and pasture fields. In other words, don't put off until tomorrow what you could and should be doing today.

As it should be with all applications of nutrients in any form to the land, top priority must be given to protecting the environment, particularly water quality. This can be accomplished by following best management practices (BMPs) as outlined in the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Waste Utilization Standard (#633), which is also utilized by local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) in working with livestock farmers to develop, implement and follow nutrient (manure) management plans. To obtain a copy of the standard, which was revised just a year ago, contact your local SWCD office or USDA-NRCS service center, or click on to the education link and go to the USDA-NRCS Recommended Technical Practices, Standards & Guidelines for Manure Application on the OLC website at http://www.OhioLivestock.org/.

With inadequate storage capacity the leading reason for manure to be applied in the wintertime, every livestock farmer should circle the date of September 15th on their calendar to check and inspect manure storage structures. If on this date there is not enough storage capacity remaining to get through the next six months without applying manure, short-term management plans should be immediately developed and implemented to remedy this situation.

To help livestock producers address this issue, the Ohio USDA-NRCS office created a special Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) this year that will hopefully be offered again in 2005. Working with the State Technical Committee, a Liquid Manure Storage System Special EQIP Project for Ohio was created to promote year-round management of manure applications. For example, many larger livestock operations have adequate land for application, but may need off-site fields, depending on cropping patterns during different seasons of the year, and may therefore require the assistance of a consultant or manure broker to carefully plan an application schedule.

Additionally, over the past few years, livestock operators have experienced various challenges in the management and application of manure from liquid manure storage systems during the winter months. Although many of these operations have management plans in place, weather conditions have not been favorable for application, especially when fall is the primary time of application, thus leaving storage systems near capacity going into the winter with few alternatives.

This special project will help minimize wintertime application of manure, develop application plans, promote the use of cover crops, explore the feasibility of utilizing off-site applications, and develop relationships between producers, consultants, applicators, and landowners by providing financial incentives for storage. For additional information, contact your local USDA-NRCS service center or SWCD office.

In a couple of months, the Ohio Livestock Coalition and LEAP, working with various program partners, will be conducting Manure Management Issues, Challenges & Solutions train the trainer programs for SWCD, USDA-NRCS and Ohio State University (OSU) Extension professionals who work with livestock producers. The train the trainer program will help these respective local agencies develop similar education and awareness training sessions for livestock producers that will focus on the issues of wintertime application of manure, preferential flow and water quality. For more information about the train the trainer program, please log on to the LEAP website at http://www.ohleap.org/.

OSU Extension Watershed Team

Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Summer 2004