  |
 |
|
|
 |
|
OSU Extension Watershed Team
|
Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Fall 2004Buckeye Basins is produced by the Ohio State University Extension, Watershed 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. Please, feel free to ask questions, share ideas, or provide feedback. In This Issue:
Point to PonderWe abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. -- Aldo Leopold Clean Water Act Funding UpdateDana Oleskiewicz, Ohio State University Extension President Bush has proposed a cut in funds for the Clean Water Act non-point source pollution management program (Section 319). The proposed cuts would reduce funding from $238.55 million to $209.1 million in 2005. The budget proposal also recommends a large decrease in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by $500 million. The Clean Lakes Program (Section 314) is authorized through 2005, but it has been un-funded since 1994 and remains so in Federal Fiscal Year 2005. Federal agencies, and the President, are concerned that some of the Section 319 programs overlap with those already funded by the Farm Bill conservation provisions. However, headwaters that are largely non-cultivated and urban watersheds that are increasingly being degraded do not benefit from any agricultural related funding. In addition, the 319 program differs fundamentally from the various farm programs (such as EQIP) in both scale and approach. The farm projects are typically implemented through contracts to individual farmers, and not to important protection activities on a larger scale such as at the municipal watershed or statewide level. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund assists states and local communities to establish wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. States may use up to $75 million of the funds made available in 2005 for low- and/or no-interest loans for projects that treat sewage or storm water discharges using decentralized/distributed storm water or wastewater treatment, low-impact development practices, conservation easements, stream buffers, or wetland restoration. A reduction in funds to this program would make meeting wastewater and drinking water needs more difficult. Federal funding specific to lake restoration has been defunct for over 10 years. EPA Guidance suggests to the states that 10% of 319 funding be allocated to lake management projects. This percentage for lake projects is rarely achieved in any state. Funds have been available through Section 319 to address problems in watersheds that are lake-based. However, because of the nature of the authorizing legislation, the use of these funds to carry out in-lake restoration and management has been limited. For more information, visit: EPA's Nonpoint Source Web page: EPA's TMDL Web page: Thomas (legislative information from Library of Congress): Planning Adult Education ProgramsAnne Baird, Ohio State University Extension Caffarella's (2002) Interactive Model of Program Planning is one that I suggest for anyone involved in planning educational programs. The model includes practical steps (e.g., ensuring facilities are adequate and compliant with ADA requirements) as well as important political considerations (e.g., negotiating interests). Caffarella's model has twelve elements that can be tailored based on your planning situation. For example if you have an on going program you may not need to build a base of support, but if your program is new building support may be critical. Highlights from the model including tasks and decisions that go along with each element are outlined in Figure 1. Figure 1: Caffarella's Interactive Program Model
Caffarella suggests keeping five factors in mind throughout the planning process: current program commitments organizational context, current and potential learners, planning personnel, and available resources. Caffarella (2002). Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide for Educators, Trainers, and staff Developers. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Source Water Protection: Assessment, Planning, and ImplementationRobert McCall, Ohio State University Extension Heather Raymond, Lead Hydrogeologist,
Ohio EPA Part 1: Understanding Source Water Assessments This is the first of three articles addressing various concepts that will be helpful for watershed coordinators and many of the stakeholders who are interested in developing drinking water source protection plans. (See Part II also.) There are many benefits to watershed groups that choose to partner with public water systems and coordinate protection activities within the watershed:
This article will describe the information available in a community's Source Water Assessment Report and how it can be incorporated into a Watershed Action Plan. Part 2, "Developing a Drinking Water Source Protection Plan" and part 3, "Drinking Water Source Protection Grant Writing Tips" will be presented in the next two consecutive Buckeye Basins Newsletters. Understanding and Using Drinking Water Source Assessments Ohio EPA has developed drinking water source assessments for all community water systems in Ohio (unless the water system had already conducted an assessment). The assessment contains three parts: 1) a determination of the area that supplies water to the well or surface water intake, and mapping of a protection area; 2) an inventory of potential contaminant sources located within the protection area; and 3) a determination of the likelihood that the water supply will become contaminated, also called a susceptibility analysis. The assessment also contains general protective strategy recommendations. Example of a Surface Water Drinking Water Source Protection Area
The Emergency Management Zone for a drinking water supply is defined as the area in the immediate vicinity of the surface water intake in which the public water supply operator has little or no time to respond to a spill. The Corridor Management Zone is defined in width as 1000 feet on each bank of the principal streams and reservoirs that are involved with the public water supply. The corridor management zone also includes 500 feet of width on secondary tributaries to the main stem. The length is defined as ten miles upstream of the intake on the main stem and all associated tributaries. The corridor and emergency management zones are the focus of field surveys to inventory potential contaminant sources. In some instances critical Subwatersheds are also identified if data indicate they contribute to a drinking water quality problem (usually elevated nitrates and/or pesticides). Example of a Ground Water Drinking Water Source Protection
Area
For public water systems that have wells and use ground water, the outer protection area is based on a five year ground water time of travel to the well and the inner protection area is based on a one year ground water time of travel. Critical Areas If your group is developing a Watershed Action Plan you may want to consider the emergency management zone, corridors, and impacted subwatersheds of a surface water supply "critical areas." You may also want to consider the ground water protection areas critical areas for home sewage treatment system upgrades and nutrient best management practices (especially if the water supply has elevated nitrates). Drinking Water Source Protection Areas for Inland Surface Water Systems
Potential Contaminant Source Inventory The inventory consists of an initial search of 32 electronic databases that contain potential contaminant source data (landfills, CAFOs, hazardous waste generators, etc.), a land use analysis, and field surveys of the entire ground water protection area and the corridor and emergency management zone portions of surface water protection areas. For surface water protection areas, bridge crossings are identified on a map to help assess the potential impact from spills associated with traffic accidents. The inventory information available in the source water assessments may be helpful for Watershed Action Planning. Example Potential Contaminant Source Inventory
Susceptibility Rating All surface water sources of drinking water have been assigned a a 'high' susceptibility to contamination since nonpoint and point source contaminants can easily enter a stream or other surface water source. Ground water sources of drinking water are ranked 'high,' 'moderate,' or 'low,' based on the local geology, the numbers and types of potential contaminant sources, and drinking water quality data. More Information
Watershed groups should also contact the local water system and community officials to determine if they are interested in partnering in the development of a drinking water source protection plan. A watershed group can help facilitate the development of regional drinking water source protection plans that protect all communities in the watershed. Additional information on Ohio's Source Water Assessment and Protection Program is available on the following web site: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/swap.html. Collaboration in WatershedsScott Hardy, Graduate Research Associate, Ohio State
University Extension Ecosystem Management has emerged as a buzz word to describe current strategies in environmental management that incorporate scientific knowledge of ecological systems with complex social and political values of local citizens for the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term. It is argued that improvements in the ability of agencies to work with each other, and with non-governmental stakeholders, namely local citizens with first hand knowledge of environmental conditions, is necessary for the continued evolution of environmental management. Watershed partnerships offer a good opportunity to explore some of the details of this type of collaboration. Watershed management has an emphasis on ecological sciences, but also expresses a heavy commitment to social components. These social arrangements, customs, and organizations that determine how we interact with the environment are called institutions. Institutions can include both formal institutions, such as administrative structures, government agencies and watershed organizations, and also informal institutions, such as community values and local belief systems. Having a better understanding of these institutions, and improving on the ability to incorporate them in watershed protection efforts, is seen as a means to improve natural resource protection. Participation and collaboration among watershed institutions is a key element to the adoption of a successful conservation plan. Stakeholder participation must be broadly representative of social, economic and environmental interests within the affected area of concern. Further, participation can improve the knowledge used for decision making, and increase the likelihood that stakeholder recommendations would be implemented by government agencies. Several examples follow that show how to identify stakeholders who should be invited to the decision making table, and then how to get those stakeholders to actively participate once invited. A Stakeholder Analysis is an efficient, low-tech procedure for identifying a community's key decision makers, and should inform outreach strategies that will assist watershed partnerships in achieving their conservation goals. The process starts with a review of archival socio-economic data on the watershed. This data may include population distribution, growth patterns, land ownership and use, economic variability and distribution, political boundaries, and community members active in conservation. Brainstorming meetings with the partnership board members then can use this information, coupled with the socio-economic data for the watershed, to create a list of possible stakeholders. The process not only identifies who the watershed's primary stakeholders are, but how their actions might affect conservation efforts. Once identified, several mechanisms exist to increase the level of participation among stakeholders. Watershed partnership meetings should be open to the public, and can be advertised in local newspapers or on local radio stations. A way to improve the number of people who come to the meetings is to alternate meetings on evenings and at different locations throughout the community. This would be more effective in attracting a wide range of stakeholders than meetings held during working hours on weekdays at one location. If this were the case, many non-government employees associated with the conservation effort would be excluded due to work-related responsibilities. Some proponents of watershed management have even suggested the creation of a watershed-scale institution that would create and implement watershed policies and programs by involving all of the necessary voices in the community. This approach could build trust between stakeholders and other resource management agencies, and improve overall communication in the watershed. This institution would coordinate data and strategy ideas from resource managers and stakeholders within the watershed, and create a management plan that is sustainable and interwoven into the local value system. A central watershed-based institution would be able to take watershed activities that are often non-binding, and translate them into real policy change. The formula for effective watershed management is still evolving, yet it is apparent that a better understanding of the ways watershed institutions and community stakeholders interact would help to improve management decision making. There is an ongoing dialogue among government agencies, stakeholders, scientists, and policy makers about who should be invited into this analysis, and how much power they should have. While these questions remain largely unanswered, improvements in collaboration between management institutions, and community stakeholders is playing an ever growing role in watershed management, and has the potential to ultimately improve environmental protection. OSU Extension Announces 5th Watershed Academy ClassJoe Bonnell, Ohio State University Extension Ohio State University Extension announces the start of the 5th Ohio Watershed Academy class, which began November 16 with an orientation meeting at the Stratford Ecological Center in Delaware County. The Ohio Watershed Academy is a program of OSU Extension, in collaboration with Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water and ODNR Division of Soil and Water. The purpose of the course is to build the capacity of participants to lead community-based watershed management planning efforts. More than seventy watershed coordinators, teachers, students, and agency professionals have participated in the Ohio Watershed Academy over the past four years. Many past participants in the Academy have gone on to successfully complete state-endorsed Watershed Action Plans. Here's what some of our past participants have said about the course:
The course is free, though some students choose to receive graduate credit for the course, in which case normal tuition and fees apply. For more information about the Ohio Watershed Academy, download and
view our brochure (as a PDF file) at http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/owa/pdf/OhioWatershedAcademy.pdf ODNR Awards More than $384,000 to Support Watershed Protection in Northeastern and Southwestern OhioRosida Porter, ODNR Soil & Water Conservation Jane Beathard, ODNR Media Relations October 29, 2004 COLUMBUS, OH -- Watershed projects in northeastern and southwestern Ohio will benefit from a total of $384,000 in grants recently awarded by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). The grant money will support watershed coordinator positions for the Chagrin River Watershed Partners, based in Lake County, and the Three Valley Conservation Trust in Preble County. The trust oversees protection and restoration efforts for western tributaries of the Great Miami River, including Twin Creek, Four Mile Creek, Seven Mile Creek and Indian Creek. "Watershed coordinators play an important role in preserving and protecting Ohio's most vital streams and lakes," said David Hanselmann, chief of the ODNR Division of Soil & Water Conservation. "They build public ownership of watershed protection across the state." Each grantee will receive a total of $192,000 over the next six years to cover salary for a watershed coordinator. Watershed coordinators perform public outreach and lead their communities in the creation of watershed action plans, with the goal of bringing all waters within their area into compliance with accepted water quality standards. They also identify areas where the water quality is excellent, and work with local residents to raise awareness of these areas and formulate protection strategies. Funding for Ohio's watershed coordinator grants comes from Clean Water Act money, administered by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and state general revenue. This partnership offers operational support to 30 local programs around the state. Grants were awarded on a competitive basis. Contact Buckeye Basins: J.P. Lieser (Editor)
Further Information: Ohio Watershed Network (OWN)
|
 |
|
OSU Extension embraces human diversity and is committed to ensuring that all educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, age, gender identity or expression, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or veteran status. If you have trouble accessing this page and need to request an alternate format, contact our web support at watershedweb@ag.osu.edu. |
Watershed
groups interested in drinking water source protection should contact
the Ohio EPA Division of Drinking and Ground Waters and request copies
of all the assessments within their watershed. Call (614) 644-2752 and
ask for the source water protection staff. Ohio EPA can also provide
GIS shapefiles of public water system wells, intakes, protection areas,
and potential contaminant sources. If you do not have access to GIS technology,
Ohio EPA can send you a free ArcReader program that enables the creation
of customized watershed maps.