  |
 |
|
|
 |
|
OSU Extension Watershed Team
|
Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Spring 2005Welcome to the spring edition of the Buckeye Basins electronic newsletter! In this issue you will find information on restoration projects, strategic planning, source water protection funding and grant writing tips as well as an overview of the Midwest Biodiversity Institute and a look back at the first five years of the Ohio Watershed Academy. The watershed restoration and protection movement continues to thrive here in Ohio as well as nationally. Watershed group coordinators and volunteers continue to tackle the tough jobs of community organizing, outreach, education, grant writing, fundraising, project management, monitoring and planning. The leadership of these dedicated professionals continues to propel Ohio to the forefront of community-based watershed management.
Photo above right: Macroinvertebrate identification during OWLS 2002 at Camp Oty'Okwa in the Hocking Hills.
Photo above left: Pplankton lab during OWLS 2003 at
Stone Laboratory on Gibraltar Island in Lake Erie. Photo above left: During OWLS 2004, Andrew Burt (Ohio
Department of Natural Resources) gave a tour of Muir Valley where brook
trout have been
successfully
reintroduced. Look forward to more information on OWLS and other upcoming watershed events on the Ohio Watersheds Listserv and the Ohio Watershed Network website. I hope you find the time to get out and enjoy the great spring weather! Sincerely, Jerry Iles - Editor In This Issue:
Observations from Five Years of the Ohio Watershed AcademyJoe Bonnell, Ohio State University Extension The fifth class of the Ohio Watershed Academy recently received their certificates of completion on April 19 at the Stratford Ecological Center. This group of twenty -- a typical class size -- was one of our most diverse yet, with participants representing watershed groups, health districts, the Youngstown State graduate program, Lake Erie island communities, and even the Ohio Department of Corrections. I see this diversity as a positive sign that watershed planning is becoming, if not a household word, at least common enough that public agencies not traditionally on the front lines of water resource management are finding it in their best interest to get more involved. Through the course of reviewing assignments and interacting with participants over the course of approximately 26 months in five years, I've had a unique opportunity to experience vicariously the struggles and successes of many watershed protection efforts all around the state. On this fifth anniversary of the Academy, I'd like to pause to share just a few observations from those experiences. Interest Is GrowingWatershed planning is a lot like soccer. For those who know and love the game, there is no other game. But to the un-initiated, it can look like a bunch of people running around occasionally knocking heads and kicking each other in the shins. That is changing in the world of watershed management (well, at least the lack of appreciation part). Thanks in large part to the ODNR/OEPA funded watershed coordinator program -- and the super-heroes who fill the coordinator positions -- watershed protection has reached an unprecedented level of interest and involvement among a wide range of public agencies, stakeholder groups, and individual citizens. We are now seeing components of watershed action plans being referenced in comprehensive regional and county plans. Water quality is slowly seeping its way into the minds of decision-makers as an integral part and not just an afterthought of land use planning. These are encouraging signs. Money Makes the World Go AroundOK, this is hardly a revelation, but as more and more state-funded watershed coordinator projects reach the end of their six-year funding cycle, and with state funding cuts across the board, it's hard to think of a single issue that is more universally vexing to watershed groups than funding. Even the ever-reliable cash cow of the federal 319 program has taken a hit this year and is more likely to shrink than grow in future budget cycles. Despite the obvious need for education and training in this area, we have largely avoided the topic of fundraising in the Academy curriculum, partly because I lack the expertise and partly because it is such a complex topic. Nevertheless, the need for more funding is a common thread in many of the students' assignments. I have come to the conclusion that there must be a more coordinated and concerted effort at the state level to not only identify funding sources and build the capacity of watershed groups to compete for those funds, but also to create new sources specifically designed to help fill in the funding gaps experienced by local watershed groups. New government funding seems unlikely, so we must look to private donors and partnerships with the business community. Under the current situation, the collective time and resources spent on fundraising by each watershed group in isolation may on the whole provide only marginal returns, and pits watershed groups against watershed group for limited resources. Let's work to make the pie bigger, rather than finding ways to cut thinner slices. We Have an Endorsed Plan! Now What?One of the more common criticisms of the Ohio Watershed Academy curriculum has come from students whose watersheds have moved beyond planning and into the implementation phase. They want more instruction on how to carry out an endorsed action plan. It's as if when we were planning out the curriculum, we assumed that groups would just go on planning forever! To be fair, we do have some instructional modules that deal with post-planning issues, but the focus is still on designing and leading an effective planning process. I don't think that OSU Extension is alone in failing to prepare adequately to support groups once they reached that Nirvana of watershed existence -- the endorsed watershed action plan. In the next few years we are likely to see between twenty and thirty watersheds with endorsed plans, and there will not be enough federal 319 funding to implement even the highest priority action items identified in all of those plans. What will happen to local involvement and trust -- in the process, in the watershed groups, and in the state agencies that encouraged stakeholders to develop an endorsable plan -- if watershed groups can't attract sufficient funding to fulfill on the promise of improved water quality and quality of life? Indestructible OptimismLest I leave the reader running for their Prozac, the final observation I will leave you with is the overwhelmingly positive energy that I get from working with the wide variety of individuals who have participated in the Academy over the years. You could not characterize them as falling into one political camp or another. For some of them, watershed protection is a job. Others have never received a nickel for their time, yet they spend as many hours volunteering with their local watershed group as they do at their full-time jobs. But they all have in common a dogged determination to make a positive difference. Most confess to a deep love and passion for the rivers and streams they are committed to protecting that translates into an inability to give up -- even when common sense dictates otherwise. I am always inspired by the individuals I meet through the Academy and I am sustained by the thought that there are many more folks like them out there. I bet you know a few. Source Water Protection, Part III: Drinking Water Source Protection Funding and Grant Writing TipsRobert McCall and Jim Hoorman, Extension
Educators Heather Raymond, Lead Hydrogeologist, Ohio EPA This is the third of three articles addressing various concepts that will be helpful for watershed coordinators and many of the stakeholders who are interested in developing and implementing drinking water source protection plans. In previous articles, Part 1: Understanding Source Water Assessment described the information available in a community's Source Water Assessment Report and how it can be incorporated into a Watershed Action Plan. The second article, Part 2: Developing a Drinking Water Source Protection Plan, described the steps in developing the protection plan. This article will address available funding and grant-writing tips to help support drinking water protection planning and implementation. Clean Water Act Section 319 GrantsFor the past two years Ohio EPA has provided mini-grants to assist public water systems and watershed coordinators develop drinking water protection plans. While these grants will not be available this year, Ohio EPA will consider funding these projects next year (based on the results of the first two grant cycles). However, for the first time, 319 implementation grants are available to assist drinking water supplies in reducing nitrate and pesticide impacts to their water supplies. For more information about these grants see page three of the Fiscal Year 2006 request for proposals, which is available on the following web site:http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/319Program.html If you are interested in applying for a drinking water protection implementation grant please contact Heather Raymond at (614) 644-2752. The grant deadline is June 24, 2005. Other Sources of FundingFunding to implement drinking water source protective strategies is available from several sources. Please refer to the OEPA Fact Sheet "Funding Drinking Water Source Protection Projects" (May 2004) for more information: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/Documents/swapfunding.pdf Understanding ValueThe first step to writing any grant is recognizing the value of your project and being able to convey to the grant provider why it is imperative that YOUR project receive funding. If you are unfamiliar with the Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program you may want to complete the Ohio EPA SWAP internet training module, available at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/swap_online.html. This online training educates readers on the basics of drinking water protection and why it is important, explains terminology, and offers several resources to help write a good grant. Two hours spent reading this module will help you better understand the SWAP program and be able to convey the importance of drinking water protection to grant reviewers. Follow the InstructionsThe golden rule of grant writing is to follow the instructions provided with the grant application. Many times valuable projects are not funded simply because the applicants did not provide all the required information in the grant application. Some grant providers are stricter than other with their rules, so it is always best to adhere to them. Ask QuestionsIf you do not understand the instructions or are unclear on if your project qualifies for a specific grant, contact the grant provider! This should be done well in advance of the grant deadline. Grant providers want to fund the best possible projects and they understand that the application process can sometimes be confusing. By contacting grant providers, well in advance of the deadline, you can develop a relationship with the grantor and modify your proposal so it has the best possible chance of receiving funding. Please keep in mind that grant providers are less likely to provide assistance the day before a grant application is due. General Grant-Writing GuidanceGrant writing guidelines are available on many web sites. Some great grant-making tips for nonprofit organizations are available on the following web sites: http://www.npguides.org/index.html http://www.cpb.org/grants/grantwriting.html U.S. EPA has also developed a grant-writing tutorial that may be useful to potential grant applicants: http://www.epa.gov/seahome/ For more information...If you have any additional questions on the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program please contact an Ohio EPA Division of Drinking and Ground Waters staff person and they would be happy to assist you. Staff members are also available to assist watershed coordinators and public water systems develop and implement drinking water source protection plans (614-644-2752).Restoration Underway at Hope Clay SiteJerry Iles, Extension Educator The Hope Clay restoration project is underway!
Photo above right: Students in the Hocking College Heavy Equipment Training Program stockpile topsoil that will be used in the final phases of the reclamation project. The project involves multiple partners with a focus on using students who are gaining "real world" experience in the process of watershed research, restoration, and reclamation activities. Funding from the Department of Interior's - U.S. Office of Surface Mining's Appalachian Clean Streams Program was awarded to Ohio State University Extension in the spring of 2003. The project involves multiple Raccoon Creek partners in addition to OSU Extension and OSM, including:
Photo above right: OSU Agricultural Engineering Professor Andy Ward and Hope Clay Restoration Project Manager Jerry Iles (OSU Extension) examine deeply eroded channels at the project site in Zaleski State Forest. While the site is far from one of the largest reclamation projects underway by Raccoon Creek Partners, it has provided a "real world learning lab" for students at three institutions of higher education. In addition, the project is purchasing nearly $40,000 in local products and services ranging from local stone quarries and trucking companies to seed, fertilizer, and lime applicators, which will be used in the final "finishing phase" of the project. Once the project is completed it will be monitored and research results will be analyzed. The project partners are very optimistic that the project will have a positive impact on preventing erosion and improving the quality of water that discharges from the site into nearby Raccoon Creek. An Overview of the Midwest Biodiversity Institute and Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria Chris Yoder, Research Director, MBI/CABB The Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Inc. (MBI) and the Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria (CABB) perform applied research in support of biological assessment and biological criteria development and implementation. This research is focused on improving the science and technology used to classify, assess, and diagnose problems in watersheds, and making it more widely available to a variety of potential users. We are also dedicated to resolving the significant shortfall in the capacity to conduct the quality and quantity of chemical, physical, and biological assessments that are needed to ensure meaningful end outcomes in watershed management (e.g., TMDLs, nonpoint source abatement, stream restoration, etc.). MBI and CABB do much of this via cooperative arrangements with federal, state, local, and academic organizations. The Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Inc.The Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Inc., is 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with a membership of 125 institutions and corporations and its primary affiliate, the Ohio Biological Survey. This membership encompasses 12 states and the Province of Ontario; institutions and corporations from outside of Ohio join MBI and become affiliates of OBS. The goals and objectives of MBI are to advance the natural sciences, applied ecology, and field biology. MBI is presently executing a cooperative agreement and applied research grants with U.S. EPA in support of biological criteria implementation and environmental indicators development at the statewide, regional, and national levels. Major projects include
MBI has also provided expertise via consulting agreements to a number of other governmental and non-governmental organizations and presently facilitates a working group comprised of U.S. EPA, Region V and six states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) dedicated to the development and implementation of state bioassessment and biological criteria programs. The Center for Applied Bioassessment and BiocriteriaThe Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria (CABB) was established in July 2001 as an applied research organization for the purpose of improving the use of biological assessments and biological criteria in and among State, Federal, and local government agencies and institutions and non-governmental organizations. CABB, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, is one of three such regional centers nationwide. CABB offers the unique capability to apply the management and technical expertise from the 25+ years of experience gained by the Ohio EPA bioassessment, biocriteria, and WQS programs in addition to the experiences of U.S. EPA, other States, and non-governmental organizations. CABB provides expertise in all aspects of bioassessment and biocriteria including field sampling and laboratory procedures, spatial sampling design, data management, data analysis, index development and calibration, interpretation of results, establishing indicator linkages, reporting, and training for professionals, administrators, and non-technical individuals and institutions. CABB initiated a cooperative agreement with U.S. EPA in 2002 for the in-depth analysis of applied research and technical issues and questions relevant to State and U.S. EPA monitoring and assessment, TMDL, and WQS programs. Major projects include
Additional MBI and CABB Programs and ProjectsCABB and MBI cooperatively conduct two-day training sessions on biological assessments, criteria, and habitat assessment techniques in cooperation with U.S. EPA, Region V and Ohio EPA at the Groveport Field Facility each summer. MBI and CABB have executed memoranda of agreement with the Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural Development (ILGARD), which is part of Ohio University's Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs located in Athens, Ohio. MBI and CABB assist ILGARD and Ohio University in developing the capacity to conduct biological assessments, utilize adequate monitoring and assessment approaches in their specific projects, the development and execution of research proposals, and advice on curriculum development. Presently, MBI and CABB are conducting biological and habitat assessments in multiple watersheds in southeast Ohio as part of Acid Mine Drainage Treatment and Abatement (AMDAT) projects and for the development of TMDLs in cooperation with Ohio EPA through grants to ILGARD and watershed groups. The end products of these efforts are biological assessments that meet the specifications of the Ohio Water Quality Standards and the Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Strategy. MBI employs one full time macroinvertebrate taxonomist and full and part time ichthyologists who conduct the field, laboratory, data processing, and data analysis tasks associated with these projects. Other field projects include
CABB is also co-leading an EPA funded Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grant on watershed classification in southeast Ohio in cooperation with Ohio University-ILGARD. This project was initiated in 2004 and will be completed in 2007-8. The purpose of this research is to evaluate and develop different methods for classifying and assessing surface water quality on a watershed scale, which could lead to refinements in the way streams, rivers, and watersheds are classified and assessed in the near future. For more information, contact: Midwest Biodiversity Institute and Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria Paralysis by Analysis or the Shotgun Approach: Reasons for Strategic Planning Dana Oleskiewicz, Extension Educator, Watershed Management There are two types of people; those who like to plan for action and those who prefer activity. Finding a balance between the planning and the doing is very important to environmental groups working to protect our natural resources. When there is too much discussion on goals and tasks, group members can loose interest and even become frustrated due to a lack of doing something productive (paralysis by analysis). Not enough planning and group activities become unfocused, or absent, with minimal impact (shotgun approach). Striking a healthy balance between them, the planning and the doing, is necessary for organizational efficiency. Successful strategic planning with a trained facilitator can be a powerful tool. It does two things; 1) provides a forum for group members to discuss philosophical similarities and differences and then come to consensus on what is important to address, and 2) organizes the group's intentions in a meaningful way that leads to activities with high impact in furthering the mission. Furthermore, effective follow-through on an ongoing basis leads to accountability on individual tasks, thus moving the plan forward. Organizational planning should be cyclical and perpetual; 1) priorities are set, 2) strategies are decided upon, 3) the group takes action, and 4) impact is evaluated to enhance the decisions for the next set of priorities....and so on. The individual steps to strategic planning are as follows1: 1) get organized, 2) take stock, 3) set direction, 4) develop plan, 5) implement plan, 6) evaluate, and 7) repeat. 'Getting organized' means committing the time necessary to create a strategic plan. Planning meeting dates should be put onto the calendar and help from an outside facilitator sought. Attempting to lead the process internally is not advised. A SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats) profile is often used in taking stock of an organization's position. This profile leads to discussion on the critical issues that need addressed by the group. The direction is then set during the conversations that ensue, resulting in the development of the plan onto paper. The organization then implements the plan with individual members taking on specific tasks, followed by evaluation and starting over again. Elements of strategic planning include creating a value, vision, and mission statement. The values are what the group believes about themselves, whereas vision is a shared dream and mission is the 'why' to exist, or what the group does. Goals and strategies in a strategic plan determine the 'how' to reaching the mission. Finally, action items in annual and quarterly work plans provide the 'who' is going to do 'what' and by 'when'. Oversight on these work plan tasks as either delivered or not completed by members is critical, as is continual planning within an organization. 1 Barry, Bryan W. 1997. Strategic Planning Workbook for Nonprofit Organizations. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 919 Lafond Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104. To order: 1-800-274-6024 or http://www.wilder.org/. Buckeye 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.
|
 |
|
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. |
Each
year OSU Extension hosts the Ohio Watershed Leaders (OWLS) event. This
event allows watershed professionals and agency staff a chance to work
and relax together in an informal outdoor atmosphere. Previous locations
have included the Hocking Hills region, OSU's Stone Laboratory on Lake
Erie, and last year the Cuyahoga National Park. This year we will explore
southwestern Ohio at the beautiful Joy Outdoor Education Center located
near Clarksville in the Todd's Fork watershed. Please hold the dates
of August 25th and 26th and plan on joining your colleagues for a great
time. For registration information contact Dana Oleskiewicz at (330)
263-3799 or 
The
Hope Clay Mine site, which borders Raccoon Creek near Lake Hope, has
for years discharged large amounts of sediment directly into Raccoon
Creek. The site is now owned and managed by ODNR and is located within
Zaleski State Forest, which is part of the Raccoon Creek watershed. The
sediment is primarily composed of mine spoil known as "gob" typically
found in abandoned mining areas throughout southeastern Ohio. In addition
to the toxic sediment, water with a pH of less than 3.0 discharges through
deep erosion ditches into Raccoon Creek from the site of former coal
and clay mining.
Each
partner is contributing to the project differently, for example, OSU
engineering students visited the site as part of a river and stream restoration
class. They provided preliminary surveying and site analysis as part
of a class project. ODNR Division of Mineral Resource Management provided
engineering plans and allowed two OSU interns a chance to observe and
participate in the plan development. Hocking College is doing the earthwork
using their Heavy Equipment Operator class. Ohio University is providing
water sampling with OSU Extension providing fiscal and project management
as well as Extension and outreach activities once construction is complete.
OSU and Ohio University are combining to research the pre and post construction
soil and water conditions at the site.