Implementation of Best Management Practices of Collaboratively Developed Watershed
Action Plans in the Western Lake Erie Basin
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in
the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Travis Reinhard Shaul
Graduate Program in Environment and Natural Resources
The Ohio State University
2014
Master's Examination Committee:
Dr. Tomas M. Koontz, Advisor
Dr. Eric Toman
Dr. Noah Dormady
Dr. Mary Tschirhart
Copyrighted by
Travis Reinhard Shaul
2014
Abstract
Significant time and effort are put into developing watershed action plans (WAPs)
to address water quality impairments throughout Ohio. These WAPs are developed
collaboratively with a broad range of stakeholders representing various interests. Each of
these parties has interest in how the watershed is managed. Substantial literature
addresses how collaborative watershed plans are developed and the importance of citizen
participation to plan development. However, implementation of best management
practices (BMPs) for WAPs is not addressed in the literature. Public policy scholarship
has created a foundation for understanding what factors make policy implementation
effective. These factors include policy intention, the scope of the policy, and the use of a
policy tool.
The objective of this research is to assess whether the WAPs affect
implementation of BMP recommendations, and if yes, to what degree. Chapter One
utilizes three WAPs, the Portage River, the Outlet/Lye Creek, and the Riley Creek to
answer two research questions that focus on the link from WAPs to policy
implementation: 1) “What kinds of recommendations exist in the plans?” and 2) “What
proportion of listed recommendations have been conducted?” These questions use data
ii
derived from both the WAP documents and through fourteen interviews with
stakeholders in the Portage River and Blanchard River Watersheds.
Chapter Two explores the research questions: 1) “What factors affect
implementation of BMP recommendations of WAPs?” and 2) “Which kinds of WAP
BMP recommendations do stakeholders think are most often implemented?” Chapter
Two analyzes the interview data from sixteen stakeholders in four WAPs from three
watersheds. The WAPs included in this chapter are the Portage River, the Outlet/Lye
Creek, the Riley Creek, and the Lower Maumee.
Together each chapter’s research questions help to fill the knowledge gap in WAP
implementation and will aid practitioners in understanding if WAPs affect BMP
implementation. Addressing the knowledge gap will also allow better theoretical
understanding of how collaborative plans may lead to on-the-ground implementation of
WAP recommendations.
Overall, this thesis research utilized document and content analysis techniques in
order to facilitate a comparative case study within the research area. This approach used
data collected in three watersheds in Northeast Ohio; the Portage River Watershed, the
Blanchard River Watershed, and the Lower Maumee Watershed. The Blanchard River
Watershed includes two WAPs, the Outlet/Lye Creek and the Riley Creek plans, whereas
the Portage River and Lower Maumee Watersheds each have one WAP. Through
analysis of the WAPs, key stakeholders responsible for implementation of BMPs were
identified. These stakeholders served as the initial sample of interview participants.
Interviews used a semi-structured technique in which the researcher followed an
iii
interview guide but was able to pursue conversations that strayed off the guide. This
semi-structured approach allowed for more opportunities to answer the research questions
of this study through corroborating findings in the WAPs and adding a more robust pool
of data to the study. Using a snow-ball sampling technique, interview participants were
asked to identify additional stakeholders who may not have been listed in the WAPs but
have been actively engaged in watershed planning and would be able to provide valuable
information to address our research questions. This thesis research further analyzed the
WAP documents and distilled what recommendations exist in the plans and why these
recommendations are listed.
Findings reported in Chapter One suggest that the most frequent BMP
recommendations in the WAPs are incentives and the primary funding sources is costsharing through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The most frequent implementers listed in the
WAPs were Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Lastly, farmers are the most frequent targets of WAP
recommendations. Moreover, findings reported here revealed several reporting concerns
(inaccuracy, double reporting, not knowing what is completed, and lack of reporting in
general) making it difficult to identify levels of implementation of BMP
recommendations. However, the limited data available suggests that cover crops and
conservation tillage are the most implemented BMPs.
Results presented in Chapter Two indicate that stakeholders think the BMPs
increase conservation tillage practices, increase cover crop usage, conduct educational
iv
outreach, and habitat restoration / preserve habitat / preserve wetlands are most
implemented. Findings further indicated that the factors perceived most important for
BMP implementation are 1) willing landowners, 2) dedicated watershed coordinator or
other leader, and 3) funding to implement recommendations.
The results of this thesis research will provide WAP developers new perspectives
by which to understand the necessary policy components of a BMP recommendation that
help foster implementation. This research may also aid other stakeholders participating
in the development of collaborative environmental plan to determine factors necessary in
aiding implementation of a given set of recommendations.
v
Acknowledgments
Dr. Tomas Koontz has served as my advisor since beginning my coursework at
the School of Environment and Natural Resources. His support, guidance, and feedback
throughout the entire writing process have been invaluable.
I would thank each of my committee members for their commitment to helping
me complete my thesis. Dr. Eric Toman, Dr. Noah Dormady, and Dr. Mary Tschirhart.
I am grateful for the graduate program coordinators Amy Schmidt and Michelle
Smith for all their assistance in getting all the necessary paperwork complete and always
being prompt with answering questions.
I thank The Ohio State University and the School of Environment and Natural
Resources for the opportunity to serve as a Graduate Research Assistant.
I appreciate my girlfriend, Kylienne A. Clark for her continued support of my
research and always being there when I needed her most.
I am grateful for my colleague at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ashley
Bowman, for the early morning phone calls, late nights in the computer lab, and
assistance with formatting and editing.
vi
Vita
May 2004 .......................................................South Fayette High School
August 2008 ...................................................B.A. Political Science, The Ohio State
University
2012-2014 ......................................................Graduate Research Associate, School of
Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University
August 2014 ...................................................M.P.A., The John Glenn School of Public
Affairs, The Ohio State University
Fields of Study
Major Field: Environment and Natural Resources
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... vi
Vita ................................................................................................................................ vii
Fields of Study .............................................................................................................. vii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Policy Recommendations for Best Management Practices in the Western
Lake Erie Basin ............................................................................................................... 1
Water Quality Problems in Lake Erie ............................................................................. 2
Legal and Collaborative Solutions .................................................................................. 6
Implementing Watershed Action Plans and Policy More Generally .............................. 8
Policy Design Affecting Implementation ........................................................................ 9
Bottom-up Implementation ........................................................................................... 14
Watershed Groups Involved with the WAPs ............................................................. 21
viii
WAP Content Outlines .............................................................................................. 22
The BMP Spreadsheet ............................................................................................... 25
Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................................................. 27
Analyzing Across Data Types ................................................................................... 30
Agriculturally Focused BMPs ................................................................................... 31
Descriptions of Best Management Practices ............................................................. 34
Policy Tool Usage ..................................................................................................... 36
Funding Sources for Recommendations .................................................................... 40
Specified Policy Implementers .................................................................................. 43
Policy Targets ............................................................................................................ 52
Missing Elements: Quantities and Timelines ............................................................ 56
Implementation of Recommendations ....................................................................... 57
Chapter 2: Factors of Best Management Practices which Affect Implementation of
Watershed Action Plan Recommendations ................................................................... 69
Which Kinds of BMPs Do Stakeholders Think Are Most Often Implemented? ...... 95
References ................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix A: Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Diagram Involved in Implementation Process
..................................................................................................................................... 125
Appendix B: Interview Questions ............................................................................... 126
ix
Appendix C: Likert Scale Interview Questions........................................................... 128
Appendix D: BMP Recommendation Data ................................................................. 129
x
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Case studies included in Chapter 1…………………………………………….3
Table 1.2 13 Policy Tools Modified from Source Salamon (2002)……………………..12
Table 1.3 Policy tool coding used for categorizing WAP recommendation variables…..20
Table 1.4 Interviews by WAP and organization affiliation……………………………...29
Table 1.5 Agricultural Focused Best Management Practices (BMP) by Watershed Action
Plans (WAP)……………………………………………………………………………..33
Table 2.1 Case studies included in Chapter 2……………………………………………74
Table 2.2 Likert Survey Instrument Participants………………………………………...86
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The Western Lake Erie Basin and Area of Study – area of study indicated by
red surrounding border (St. Joseph River Water Initiative Partnership, 2013)…………...4
Figure 1.2 Summarizes the Findings of Policy Tool Usage…………………….……….39
Figure 1.3 Summarizes the Findings of Funding Sources for Recommendations……….41
Figure 1.4 Summarizes the Findings of Specified Policy Implementers (Single SWCD
and Multiple SWCDs are not mutually exclusive)………………………………………47
Figure 1.5 Summarizes the Findings of Policy Targets……….…………………………54
Figure 2.1 Policy Implementation Framework, Source: Sabatier and Mazmanian
(1983)…………………………………………………………………………………….77
Figure 2.2 Likert Scale Results…………………………………………………………..90
Figure 2.3 Frequencies of BMP Implementation in Conducted Interviews (n=16)……..97
xii
Chapter 1: Policy Recommendations for Best Management Practices in the
Western Lake Erie Basin
In 1972 the United States passed the Clean Water Act. This legislation was
spurred by events including Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and fire on the
Cuyahoga River (1969), near Cleveland, Ohio. The Clean Water Act set requirements to
identify waterways that are impaired or polluted (Migliaccio, Li & Obreza, 2007). In the
early 1990s many water quality concerns were being addressed by local watershed
groups. These groups were collaborative and encompassed citizens, government
agencies, and nonprofit groups. These groups work together to develop plans to manage
local watersheds that include detailed recommendations to address impaired waterways.
This thesis research utilizes these plans to explore: What kinds of recommendations exist
in the plans? and What proportion of listed recommendations have been conducted?
To address these research questions, Chapter One continues with theoretical
background on implementation of public policies, from a political science perspective.
This background includes investigation of policy processes as well as instrument design
and top-down versus bottom-up approaches. Subsequently the research methodology is
described, followed by results showing the number and types of recommendations
included in the plans and how many of them have been implemented. The Discussion
1
section links results to knowledge gaps from prior research, and the Conclusion provides
a description of the study limits and suggestions for future research.
Water Quality Problems in Lake Erie
The Western Lake Erie Basin includes the Lower Maumee River Watershed (see
Chapter Two), the Portage River Watershed, and the Blanchard River Watershed (see
Figure 1.1). The Lower Maumee Watershed tributaries drain 77 square miles and it is
located in northwest corner of Ohio, close to the Michigan state line (OEPA, 2012). The
Portage River Watershed drains 581 square miles and is located in the northwest Ohio.
The Blanchard River Watershed drains 771 square miles and is located below the Lower
Maumee and Portage River watersheds in northwest Ohio (OEPA, 2009). The Western
Lake Erie Basin is home to several Ohio municipalities ranging in size from medium to
large, the largest being the city of Toledo, which had a population of 287,208 in 2010
(OEPA, 2014; Census Viewer, 2012). The Western Lake Erie Basin is a highly
agricultural driven region, with over 75% of the land in agricultural use (OEPA, 2013).
This region has received national attention due to large outbreaks of eutrophication. This
chapter analyzes three WAPs from two watersheds in the Western Lake Erie Basin (see
Table 1.1)
2
Watershed Action Plan
Portage River
Outlet/Lye Creek
Riley Creek
Table 1.1 Case studies included in Chapter 1
3
Watershed
Portage
Blanchard
Blanchard
Figure 1.1 The Western Lake Erie Basin and Area of Study - area of study indicated by
red surrounding border (St. Joseph River Water Initiative Partnership, 2013)
4
Eutrophication is caused by high levels of nutrients within a waterbody and often
results in algal blooms. These nutrients primarily result from agricultural field runoff, or
non-point source pollution, in areas dominated by agricultural production (OEPA, 2010).
When the algae die they decompose and can cause oxygen depletion in the waterbody,
which is harmful to fish and other aquatic life (USGS, 2014). This is especially
important to Lake Erie, which is renowned for its fishing. Algal blooms are more
prevalent in shallower waters and Lake Erie has the shallowest water depth among the
Great Lakes. This creates an environment ripe for blue-green algal blooms to occur
(USEPA, 2012).
The blooms may also produce blue-green algae called cyanobacteria.
Cyanobacteria is hazardous to humans and pets due to the variety of toxins it produces
(OEPA, 2013). Algal blooms are unsightly and hurt the multi-billion dollar tourism
industry in the Lake Erie region (Narciso, 2014). The Lake Erie Phosphorous Task Force
considers the tourism industry of Lake Erie to be worth $11.5 billion (OEPA, 2013).
Toledo, the largest city within our study watersheds, spent over $3 million to keep algae
from its drinking water in 2013 (Narciso, 2014). In 2011, the largest algal blooms in the
history of Lake Erie occurred. A leading cause was phosphorus loadings from
agricultural practices combined with spring metrological conditions (Michalak et al.,
2013). The application of fertilizers containing phosphorus near Lake Erie during the
spring contributed to blooms spreading from Toledo to Cleveland in 2012 (Hunt, 2012;
Michalak et al., 2013). Algal blooms in Lake Erie have been occurring for over 40 years.
In the 1970s, the algal blooms were massive and this made the problem a priority for
5
officials and collaborative watershed groups in the Lake Erie area (Hunt, 2012). These
efforts, coupled with stricter regulations on sewage treatment plants (also a source of
phosphorus), and phosphorus reduction agreements between the United States and
Canada, contributed to improved water quality (Hunt, 2012). Nonetheless, the blooms
have reemerged and the 2011 algal bloom was three times larger at its peak intensity than
the previous largest bloom (Michalak et al., 2013).
Legal and Collaborative Solutions
The Clean Water Act of 1972 sought to reduce pollution by targeting point source
pollution of America’s polluted waterways (Houck, 2002). Point source pollution derives
from a “discernible” discharge of a pollution point such as pipe or concentrated animal
feeding operations (USEPA, 2012). In 1987 the Clean Water Act was amended to
address nonpoint source pollution, which is defined as: “water pollution that does not
meet the legal definition of point source in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act”
(USEPA, 2012, p.1). Nonpoint source pollution is further described by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “diffuse” and potentially carried away by
rainfall or snowmelt (USEPA, 2012). Nonpoint source pollutants range from agricultural
runoff such as pesticides, fertilizers, and nutrients from animal waste to urban runoff of
oil and other chemicals. Nonpoint source pollution derived from agricultural runoff is a
leading cause of water quality impairment across the U.S. (USEPA, 2010). The Ohio
Lake Erie Phosphorous Task Force considers agriculture the leading source for
6
phosphorous pollution in Lake Erie. Commercial fertilizer applied to agricultural land
comprises most of this phosphorus (84%) (OEPA, 2013).
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act utilizes Total Maximum Daily Load
(Henceforth TMDL) calculations to determine how best management practices influence
water quality within the watersheds (Houck, 2002). TMDL is the “maximum amount of
a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to
meet water quality standards for that particular pollutant” (USEPA, 2013, p.1). TMDLs,
specified in detail in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, allow for Watershed Action
Plans (WAPs) to be developed under Section 319 funding guidelines to address water
quality impairments. WAPs are elaborate documents that detail water quality
impairments for a specific watershed and mechanisms to mitigate the impairment. The
WAPs serve as a resource to guide citizens, policy makers, and nonprofit organizations
on techniques to address the water quality impairments. WAPs address impairments
through direct means such as the use of best management practices (BMPs) or through
educational programs (Houck, 2002; USEPA, 2014; Barton, 1999). To qualify for
Section 319 funding, WAPs must describe financial and technical assistance required to
implement BMPs. The 319 program is voluntary, but it provides funding for TMDL
analysis and identification (Houck, 2002). Across the U.S., 319 funding is often used to
promote collaborative watershed efforts (Hardy & Koontz, 2008).
In Ohio, WAPs are chiefly developed by collaborative watershed partnerships. In
watershed partnerships, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and citizens come
together to discuss policies, voice concerns, make plans, and take action. The groups
7
work together to achieve restoration or water quality improvement on a watershed scale
(Koontz & Newig, 2014). It has been suggested that such collaborations among multiple
stakeholders seeking common ground are best suited to develop effective WAPs
(Sabatier, Weible & Ficker, 2005). In fact Sabatier, Weible, and Ficker (2005) found that
the development of collaborative agreements about what actions to take was a key
precursor to successful watershed projects and outcomes.
Implementing Watershed Action Plans and Policy More Generally
Recommendations in the WAPs include best management practices (BMPs) and
offer a myriad of solutions to achieve water quality goals and address perceived water
quality problems. Although the WAPs included in this research include topics such as
municipal storm water runoff and septic tank management solutions, they primarily focus
on reducing agricultural field runoff. Agricultural BMPs listed in the study’s WAPs are
non-regulatory, presenting a challenge to implementation as such measures do not have
the same force of law, with penalties, as regulatory mechanisms and, by their voluntary
nature, may not compel landowners to adopt them.
The process of WAP development through collaboration among multiple
stakeholders can lend strength to implementation. The involvement of specified policy
implementers, usually governmental agencies, in such collaborative processes, has been
argued to increase agreement within the collaborative about how a WAP will be
implemented (Bowan, 1982). This agreement can potentially aid in encouraging joint
implementation of BMPs. However, some scholars contend “joint action”, or the
8
collaborative action of implementation as used with the WAPs, will “impede” rather than
foster implementation (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). These competing arguments
about the effects of collaboration on planning and implementation suggest a need for
further empirical research
When looking for guidance on implementation, studies of collaboratively
developed, environmentally focused plans are sparse. However, the implementation of
WAPs can be investigated through policy implementation literature, with BMPs
considered as policy recommendations. Understanding what recommendations are
included in the WAPs, the types of recommendations that are implemented most often,
and why, is a knowledge gap that this chapter’s research questions seek to answer. This
gap in knowledge is present in the literature on collaborative watershed management.
Policy Design Affecting Implementation
Policy design is a means for crafting alternatives for dealing with a problem
(Anderson, 2014). May (2003) suggests there are three important aspects to understand
policy design: 1. the policy intention, 2. the scope of policy, 3. the policy instrument.
Together these aspects of a policy design create a structured plan for implementation and
can provide a means to test the effectiveness of implementation as a result of policy
design. Implementation is often blamed for failure of goal attainment; however, policy
design may be responsible for this failure. One purpose of this thesis research was to
assess and categorize the policy design of WAP BMP recommendations. In one view,
9
implementation is just the last actionable portion of a policy design (Peters & Pierre,
2003).
The first aspect of policy design is the intention of the policy itself, specifically,
what the policy seeks to achieve (May, 2003). Policy intentions affect implementation by
setting limits to choices of the policy instruments used (May, 2003; Howlett, 2009). For
example, if the policy intention is educational outreach, it will likely use grants as the
policy tool instead of regulation. Achieving policy intentions is dependent on goals
aligning with the appropriate approach to implement (May, 2003). Essentially, a policy
must clearly define its objectives and the techniques or proper approaches to accomplish
these objectives. The target of the policy and the specified policy implementer must
support the policy objective. When this is not the case, one, or possibly both of these
parties may subvert the policy implementation process (May, 2003). Reaching
agreement on policy objectives can be enhanced through the dialogue that occurs in
collaborative watershed action planning (Leach & Pelkey, 2001; Innes & Booher, 2010).
These authors suggest trust and interpersonal networks built through collaborative
watershed groups help foster implementation. The collaborative and often consensusbased approach used to develop the plans seeks to achieve agreement on policy
intentions.
The next aspect of policy design is defining the scope of a policy. In a
characterization of policy scope, May (2003) suggests it is important to consider whether
the “policy is new or an adaption of an existing policy.” In some policy areas, new plans
are likely to follow existing plans. For example, “mandates get added to existing
10
mandates” (May, 2003, p.284). There is a variety of means to define scope. One means
to define the scope of a policy is by its geographic scale. Geographic scale can be
defined as a particular region, a specific municipality, a statewide initiative, or a policy
on the national level. The policy scope can also be used to describe the extent to which a
specific group is targeted. This can be expressed by a policy focused solely on one target
group or the population as a whole (May, 2003). The composition of the targeted group
is also an important factor (particularly whether the group is homogenous or
heterogeneous) as the degree of similarities among group members can influence success
of policy implementation (May, 2003). Prior literature on collaborative watershed
planning suggests relatively high levels of homogeneity in agricultural areas (Koehler &
Koontz, 2008). Geographic scale and group targeting are among many different aspects
that a policy scope may include.
The policy instrument is a tool to accomplish objectives defined by a policy.
Policy instruments can be simple and broad, or complicated and detailed. May (2003)
identifies several types of policy tools including: social regulation, economic regulation,
and direct government provision. Table 1.2 presents a list of 13 policy tools created by
Salamon (p.21, 2002). This set of tools is considered to be one of the most common used
in the public policy literature (May, 2003).
11
Tool
Direct government
Social regulation
Economic regulation
Product/Activity
Good or Service
Prohibition
Fair prices
Vehicle
Direct Provision
Rule
Entry and rate
controls
Contracting
Good or service
Contract and cash
payment
Grant
Good or service
Grant award/cash
payment
Direct loan
Cash
Loan
Loan Guarantee
Cash
Loan
Insurance
Protection
Insurance policy
Tax expenditure
Cash, incentives
Tax
Fees, charges
Financial penalty
Tax
Liability law
Social protections
Tort law
Government corp.
Good or service
Direct provision/loan
Vouchers
Good or service
Consumer subsidy
Table 2.2. 13 Policy Tools Modified from Source: Salamon (2002)
12
Salamon’s (2002) list contains policy tools such as contracting, grant, and direct loan,
each of which use the incentive mechanism to encourage action. For the purposes of this
research, exhaustive details about policy tools are unnecessary. More important than the
number of tools available is the correct application of a specific tool to the appropriate
problem. Guy Peters calls this the “contingent relationship” and stresses its importance
to the overall policy design (2005). The contingent relationship may hold additional
importance in WAP implementation due to the recommendations’ non-regulatory
characteristic. Policy failures can be caused by improper selection of policy instruments.
Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) demonstrated in their case study if a “more direct
economic instrument” were to be used, many of the problems in their case study could
have been avoided. Without any regulatory mandates ensuring compliance, the correct
policy tool is imperative to foster high levels of BMP implementation.
Perhaps the most straightforward typology of policy tools is the three categories
of incentives, regulations, and sermons (Bemelmans, Rist & Vedung, 2011; Vedung,
1998). Incentives include a range of grants, cost-sharing, and other inducements to
encourage behavior change; policy targets are rewarded if they change behavior in ways
desired by the policy-makers, rather than being penalized for not doing so. Prior research
has identified incentives as a common tool in agricultural policy (Malik, Larson &
Ribaudo, 1994; Lohmar et al., 2003). Regulations are government requirements for
policy targets to do certain behaviors, or face penalties for non-compliance. Regulatory
tools have been the backbone of U.S. water pollution policy since the 1970s (Arbuckle et
al., 1989). Sermon is defined as a plan telling the policy target: “you should do this.”
13
Education and outreach efforts, such as those by university Extension services, are
commonly used to reach agricultural producers in the U.S.
Bottom-up Implementation
Much of the early studies of policy implementation were conducted from the topdown perspective, which is a hierarchical form of management where decisions are made
at the highest level (Sabatier, 1986; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983; Pressman &
Wildavsky, 1984). Using a top-down approach Sabatier & Mazmanian (1983) and
Pressman & Wildavsky (1984) developed a foundational base for implementation
research. However, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983) were criticized by researchers
taking a bottom-up implementation approach because of their lack of inclusion of frontline staff or field workers who were interacting with policy targets (Winter, 2003). An
alternative to this top-down approach, known as a bottom-up approach, has been
proposed to engage stakeholders at a local level to address a local problem (Koontz &
Newig, 2014). Local entities and stakeholders play a role in decision-making in the
bottom-up approach; contrary to top-down policies in which an authoritative entity,
typically governmental, controls the decision making. Bottom-up approaches center
more power locally and often take the form of collaborations that may include local
stakeholder groups as well as governmental entities (Koontz et al., 2004). Collaborations
come together to identify common issues, share information and perspectives, generate or
analyze information for decision making, develop plans, and implement projects (Koontz
& Newig, 2014; Margerum, 2011; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000).
14
In a bottom up approach, front-line staff or field workers may be viewed as
serving as liaisons between policy developers to the targets of implementation. The
targets of implementation are groups or individuals whose behavior a policy attempts to
modify. Field workers can have substantial influence on policies that require the delivery
of services through intermediaries. The field workers are sometimes referred to as
“street-level bureaucrats,” and can be key policy actors because of their role in
implementing public policies (Lipsky, 1980). Prior studies of collaborative watershed
management have identified members of soil and water conservation districts as key field
workers (Bidwell & Ryan, 2006). Lipsky (1980) examined the role of street-level
bureaucrats through a public policy lens; he illuminated that the working conditions of
street-level bureaucrats across various fields are similar leading to the use of similar types
of practices (Lipsky, 1980). Lipsky’s (1980) findings are relevant because they may
apply to field workers/street-level bureaucrats in watershed management applying similar
practices in different watersheds.
Street-level bureaucrats are constrained by their limited resources, as well as their
mandate (Winter, 2003). These constraints force them to prioritize which policies to
implement or on which targets to focus implementation efforts. Often, these targets are
delineated into separate groups by the bureaucrat, favoring strong over weaker parties
(Winter, 2003). In some cases, street-level bureaucrats attempt to gain control over a
policy target to simplify their own work (Winter, 2003). This is the inverse of how the
policy target, street-level bureaucrat relationship should work. Ideally these bureaucrats
work to the best interests of the policy and the policy target. Winter (2003) also argues
15
that street-level bureaucrats can develop “cynical perceptions” of policy targets and may
modify the policy objectives. This type of behavior may drastically undermine any
implementation effort. This is relevant to this thesis research because the Blanchard
River Watershed has employed two personnel to serve as field workers.
Bottom-up approaches typically start by deciding the goals they hope to achieve.
Goal formulation may involve identifying policy targets, who are often involved in the
bottom-up approach from the onset. This technique of identifying policy targets follows
Elmore’s (1982) backward mapping strategy. In his later work, Elmore (1985)
recognized that in the backward mapping strategy policy makers need to consider what
incentivizes the group targeted by a particular policy. He then stressed the importance of
street-level bureaucrats in reaching this group (Winter, 2003; Elmore, 1985). Koontz and
Newig (2014) found that understanding how to affect the behavior of the policy target is
the greatest challenge for implementers in bottom-up approaches.
Overall, prior literature suggests that policy implementation is a function of a
policy defining its intention and scope as well as use of a suitable policy tool. These
studies focus mostly on regulatory policy, so it is not clear if the important variables will
also be key factors in explaining implementation of recommendations in collaborative
watershed action plans. This research investigates this question by, first, analyzing
WAPs to categorize the recommendations, and second, examining how many and which
types of recommendations are completed. The subsequent chapter investigates the
factors perceived as having influencing the implementation of WAP recommendations.
16
Methodology
Implementation theory and policy design theory suggest numerous elements
important to understanding the likelihood of policy implementation. To examine
elements of best management practices included in the WAPs, and the degree to which
the BMPs have been implemented, this research draws on case study data. Case study
methodology is ideal for complex situations and allows for the researcher to develop
explanations regarding how outcomes are impacted by local conditions (Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003; Koontz & Newig, 2014). However, analyzing case study
data is difficult because case study researchers must cope with huge volumes of data.
This thesis research draws on watershed action plans (WAPs), which are dense,
scientifically grounded documents that are several hundreds of pages in length. To
address this abundance of data, researchers often create detailed outlines or notes for each
object of study. “These are often simply pure descriptions, but they are central to the
generation of insight because they help researchers cope early in the analysis process
with the often enormous volumes of data” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p.540). Gersick (1988) and
Pettigrew (1988) also stress the importance of these simple, pure descriptions. Eisenhardt
(1989) considers analyzing case study data perhaps the least codified type of social
science research, meaning many techniques can be used to analyze the data.
One technique used by researchers is cross-case comparison. Cross-case
comparison helps account for limited data, vividness of one piece of data, or drawing
false conclusions based on researcher bias (Eisenhardt, 1989). In cross-case analysis
17
researchers go beyond first impressions to create a more robust theory of the findings, as
well as understand complex phenomena where multiple factors may be important
(Eisenhardt, 1989; George & Bennett, 2005). Also, when patterns identified in one data
source are confirmed by another, the finding is stronger than if no data corroboration had
occurred (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). This research analysis includes both withincase and cross-case pattern searching. With exposure and analysis of multiple data
sources, researchers can mitigate problems due to limited availability of data.
Within each case, the researcher gathered data from a variety of sources,
including document analysis and interviews. Document analysis allows the researcher to
use data drawn from documents to inform questions that need to be observed to address
the research questions of this thesis research (Bowen, 2009). Other scholars have used
document analysis to help generate new interview questions (Goldstein & Reiboldt,
2004) and measure collaborative plan quality (Koontz, 2003). The critical documents
used in this thesis research were watershed action plans (WAPs). The researcher
analyzed three WAPs, as described below. The WAPs ranged from 350 to 846 pages in
length.
For this thesis research the researcher used document analysis to analyze the
endorsed watershed action plans (WAPs). Document analysis was the preferred method
because of its various strengths that include: (1) efficiency, because cases are selected
rather than collected (use of all WAPs in Ohio), (2) the exactness of the documents,
which include names of participants, dates and details of events (Bowen, 2009), and (3)
documents provide a broad range of information spanning multiple years. Document
18
analysis typically requires three steps, skimming the document (first pass, quick reading
of the content), thorough reading of the document, and interpretation. This process
combines content analysis with thematic analysis (Bowen, 2009). Content analysis is a
process of organizing information into categories to address the research questions of a
study, whereas thematic analysis is pattern recognition within data (Bowen, 2009). In
thematic analysis themes that emerge from the data are used in analysis. Only one of the
categories that was organized by the researcher required coding. The WAP documents
specifically listed categories identified as part of an effective policy as identified by
public policy literature, except identifying the policy. The researcher chose three simply
policy tools to code the BMP recommendations. These policy tools were incentive,
sermon, and regulation and the coding rationale can be found in Table 1.3.
Prior research suggests that most watershed groups take at least three years to
generate substantial project success (Leach & Sabatier, 2005). The WAPs included in
this chapter were completed between 2006 and 2013. Since collaborative groups by
definition include diverse stakeholders with different perspectives, it takes time to
develop trust that allows the group to move forward. In addition, the early phase of
group development often involves deliberation about the group’s mission, goals,
strategies, activities, decision structures, and membership development (Bonnell &
19
Code
Incentive
Item(s)
-Establish riparian buffers /
buffer strips
-Increase conservation
tillage practices
-Establish filter strips
-Increase cover crop usage
Rationale
These items utilize costshare funding, which gives
policy targets a financial
incentive to do the BMP
Sermon
-Habitat restoration /
preserve habitat / preserve
wetlands
-Identify areas and install
controlled drainage systems
-Develop nutrient
management plans
These items involve
attempting to change policy
target behavior by
educating and raising
awareness, without
incentives or regulations
Regulation
-Repair/replace failing
These items are required by
HSTS
state or federal regulations
Table 1.3 Policy tool coding used for categorizing WAP recommendation variables
20
Koontz, 2007). After these matters are resolved the group can focus more of its efforts
on designing and implementing projects.
Watershed Groups Involved with the WAPs
The case selection approach used in this project ensured that each of the
watershed groups involved with WAPs within our study areas had functioned for longer
than three years. One collaborative watershed group derived from the Toledo
Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) is the Portage River Basin
Council (PRBC). As the name implies, the PRBC’s efforts are focused on the Portage
River watershed and the group has been organized since 1994 (Portage River Basin
Council, 2014). The Blanchard River Watershed Partnership (BRWP) is the
collaborative watershed group serving the Blanchard River watershed area and has been
in existence since 2002 (Blanchard River Watershed Partnership, 2014).
Participation in these groups (TMACOG, PRBC, and BRWP) involved diverse
stakeholders. The Portage River groups list participation of local government, non-profit
groups, and citizens. For local government agencies it lists participants from SWCDs,
Wood and Ottawa County engineers, Wood and Ottawa county health departments, and
trustees from Lucas and Wood County. The non-profit groups listed include The Black
Swamp Conservancy and Bowling Green State University. The Portage River groups list
two members as non-affiliated citizens. The Blanchard River group the BRWP was the
driver for two plans – 1) the Outlet/Lye Creek and 2) the Riley Creek WAPs. This group
lists participation from local governmental agencies that include SWCDs, Hancock
21
County Engineers, Hancock, Wyandot, Allen, and Putnam County health departments,
and Seneca County commissioners. For non-profit groups the Blanchard River group
included the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the University of Findlay, and Owens
College. No citizens were listed without affiliation with a group. While these are not
exhaustive lists of all the local governmental, non-profit group, and citizen participation
with WAP development, they do serve the purpose of illuminating many of the
participants. Group participation is relevant for this thesis research because it helped
identify candidates for interviews.
WAP Content Outlines
To gain a complete understanding of what is encompassed by these documents,
the researcher outlined many aspects of the WAPs using the three steps of document
analysis. The researcher first skimmed the WAPs to identify variables that were
important to the development of this thesis research’s research questions, which included:
time frame of the planning process, the plan focus, the degree of collaboration in plan
formulation, key stakeholders, scientific information used to create the WAP, physical
landscape/land use, resources available, and best management practices (BMPs)
recommended. This was a necessary first step due to the large volume of data contained
within the WAPs.
Following this initial review of the WAP, the researcher followed step two in the
document analysis process and carefully read through each document. The researcher
examined the WAPs and located each included best management practice (BMP)
22
recommendation. Following procedures for content analysis (Bowen, 2009; Bos &
Tarnai, 1999), which involves organizing information into categories to answer the
research questions, the researcher created categories for WAP BMP recommendations.
Bos and Tarnai (1999) call this procedure quantifying content analysis. Each time a
BMP was listed in one of the three plans (Outlet/Lye Creek, Riley Creek, and Portage
River) it was placed into a spreadsheet. The BMPs were then delineated further,
combining BMPs with very similar recommendations for the same objective. This
follows a content analysis technique that combines smaller, similar categories together to
have fewer subcategories of coded items (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). An example of this
includes the multiple means by which plans recommend habitat construction,
improvement, or preservations (including habitat alteration, increase habitat, increase
wetlands, and preserving habitat). All of these BMPs were placed into a more
generalized category: Habitat Restoration/ Preserve Habitat/ Preserve Wetlands.
To turn the recommendations in the plan into a BMP, it had to be actionable. The
combined list of BMPs was given actionable verbage to demonstrate the necessary act
needed to implement the practice. Most of these actionable verbs were listed in the
WAPs with the BMP recommendation, however not every BMP had an actionable verb.
In circumstances where an actionable verb was not paired with a recommendation in any
of the plans, the researcher chose a verb to describe that action. For example, education
outreach was a recommendation used among the plans that was not paired with a verb.
The researcher added the verb ‘conduct’ to allow the recommendation listed in the WAPs
to be an actionable practice. Other actionable verbs that were included in WAPs and
23
paired with a recommendation include: ‘establish’, ‘increase’, ‘develop’, ‘repair’ and
‘install’. These verbs tell both the specified policy implementers and the policy targets
what action to take with each BMP. This is important because if a recommendation does
not have an actionable verb it does not tell implementers or targets which action to take.
Although, only a few BMPs had an actionable verb added by the researcher, it is
important to note that there is a chance the added verbage may inappropriately modify the
action of the recommendation. To account for this inappropriate modification of BMP
action the researcher used verbage that was less specific on the action taken. For
example, the recommendation educational outreach had the verb conduct added to it.
With this added verb it makes the recommendation actionable, however the verb conduct
does not specify the exact action to take. If a WAP just listed buffer strips as a
recommendation, implementers and policy targets would not be directed on what action
to take: install, mow the strip, expand the strip, plant shrubs within the strip, and so forth.
Compiling and specifying the list of BMPs provided a means to answer the first research
question, what kinds of recommendations exist in the plans?
This approach to categorizing and organizing data closely followed the
conventional content analysis approach. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) consider this
approach most appropriate when research or existing theory is limited (p.4). This is the
true with implementation of WAPs. Like Bowen (2009), Hsieh and Shannon (2005)
describe conventional content analysis as reviewing a document several times to gain a
complete understanding of the information it contains. After initial analysis, as stated
previously, Hsieh and Shannon (2005) suggest coding of variables from the document
24
followed by sorting into categories. The researcher followed this technique by coding
variables contained in the WAP. Information that was directly listed in the WAP and
subsequently became categories include: the recommendation or BMP, the amount to be
implemented (e.g., 1000 acres), geographic area, specified policy implementer, funding
source, and timeline. One category of the spreadsheet that was not directly listed in the
WAPs was the policy tool. These tools were coded by the researcher and can be found in
Table 1.3.
The BMP Spreadsheet
To examine the data contained in the WAPs and to answer the research question:
what BMP recommendations exist within the plans?, a detailed, but simple to use tool
was needed. The study used a spreadsheet for each specific WAP. Three plans were
analyzed and incorporated into this spreadsheet the Portage River, Outlet/Lye, and Riley
Creek WAPs. To develop these spreadsheets the researcher analyzed each of the three
WAPs page by page identifying any instance where a BMP was listed. After a
comprehensive list was developed, BMPs without any specificity were dropped (for
example, when a document mentioned that cover crops were a good idea). Without
including information about specific geographic area, implementer, target, timeline or
funding source, these BMPs would tell little of what was being implemented. Next the
researcher removed duplicate entries of specific BMPs. Often in the plans the same BMP
recommendation was listed twice, once in a more elaborate, detailed format, and once in
a spreadsheet contained within the document. After removing the duplicates the
25
researcher compiled the BMP recommendations of each WAP into a separate
spreadsheet. This allowed for comparison across the different WAPs. This is relevant to
see if one WAP is developing different recommendations or greater frequencies of one
BMP recommendation over another. On the spreadsheet, the row headings were
designated as each BMP with its actionable verb, and the column headings were a
combination of policy implementation factors identified in the literature review and WAP
features identified in the detailed outlines of the plans. These column headings include
the amount of implementation for a BMP specified by the WAP (e.g., 500 acres of cover
crop), the policy type, geographic area, the policy target, the specified policy
implementer, if the BMP recommendation is an on-the-ground action, funding sources
for implementation, timeline for implementation, the specific county within which the
watershed is located, and the degree to which the BMP was completed (estimated
percentage of the amount, all of it, or none of it). These variables were identified as
important in the policy literature review. The spreadsheets were completed and
subsequently emailed to watershed coordinators of each watershed who were the most
knowledgeable about the degree of recommendation completion. Only two coordinators
responded to my inquiry about the completion of WAP, which limits the conclusions that
can be drawn about BMP recommendation completion.
26
Stakeholder Interviews
To increase the robustness of the information distilled from the WAP document,
the investigator conducted phone interviews with the main stakeholders identified in the
detailed plan outlines. The interviews followed the general interview guide approach
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003) or a semi-structured approach (Yin, 2003). This interview
process incorporates an interview guide for questioning while allowing for the researcher
to ask follow-up or probing questions based on the participants response (Gall, Gall, &
Borg, 2003; Turner, 2010; Yin, 2003; Mason, 2003). This helps “ensure the same
general areas of information are collected” (McNamara, 2009, p.1) from each participant,
while still allowing for additional information to be gathered from follow-up or probing
questions.
Interviews serve as a critical complement to documents, as they allow the
researcher to directly ask interviewees about processes and outcomes pertaining to their
experiences (Tuner, 2010; Yin, 2003). Interview data were used to understand which
types of BMPs have been most implemented. For this portion of the study, the researcher
conducted fourteen interviews by telephone. Each of the four watersheds had at least 2
interview participants, with participants including watershed coordinators, SWCD
officials, and citizen stakeholders. Interviews were completed using a semi-structured
interview guide and typically lasted 30 to 60 minutes each (instrument available in
Appendix B). Semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to ask follow-up questions
that may yield information that would be missed by the pre-constructed interview
questions (Tuner, 2010; Yin, 2003).
27
The interviews followed a snowball sampling technique, in which interviewees
suggest future participants to the study (Rowland & Flint, 2001). The interviews were
conducted in two rounds. Watershed coordinators served as the initial contact in the first
round of interviews because of their knowledge of the WAPs. This participant selection
follows criterion based sampling, which selects a sample based on certain criteria (being
the watershed coordinator) (Creswell, 2012). Through this round of interviews factors
that were perceived to be influential for implementation were developed for use in the
second round of interviews. These factors were developed for use with subsequent
interviewees to gauge their perceived importance of factors influencing implementation.
Notes from the interviews were initially written and transcribed into typed
documents immediately following the interview. This ensured that the notes taken during
the interview were accurate and captured the ideas expressed by the interviewee, rather
than relying on the researcher’s memory to recall the information that was gathered
(McNamara, 2009). Follow up with the participants was conducted through phone or
email as needed for verification or clarification. To ensure confidentiality of participants,
each respondent is cited using a designated identification number (for example, Int. OH-9
represents the ninth interviewee for Ohio). For a list of participant affiliations see Table
1.4.
28
Frequency by Plan
3
WAP
Outlet/Lye Creek
2
Riley Creek
9
Portage River
14
Total Interviews
Affiliation
2 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
1 Government employee
1 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
1 Citizen
4 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
4 Government employee
1 Citizen
8 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
6 Government employee
2 Citizen
Table 1.4 Interviews by WAP and organization affiliation
29
The interviews focused on factors that are perceived to influence implementation
of BMP recommendations listed in the WAPs. These factors of importance included
funding, willing landowner (policy target), and dedicated leader; which is often the
specific policy implementer. These interviews were conducted after the initial plan
review, but before the review of policy literature, as a way to inductively identify patterns
in the data that were subsequently checked against prior theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
This is of interest because many of the factors outlined as being important to
implementation of BMPs in the policy literature arose through these semi-structured
interviews before the review of the policy literature. The analysis of both the spreadsheet
and interviews helped gauge why and how implementation is occurring. It also
highlighted indicators of why certain proportions of BMP recommendations may be
implemented more than others.
Analyzing Across Data Types
Through examination of the factors affecting implementation of recommendations
derived from public policy literature, an understanding can be constructed as to why
certain BMPs are implemented and why some are not. This is important for future design
of WAPs because it will show which factors are influencing BMP implementation. The
different aspects of policy implementation include the policy intention, the scope of the
policy, and the policy tool used. Included within the scope of the policy is specificity.
Specificity can be further deconstructed to geographic location, amount WAP suggests to
30
implement, funding for implementation, the person(s) accountable to implement a BMP
(on the ground and through policy) and timeline.
The remaining WAPs listed BMPs throughout the document; however most of
these were addressed generally and not tied to a specific geographic location, amount,
implementer, etc. The study did not include these BMPs because the researcher could not
ascertain completion. Leaving these out reduces the problem of invalid measures, as
recording of BMP progress or completion for a geographically specific BMP could be
counted as progress or completion of general BMP listing. For example, cover crops
implemented in the Below Potato Run area of the Outlet/Lye Creek watershed might be
recorded as in-progress or completed for the general references of cover crop
implementation listed in the WAP, skewing analysis because greater progress or
completion would be recorded than was actually occurring.
Results
Agriculturally Focused BMPs
In total, 223 geographically-specific BMP recommendations were found across
the three WAPs. The Outlet/Lye Creek WAP had 48 recommendations, the Riley Creek
WAP had 45 recommendations, and Portage River WAP had 130 recommendations. The
Maumee River Watershed has an average agricultural land usage of 81.4%, which is
highly correlated with the percentage of agriculturally related BMPs. Agricultural BMPs
account for 86.5% of recommendations contained in the WAPs. Each WAP has differing
amounts of agricultural BMPs. The Outlet/Lye Creek WAP has 93.8%, the Riley Creek
31
WAP has 80%, and Portage River WAP has 86.1% agricultural BMPs. A summary of
these findings can be found in Table 1.5.
32
WAPs
Ag BMPs
BMPs
%
Outlet/Lye Creek
45
48
93.8
Riley Creek
36
45
80.0
Portage River
112
130
86.1
Totals (N = 223)
193
223
86.5
Table 1.5 Agricultural Focused Best Management Practices (BMP) by Watershed Action
Plans (WAP)
33
Descriptions of Best Management Practices
Whereas methods of practice and implementation of the various BMPs may
differ, their objective is the same: to address water quality impairments. Descriptions of
each of the BMPs recommended for specific geographic areas of the Outlet/Lye Creek,
Riley Creek, and Portage River WAPs aid in determining why some recommendations
are implemented more often than others. Short descriptions of these practices are as
follows:
Conservation Tillage: This BMP requires leaving crop residue on the surface before and
during planting, which protects topsoil and reduces erosion. This includes no-till
practices as well.
Cover Crops: Cover crops are non-cereal crops that are not harvested and used to absorb
nutrients and prevent erosion (Chesapeake Research Consortium, 2003).
Nutrient Management Plans: These plans aim to address crop nutrient requirements,
while protecting water bodies from runoff (Chesapeake Research Consortium, 2003).
Specifics include managing the sources, rates, forms, timing, placements and utilization
of manure, other organic by-products, bio-solids, and other nutrients in the soil and
residues.
Two-stage Ditches: These are designed to prevent stream bank erosion and create a
natural channel for water to flow. This design uses a wider bottom area and helps reduce
maintenance and provide adequate drainage (Lower Maumee WAP, 2006).
34
Filter Strips: Filter strips prevent nutrient and sediment runoff into streams by trapping
them in a vegetative strip. This is most commonly a grass strip of land between an
agricultural field and a stream or other waterbody (Lower Maumee WAP, 2006).
Riparian Buffers: Similar to filter strips but provide habitat. Habitat along streams
promotes additional wildlife, particularly aquatic wildlife (Lower Maumee WAP, 2006).
Grass Waterways: Grass waterways are a strip of grass that can be placed within or
between agricultural fields, as well as adjoining a stream bank. They are designed to
channel the flow of water through the grass waterway to prevent erosion from
agricultural fields and tend to be broad and shallow (Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, 2014).
Controlled Drainage: There are several means to control drainage of agricultural fields,
however drainage tiles are the most frequently used method. These tiles allow
agricultural fields to drain and are a source of nitrates used in agriculture, while also
preventing the nitrates from draining into a stream or other waterbody (Lower Maumee
WAP, 2006).
Habitat Restoration/Preservation: This is a more generalized BMP referring to
preserving or restoring habitat for plants and animals.
CRP/CREP: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) are voluntary programs for landowners. These allow the
landowner to receive payments for land placed into a long-term conservation practice.
CREP provides extra incentives to landowners who install long-term conservation along
the Lake Erie basin (Lower Maumee WAP, 2006).
35
Educational Outreach: Educational outreach is an effort made by any party to educate
farmers or landowners on better agricultural practices they could implement.
Policy Tool Usage
The policy tools used by each WAP fall into three categories: incentive, sermon,
and regulation. Incentive is defined as a financial incentive. This tool was determined by
the availability of multiple funding sources and a cost-sharing listed as the means to
incentivize implementation. The sermon policy tool is defined as a recommendation to
encourage different land use practice through education and information. Regulation, a
recommendation to compel behavior change through penalties for non-compliance, is not
used for any of the agricultural BMPs, but is listed for one BMP in the WAPs: Repair
and Replace Failing Home Septic Treatment Systems (HSTS), and is identified by county
health departments and boards of health being listed as the implementer.
The most widely used policy tool within each plan is incentive. The incentive
tool accounts for 62.5% (30/48) of recommendations in the Outlet/Lye Creek plan, 57.7%
(26/45) in the Riley Creek plan, and 85.3% (111/130) in the Portage River plan. Overall
74.8% (167/223) of the recommended BMPs are of the incentive policy tool type. These
recommendations include establish riparian buffers / buffer strips, increase conservation
tillage practices, establish filter strips, increase cover crop usage, and install grass
waterways, all with financial incentives attached. The Portage River plan also lists the
BMPs: Habitat restoration and preservation, identify areas and install controlled
36
drainage systems, and develop nutrient management plans as incentives, recommending
that those who implement such BMPs should receive a monetary incentive for adoption.
The sermon tool is used far less frequently. Sermon is represented in the
following BMPs common to all three cases: Install 2-stage ditches, conduct education
outreach, and adopt and implement new agricultural technologies. Differences were
evident across cases in the frequency of the use of sermons. The Outlet/Lye Creek and
Riley Creek plans use sermon for the BMPs: Habitat restoration and preservation,
identify areas and install controlled drainage systems, and develop nutrient management
plans, recommending these be done but not incentivizing such actions. The total use of
the sermon policy tool across the plans is 15.2% (34/223). Setting aside the nonuniversal sermon usage for the specific BMPs across the three plans (habitat restoration
and preservation, identify areas and install controlled drainage systems, and develop
nutrient management plans), there would only be 3.1% (7/223) sermon policy tool use
for the same BMPs across the three plans.
Regulation is the least used tool in each plan. This policy tool accounts for 4.1%
(2/48) of recommendations in the Outlet/Lye Creek plan, 8.8% (4/45) in the Riley Creek
plan, and 12.3% (16/130) in the Portage River plan. The overall use of regulation is only
9.8% (22/223) of recommendations. The only BMP that uses this policy tool is: Repair
and replace failing home septic treatment systems (HSTS). This is the most frequent of
the non-agricultural BMPs and it is more widely used in the Portage River WAP than the
Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans combined. A summary of these findings can be
found in Figure 1.2.
37
Each county included in the thesis research has its own regulations for the
recommendation: repair and replace failing HSTS. When asked if HSTS implementation
was occurring due to the WAP, one Health Department employee stated it was occurring
as a result of state requirements (Int. OH-5). Another policy implementer mentioned that
most grants prohibit HSTS improvement and that a former cost-share program that
allowed for people with limited financial resources to get new septic systems for free is
no longer available (Int. OH-17). Incentives are not used for these reasons.
38
Policy Tool Usage Across the Plans
10%
15%
75%
Incentive
Sermon
Regulation
Figure 1.2 Summarizes the Findings of Policy Tool Usage
39
Funding Sources for Recommendations
As described above, good policy design includes specific resources of funding to
conduct recommended action (May, 2003). Funding for BMP recommendations is
commonly listed across all of the WAPs with identified funding sources listed regardless
of the policy tool used. The Outlet/Lye Creek plan lists a funding source for 77% (37/48)
of its BMP recommendations, Riley Creek for 88.8% (40/45) of recommendations, and
Portage River for 85.3% (111/130) of its recommendations. In total, funding sources are
listed for 84.3% (188/223) of the BMP recommendations. The funding sources included
in the WAP are: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
funding, funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), local support, and cost sharing in general. EQIP funding
is provided through the NRCS to support financial and technical assistance to agricultural
producers (NRCS 2014). Section 319 funding is centered on nonpoint source pollution
and is associated with grants to fund watershed coordinator positions in Ohio. Cost-share
programs split costs of financial, technical, and education assistance between an
organization and an agricultural producer (North Carolina Association of SWCDs 2014).
40
Funding Sources Across the Plans
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EQIP
CRP/CREP
Section 319
Not Listed
Figure 1.3 Summarizes the Findings of Funding Sources for Recommendations
41
Of the funding types listed, cost-sharing was most common. In the Outlet/Lye
Creek plan, cost-share funding is listed for 62.5% (30/48) of all its BMP
recommendations, Riley Creek for 57.7% (26/45) of recommendations, and Portage
River for 85.3% (111/130) of its recommendations. In total, cost-share funding is listed
in 74.8% (167/223) of the recommendations in the WAPs. Cost-share funding does not
specify who will be cost-sharing with the landowner or farmer, in either the Outlet/Lye
Creek plan or the Riley Creek plan. Cost-share funding is the only funding source listed
in the Portage River plan. The Portage River plan does list a specific organization, the
federal Natural Resources Conservation Service, that will participate in 12.3% (16/130)
of its total cost-share funding recommendations, for one type of BMP, Develop nutrient
management plan.
The Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans list multiple funding sources for
many of their BMP recommendations. The funding sources that are grouped together are
EQIP, CRP, CREP, and cost-share. These are listed together for the BMPs: Establish
riparian buffers / buffer strips, increase conservation tillage practices, establish filter
strips, increase cover crop usage, and install grass waterways. The only instance where
these funding sources are not all listed is for the BMP Reduce stream bank erosion,
which specifies only EQIP and cost-share funding. However, this BMP is only listed
once out of the 223 recommendations. EQIP is listed as a stand-alone funding source in
four instances and each time it is for the BMP recommendation: Identify areas and install
controlled drainage systems. The total use of EQIP as a funding source across all three
plans is 26.9% (60/223) and its use for the Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans is
42
64.5% (60/93). The total use of CRP/CREP as a funding source across all three plans is
24.6% (55/223) and its use for the Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans is 59.1%
(55/93).
Section 319 as a funding source was only listed in six instances accounting for
only 2.6% of the funding source recommendations. This funding source was used with
the BMP recommendation: Repair and replace failing home septic treatment systems
(HSTS). The final funding source listed in the WAPs was local support. The funding
source is exclusive to the Riley Creek plan. This recommended funding source is listed
in ten instances or 22.2% (10/45) of Riley Creek’s WAP funding sources. This funding
source covers the BMPs: increase participation in CRP/CREP and conduct educational
outreach. It does not specify who will be providing the local support similar to the
funding recommendation of cost-share. A summary of these findings can be found in
Figure 1.3.
Specified Policy Implementers
Each of the three WAPs lists specified policy implementers for each of the BMP
recommendations. These are often local governmental organizations that will take the
lead in pursuing implementation with a policy target. The most common specified policy
implementer across the three is Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs).
SWCDs provide educational and technical assistance to landowners in the counties they
serve and work with landowners and the agricultural community to implement
conservation practices (Lower Maumee WAP, 2006). SWCDs account for 87.4%
43
(195/223) of the specified implementers listed in WAP BMP recommendations. In the
Outlet/Lye Creek plan, SWCDs are listed as the specified policy implementer for 83.3%
(40/48) of its BMP recommendations, Riley Creek for 91.1% (41/45) of
recommendations, and Portage River for 87.6% (114/130) of its recommendations.
Watersheds are cross-jurisdictional often spanning different, municipalities, countries,
states, and other political boundaries. This means that they also may span different
SWCDs. Multiple county SWCDs are listed as the specified policy implementer in over
half of the total BMP recommendations with 53.8% (120/223). There is a great
discrepancy between the plans however on having multiple counties’ SWCDs listed as
the specified policy implementers. In the Riley Creek plan nearly all of its BMP
recommendations (88.8%) specify multiple SWCDs will be responsible. In the
Outlet/Lye Creek plan however, there are no instances where more than one SWCD is
listed as the specified policy implementers. Lastly, the Portage River plan has 61.5%
(80/130) of its BMP recommendations with two SWCDs as specified policy
implementers. Multiple SWCDs listings in the WAPs correspond to the location of the
watershed boundaries: 42.1% of the Riley Creek watershed is in Hancock County and
38.2% is located in Allen County. On the other hand, nearly the entire Outlet/Lye Creek
watershed (79.5%) lies within Hancock County. In Portage River watershed, 48.9% lies
in Wood County and 27.8% lies in Ottawa County.
SWCDs are responsible for all of the agriculturally designed BMPs across the
three plans. Repair and replace failing home septic treatment systems (HSTS), a nonagricultural BMP, is the primary BMP not covered by local SWCDs (The Outlet/Lye
44
Creek plan also lists: Conduct educational Outreach and habitat restoration and
preservation with SWCDs not being the specified policy implementer). The BMP:
repair and replace failing HSTS in all the BMP recommendations across the plans list
county health departments or boards of health as the specified policy implementer. In the
Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans the county engineer was also listed as a specified
policy implementer. The Portage River plan however, lists the OEPA (Ohio EPA) as the
policy implementer in each of its HSTS recommendations.
SWCDs are the most frequently listed implementers, but the WAPs also contain
many other policy implementers such as: the NRCS, Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF), state universities, Ohio State University Extension, ODNR, OEPA, and the local
watershed group. The second most cited implementer across the three plans is the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS is a department housed
under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that provides technical, educational,
and financial support to conservation practices. The NRCS is a specified policy
implementer in 82% (183/223) of the BMP recommendations. In the Outlet/Lye Creek
plan the NRCS is the implementer in 62.5% (30/48) of BMP recommendations, Riley
Creek for 91.1% (41/45) of recommendations, and Portage River for 86.1% (112/130) of
recommendations.
Other governmental agencies that are not as prevalent as implementers are: the
ODNR and the OEPA. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is listed in
nearly one third (32.7% or 73/223) of BMP recommendations as an implementer. The
ODNR is grouped with the SWCDs, the NRCS, and the EDF for nearly all the
45
recommendations, with 86.4% (70/81) in which all of these implementers are listed
together. The focus for the ODNR is agricultural BMPs. The Portage River plan lists the
ODNR as sole implementer for 1.5% (2/130) of its recommendations. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is a specified policy implementer in 7.6%
(17/223) of all BMP recommendations across the three plans, all of which occur in the
Portage River plan. The OEPA is specified as an implementer for the BMPs: Repair and
replace HSTS and conduct educational outreach.
46
Specified Policy Implementers Listings in the WAPs
250
200
150
100
50
0
Single
SWCD
Multiple
SWCDs
NRCS
ODNR
OEPA
EDF
Watershed
Group
Figure 1.4 Summarizes the Findings of Specified Policy Implementers (Single SWCD
and Multiple SWCDs are not mutually exclusive)
47
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a non-profit, environmental advocacy
group that works to “preserve the natural systems on which all life depends” (EDF,
2014). This is unique among specified policy implementers because it is by far the most
extensively listed non-profit agency. While only being listed as an implementer in the
Outlet/Lye Creek plan and Riley Creek plan; the EDF, as a specified policy implementer,
is listed for 34% (76/223) of all BMP recommendations across the three WAPs. The
EDF is listed as a drafting and funding partner in both of these plans. It is listed as first
among the collaborative group of organizations in the ‘Preface’ section of Outlet/Lye
Creek plan and first in the ‘Special Thanks’ section of the Riley Creek plan, indicating
significant contributions to the WAP through funding or technical support. The EDF is
also specific to agricultural BMPs. In the Outlet/Lye Creek plan the EDF is also listed as
an implementer for install 2-stage ditches and habitat restoration and preservation.
One of the primary drivers of plan creation is local watershed groups. These
groups are also listed as policy implementers in the WAPs. These groups are specified as
policy implementers in 15.6% (35/223) of BMP recommendations. The Outlet/Lye
Creek and Riley Creek plan’s local watershed group is the Blanchard River Water
Partnership (BRWP), and it is specified in 17.2% (16/93) of recommendations: 22.9%
(11/48) for the Outlet/Lye plan and 11.1% (5/45) for the Riley Creek plan. The Portage
River plan is supported by the environmental division of the Toledo Metropolitan Area
Council of Governments (TMACOG), titled the Portage River Basin Council (PRBP).
This watershed group is listed as a policy implementer in 14.6% (19/130) of
recommendations from the Portage River plan. The Portage River plan lists the PRBC
48
only once out of the 130 BMP recommendations and lists TMACOG as the implementer
in 18 recommendations.
The recording of implementation progress and completion is necessary to answer
this thesis research’s second research question: What proportion of listed
recommendations have been conducted? SWCDs account for 87.4% (195/223) of the
specified implementers and multiple county SWCDs are listed as the specified policy
implementers in over half of the BMP recommendations with 53.8% (120/223). This can
be explained by the majority of the land (79.5%) in the watershed residing in Hancock
County. Also, Hancock County SWCD plays a very active role in plan implementation
(Int. OH-1). The data supporting SWCD responsibilities is corroborated by interviewees
who view SWCDs as not only the lead implementers of BMPs, but also responsible for
funding and recording of progress and completion data (Int. OH-1, Int. OH-3, Int. OH-9,
Int. OH-10, Int. OH-11, Int. OH-14, Int. OH-15, Int. OH-16). However, some
respondents viewed SWCD’s as “an educational service” (Int. OH-8, Int. OH-14).
SWCDs are often cited with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
indicating these two organizations collaborate on implementation. The NRCS is listed in
82% (183/223) of all BMP recommendations and listed jointly with SWCDs in 93.8%
(183/195) of BMP recommendations across the three plans. The prevalence of the NRCS
as a policy implementer can be attributed to the funding programs it offers, chiefly the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP is listed as a funding source
for 26.9% (60/223) of the total recommendations and 64.5% (60/93) of the
recommendations from the Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans. The Portage River
49
plan does not list EQIP as a funding source, although it does list NRCS as a funding
source for a single BMP: Develop nutrient management plans. This discrepancy found in
Portage River plan is most likely attributed to the way in which the plan was authored.
The Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek WAPs were authored by the same
individual and the Portage River WAP, by a different individual. This distinction
accounts for many of the discrepancies among the WAPs discussed in the analysis of
BMP recommendations. One such discrepancy is the listing of the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) as a specified policy implementer. This organization is not listed as
an implementer in the Portage River plan, yet it is listed as an implementer in 72.9%
(35/48) of recommendations in the Outlet/Lye Creek plan and 91.1% (41/45) of
recommendations in the Riley Creek plan. This is also the case for ODNR, which is an
implementer in 76.3% (71/93) of recommendations for the Outlet/Lye Creek plan and
only 1.5% (2/130) of recommendations in the Portage River plan. Another distinction
that is apparent among the plans is the grouping of implementers. The Portage River plan
grouped the policy implementers SWCDs, the NRCS, and farmers together in 85.3%
(111/130) recommendations. The Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans grouped the
policy implementers SWCDs, NRCS, ODNR, and the EDF together in 75.2% (70/93) of
BMP recommendations in their plans.
The Portage River plan is unique among the WAPs analyzed because it lists the
policy target in most BMP recommendations, the farmer, as a policy implementer.
Farmers are listed as an implementer in 85.3% (111/130) of BMP recommendations in
the Portage River plan. This raises an important question for discussion: “How can the
50
same party be the policy target and implementer of a policy?” The Portage River WAP
lists farmers as targets and implementers for BMPS such as develop nutrient management
plans, establish filter strips, and increase conservation tillage practices suggesting that
farmers are expected to seek out funding (cost-share listed in WAP) or technical
assistance and carry out construction required by the recommendation.
Many implementers also have specific groupings aligned with BMP
recommendations, similar to the groupings of funding sources. These specific groupings
are implementers listed repeatedly together for a BMP recommendation. The Portage
River plan grouped SWCDs, the NRCS, and farmers in 111 of its 130 (85.3%)
recommendations. Similarly, in the Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek plans SWCDs, the
NRCS, ODNR, and the EDF are listed together in 75.2% of BMP recommendations
across the two plans. Aside from these specific groupings, multiple implementers were
listed for 99.5% of BMP recommendations (all but one) throughout the three plans. A
summary of these finding can be found in Figure 1.4.
There was only a single recommendation where one implementer was specified;
for the remaining 222 BMP recommendations multiple implementers were listed. This
suggests potential for confusion about who is taking the lead role in implementation, who
is searching for funding for the recommendation, and who will be recording the progress
or completion of the implementation.
51
Policy Targets
One area of WAP BMP recommendations where there is a limited diversity is
with the policy target. The policy target is not always explicitly listed in the WAP, and
is sometimes assumed as ‘farmer’ based on the BMP recommendation itself. An example
of this is the BMP: increase conservation tillage practices. The researcher coded that
this BMP recommendation is for farmers, however, the plans do not always list farmers
as the policy target or list a policy target at all. For the WAPs included in this thesis
research, farmers are the primary policy target, accounting for 74.4% (166/223) of the
policy targets for BMP recommendations and ranging from 81.2% (39/48) of
recommendations for the Outlet/Lye Creek to 88.8% (40/45) in Riley Creek, and 66.9%
(87/130) in the Portage River plan.
The WAPs also target landowners as another policy target for BMP
recommendations. Landowners may also be farmers; however, the distinction in coding
was determined by the plan specifically listing landowners as the policy target. This may
be meaningful in instances where a farmer is a tenant farmer. Tenant farmers pay
landowners to rent the land to use for farming. This distinction is important because it
may be the tenant farmer implementing WAP recommendations rather than a landowner
the recommendation is targeting. Landowners are the policy target in 29.1% (65/223) of
recommendations. The Outlet/Lye Creek plan targets landowners in 8.3% (4/48) of its
recommendations, whereas, the Riley Creek and Portage River plans target landowners in
1/3 of their recommendations, 33.3% (15/45) and 35.3% (46/130) respectively. This may
52
be significant if recommendations are conducted at a varying rate in the Outlet/Lye Creek
WAP. A summary of these findings can be found in Figure 1.5.
The Portage River plan targets farmers (66.9%) less than the other WAPs. This is
primarily because the author of the Portage River WAP suggested more use of the BMPs:
repair and replace failing HSTS, install 2-stage ditches, and habitat restoration and
preservation. All of these BMPs target landowners in the Portage River plan. Habitat
restoration and preservation targets contractors in the Outlet/Lye Creek plan and is not
used in the Riley Creek plan.
53
Policy Targets
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Farmer
Landowner
Figure 1.5 Summarizes the Findings of Policy Targets
54
Other
Landowners were the policy target for non-agricultural BMPs in the Outlet/Lye
Creek plan and the Riley Creek plan. These recommendations include: conduct
educational outreach, repair and replace failing HSTS, habitat restoration and
preservation, increase participation in CRP/CREP. There is one subwatershed in the
Outlet/Lye Creek plan that has landowner as the policy target for the recommendation:
identify areas and install controlled drainage systems. This is an aberration compared to
other recommendations of: identify areas and install controlled drainage systems listed in
this WAP because this recommendation is listed in three other instances with farmer as
the policy target. The Portage River plan also has landowner as the policy target for nonagriculturally specific recommendations that include: conduct educational outreach,
repair and replace failing HSTS, habitat restoration and preservation, and adopt and
implement new agricultural technologies.
Farmers and landowners are both listed together as the policy target in only 6.2%
(14/223) of recommendations. The BMPs that target both these groups are: conduct
educational outreach, increase participation in CRP/CREP, and adopt and implement
new agricultural technologies. Other policy targets that are explicitly listed in the WAPs
are contractors, the city of Findlay (OH), and Hancock County. These are all listed for
non-agricultural BMPs and center around a particular project: habitat restoration and
preservation.
In sum, the specifics of each BMP recommendation may determine how
implementation will occur. These include the geographic location, policy tool, funding
source, specified implementers, and policy target. As described above, trends in these
55
elements include incentives as the most frequent tool type, primary funding sources as
cost-sharing through EQIP or CRP/CREP, SWCDs and NRCS as the most common
implementers, and farmers as the most frequent targets.
Missing Elements: Quantities and Timelines
Not discussed in results and analysis section are two parts of a policy design that
are often integral to implementation; specified amount to be implemented (e.g., 1000
acres of cover crops) and timeline for implementation. These signal the policy
intentions, which are the goals of the policy (May 2003). The specific amount of a BMP
recommendation to be implemented is listed in 91% of the recommendations listed in the
three plans. This specific amount of a recommendation (e.g., 100 acres of cover crop in
location x) is required by the USEPA to access Section 319 funding (U.S. EPA, 2008).
Amount to be implemented was removed from the analysis after discussing the figures
with a primary watershed implementer about how these amounts were derived. This
implementer mentioned that they had spoken to everyone they knew with involvement in
the WAP formulation and creation and that no one had any knowledge on where the
figures listed for amount of BMP implementation came from, and they were not able to
ascertain the reasoning behind the figures (Int. OH-17). The researcher asked the
interviewee if the numbers were derived by taking a proportion of a subwatershed such as
5% of the land area for cover crops a per year equating to the specified amount in the
WAP. The interviewee did not confirm this theory for how the figures for specified
amount to be implemented were created, but suggested it was a plausible idea.
56
According to the same implementer, during the approval process through ODNR and
OEPA no “red flags” were raised concerning these figures. Many span over ten years in
length and do not mention periodic markers for achievement or annual goals. Also, large
gaps in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) surveys (often 10+ years) by the OEPA
prevent watershed managers from having complete and accurate data on the progress
made on addressing water quality impairments.
One problem mentioned by an implementer for timelines is that “people take baby
steps, they try a little bit at a time; a few acres” (Int. OH-16). This adds difficulty in
achieving timeline goals. An example from the Portage River WAP exemplifies this
vagueness. The recommendation is to increase cover crop usage by 1000 acres in the
Needles Creek area of the watershed through the efforts of the Wood County SWCD,
Hancock County SWCD, NRCS and farmers is very specific; however the timeline is a
fourteen-year period, 2013-2027. Also the recommendation does not say which
organization will do what action or how the cost-share funding will be achieved. These
two variables, specified amount to be implemented and timeline for implementation,
were dropped from the analysis because, their conclusions would be based on indicators
that may be inaccurate, unrealistic, or immeasurable.
Implementation of Recommendations
The researcher consulted watershed leaders to understand what implementation is
being conducted. The data for this inquiry is not conclusive. Discussions with these
watershed leaders can offer some sense of what is occurring in these watersheds. From
57
one watershed leader, the researcher learned reasons why implementation data is difficult
to verify, and from another watershed leader, the researcher learned of what
implementation is being conducted. Through the knowledge of these individuals this
thesis research is able to explore challenges in WAP implementation.
Analyzing implementation of recommendations is problematic. Interviewees
described struggles of accurate reporting of the implementation. Reporting of
implementation has many flaws such as general inaccuracy, double reporting, not
knowing what is completed, and lack of reporting in general. If a farmer or landowner
wanted to try a BMP on their own without seeking funding through a local, state, or
federal agency, there is no reporting mechanism in place. Verification also becomes a
concern because as it was stated by one implementer, “We don’t inspect every field” (Int.
OH-17). Watershed leaders often have significant amounts of responsibilities such as
obtaining funding, locating policy targets, and then subsequently getting buy-in for
implementation from the policy target. Multiple agencies are often responsible for
implementation. In the Portage River WAP all the BMP recommendations suggest the
use of multiple agencies, making double reporting a concern for researchers studying
plan implementation.
When asked if they could help verify completion or partial completion of the
BMP recommendations listed in the Portage River WAP, the answer was no (Int. OH17). This implementer offered a series of valid reasons why they could not verify
completion of BMPs. One reason implementation may be hindered is the “excruciatingly
long grant cycle” which often takes over a year for the grant to come to fruition (Int. OH58
17). Besides the long wait for grant money, this implementer had only had 18 months
experience as a watershed coordinator and in that time had to learn to find funding, and
then implement the BMP recommendations. This may have resulted in limited
implementation.
The water quality implementer from the Portage River plan detailed expected
future implementation of recommendations, once the grant funding is received. These
recommendations included: increase cover crop usage, identify areas and install
controlled drainage systems, develop nutrient management plans, and increase
conservations tillage practices. All of these BMP recommendations use the incentive
policy tool and use farmers as the policy target. This implementer also said these BMP
recommendations were being implemented because they were the easiest to implement.
Another insight from this particular Portage River plan implementer was the view
that the WAP is more than a document but is also a tool to leverage funding (Int. OH-17).
Another sentiment mentioned about WAP recommendations is that, “[the WAP] covers
everyone in the watershed; BMPs are for everybody” (Int. OH-16), which would raise
challenges in identifying specific implementers. These views are not necessarily
mutually exclusive.
The analysis of the WAPs and supplemental interview data gives a wealth of
information about what kinds of recommendations exist in the plans; however the second
research question of this thesis research (what proportion of listed recommendations have
been conducted?) is more difficult to ascertain. When speaking with a water quality
implementer from the Portage River WAP, the importance of baselines was emphasized.
59
Baselines are from what point in time implementation is being measured. This
implementer’s baseline was 2008, based on the last TMDL conducted by the OEPA.
This Portage River implementer also mentioned a myriad of BMP implementation that
has occurred but, does not count as implementation because it was done before the
baseline year of 2008. This is important for implementation scholars because adapting or
manipulating a baseline would show more completed implementation than what was
actually done. This is the reason why the Lower Maumee WAP was not included in the
analysis: that plan used a baseline that included many items that had already been
completed.
The implementation data for the Portage River Watershed was sparse; however,
the researcher has some data from the Riley Creek and Outlet/Lye Creek Watersheds. In
2013 there were 196.15 acres of cover crops planted in the Upper Riley Creek
subwatershed as part of Great Lakes Basin Sediment & Nutrient Reduction grant to the
Blanchard River Water Partnership (BRWP). The WAP recommendation lists 100 acres
per year for this subwatershed. According to the watershed coordinator, more acreage
was planned, but the late harvest prevented this from taking place (Int. OH-1). In 2014
and 2015 there are 630.83 acres of cover crops planned to be planted each year. In 2013
there were 682.79 acres of conservation tillage implemented. In 2014 and 2015 there are
693.14 acres of conservation tillage planned to be implemented each year. The Riley
Creek WAP lists 200 acres per year for conservation tillage. These two instances of
implementation both exceed the goals of the WAP. One farmer is interested in installing
60
grass waterways and establishing filter strips and plans to use EQIP to fund the
implementation, which is the funding source specified by the WAP.
Another subwatershed of the Riley Creek Watershed had similar implementation
of WAP recommendations from the same grant. In 2013, the Lower Riley Creek
subwatershed had 417.46 acres of cover crops planted. Like the Upper Riley Creek
subwatershed, more acreage was planned, but the late harvest prevented this from taking
place. In 2014 and 2015 there are 1,232.22 acres of cover crops planned to be planted
each year. The WAP lists 175 acres of cover crops per year for the Lower Riley Creek
subwatershed. In 2013 there were 1,145.43 acres of conservation tillage implemented.
In 2014 and 2015 there are 1,185.53 acres of conservation tillage planned to be
implemented each year. The WAP lists 200 acres of conservation tillage per year for the
Lower Riley Creek subwatershed. In addition, one farmer installed a 0.5 acre grassed
buffer and the WAP lists 6,128 acres for buffer strips and riparian buffers. Both
subwatersheds in the Riley Creek Watershed exceed their recommended amount of
implementation for cover crops and conservation tillage.
The Outlet/Lye Creek WAP also has implementation being conducted. The Lye
Creek subwatershed is restoring a riparian buffer starting in autumn 2014, although the
amount of implementation is unknown. The WAP lists 5,800 acres of buffer strips for
this subwatershed. In 2013, Hancock SWCD implemented 654 acres of cover crops, 22
acres of conservation tillage, 1 acre of grass waterways for the Lye Creek subwatershed.
The WAP lists 200 acres of cover crops per year, 200 acres of conservation tillage per
year, and 5000 linear feet of grass waterways per year. This implementation was funded
61
through a 2012 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant awarded to the Hancock SWCD.
Lastly, in 2012 16 projects to help repair/replace failing HSTS have been completed
through the BRWP and the Hancock County Board of Health. The Outlet/Lye WAP lists
the Hancock County Board of Health as an implementer of HSTS, however the plan does
not list a specific amount of projects to be completed.
Although some implementation can be quantified based on WAP
recommendations, the majority of recommendations cannot. Water quality implementers
across the Western Lake Erie Basin may need to establish and refine reporting procedures
for WAP recommendations if they want to more accurately measure the extent that
recommendations are being conducted.
Discussion
The review of public policy literature created base criteria to compare to
recommendations listed within the WAPs. The majority of the recommendations
included in the WAPs had the three identified aspects of a policy design: a specified
policy intention, a policy scope, and the use of a policy tool. Most of the
recommendations also included characteristics of policy scope including geographic area,
specified amount to be implemented, available funding, and timeline for implementation.
This is surprising considering public policy literature (May, 2003; Winter, 2003) focuses
on regulatory policy such as mandates or statutes, and WAP recommendations are nonregulatory. Thus, WAP recommendations include key elements of good policy design.
62
This finding addresses the first research question of this thesis research (What kinds of
recommendations exist in the plans?)
The WAPs are clear that the intention of their recommendations is to improve
water quality in the watershed and the Western Lake Erie Basin. The review of water
quality impairments in the Western Lake Erie Basin (OEPA, 2013) identifies
phosphorous run-off from agricultural fields as a primary contributor to the algal blooms
in the Western Lake Erie Basin. What is less clear is how effective the BMP
recommendations will be in addressing this nonpoint source pollution. A suggestion for
future research may include identifying what WAP recommendations most efficiently
address nonpoint source pollution. Effectiveness could include various characteristics
including cost, pollution reducing capability, and ease of implementation.
The scope of the WAP recommendations included many of the aspects derived
from public policy literature such as policy implementer, policy target, and funding
source. All of the recommendations were also specific on the geographic location where
implementation was to occur, and a funding source. Because WAP recommendations
contained all of these elements May (2003) would not consider implementation was
failing as a result of policy design. This conclusion that policy design may not be the
factor inhibiting implementation of WAP recommendations contributes to the growing
research surrounding collaborative watershed groups and the documents they produce. It
suggests that where recommendations are not being completed, factors other than the
plan contents may be to blame.
63
Policy tools were also present in WAP recommendations. The incentive tool
policy tool was used in the majority of recommendations listed in the WAPs. According
to May (2003) policies signal desired courses of action indicating that plan implementers
want to incentivize policy targets (farmers and landowners) to change the practices. This
may explain why the incentive policy tool is so extensively used in the region. Incentives
are tied to funding the recommendations and this thesis research identified that there is a
funding source is listed for 84.3% of BMP recommendations. This means that some sort
of funding was listed, or some funder specified. A theme stressed repeatedly by
interviewees was: without funding little or no implementation will occur (Int. OH-1, Int.
OH-3, Int. OH-9, Int. OH-10, Int. OH-12, Int. OH-14, Int. Int. OH-15, OH-16). The
importance of cost-share funding was also stressed by participants. Cost-share funding
was explicitly mentioned as important by a multitude of respondents (Int. OH-3, Int. OH12, Int. OH-13, Int. OH-14, Int. OH-15). Problems arise when only 7.1% (16/223) of the
total recommendations specify who will be doing the cost-share. Also, there is only one
organization, the NRCS, listed as a cost-share funder and the listing is for only one BMP:
Develop nutrient management plans. How can cost-share funding incentivize
implementation if no party is listed to share the cost with the policy target? From a
public policy perspective, it cannot.
This thesis research did not look into the role played by front-line staff or
fieldworkers. Public policy literature has stressed the importance of these people in
influencing bottom-up approaches to implementation. However, some stakeholders who
were interviewed, chiefly SWCD employees or watershed managers, often serve the role
64
of front-line staff. The interviewees displayed no signs of trying to undermine BMP
recommendation as suggested by Winter (2003). This is important for implementation of
WAP BMP because of the emphasis placed on having buy-in from the policy targets.
The Outlet/Lye Creek and Riley Creek watershed group, the Blanchard River Water
Partnership (BRWP), understood the importance of front-line staff and stakeholder buyin, and that is one of the reasons the group hired outreach personnel (Int. OH-1).
The second research question of this thesis research was to determine what
proportions of WAP recommendations are being conducted. Limited data was available
for two of the three WAPs analyzed. The Riley Creek and Outlet/Lye Creek WAPs did
show that cover crops and conservation tillage were being conducted, and at a greater
amount than the WAP recommendation specified. It is unclear why these two
recommendations were implemented in the greatest quantity. One watershed leader
mentioned it was because these recommendations were easier to implement (Int. OH-1).
This thesis research discovered many problems of implementation reporting
process. These can include general inaccuracy, double reporting, or lack of reporting.
Reporting difficulties offers one explanation for limited implementation, it may be
occurring but it is not being properly recorded. Other potential answers of why
implementation is so limited include plan recommendations effect on water quality are
unproven in the region, the plans are all relatively new (approved within the last three
years) and have not had adequate time to refine their funding search methods, or simply
that funds are scarce and often unavailable. Funding may not be as scarce with cover
65
crops and conservations tillage and that is these recommendations are the most
implemented across the three WAPs.
This thesis research raises interesting new questions regarding the components of
BMP recommendations such as: do recommendations follow the best formula for policy
development to promote buy-in for implementation? The contributions made by this
thesis research are important to future water quality implementers because many
researchers have not closely examined BMP recommendations of WAPs. This thesis
research also can inform scholars in the public policy field who may not have applied
their theories to collaborative implementation. Future research in testing public policy
theories for collaboratively developed policies and implementation may help water
quality implementers understand how to better craft their recommendations to foster
adoption.
Conclusions
This thesis research set out to answer two research questions, what kinds of
recommendations exist in the plans? and what proportion of listed recommendations
have been conducted?. Prior literature suggested that policy design is evident in WAP
recommendations but little is known about implementation of WAP recommendations.
This thesis research used document analysis and interviews from people involved in
creating three watershed action plans (Portage River, Outlet/Lye, and Riley Creek) in
Ohio’s Western Lake Erie Basin. Results suggest patterns of plan contents. In particular,
66
most recommendations are of the incentive tool type and target farmers. The most
frequent implementers listed are SWCDs and the NRCS, and funding is identified in over
84.3% of the recommendations, most often EQIP and CRP/CREP. Progress on
implementing the recommendations is hard to evaluate, as many BMPs had unfounded
quantities and unclear timelines. While this makes answering research question 2
difficult, it also suggests policy makers and implementers face challenges in gauging
their effectiveness and making adjustments to improve implementation of WAP
recommendations.
This thesis research was unique in its rigor of WAP analysis of BMP
recommendations but it falls short in answering the question: What proportion of listed
recommendations have been conducted? The water quality implementer from the
Portage River watershed offered many insights on why the data for completion was
unavailable. Other water quality implementers who were contacted had limited data for
the implementation WAP recommendations. Another limitation of this thesis research is
limited sample size of interviews. Fourteen interview participants allows for only
exploratory data to emerge. The interviews were not recorded and only notes were taken
without the participant reviewing and endorsing the researcher’s notes. Also, there is
potential bias and conflicts of interest with interview participants, many of whom are
directly involved in implementation. To reduce potential bias, this thesis research
included data from a range of interviewees. This thesis research also provides limited
insight into determining whether implementation was occurring under the auspices of the
WAP; some activities in the plan may have been conducted without reference to the plan
67
and without letting plan writers know. Fortunately, interviewees were generally
knowledgeable about a variety of agricultural practices in their region, regardless of
whether they were listed in the WAP.
Findings did clearly identify the kind of recommendations that exist in the
reviewed plans It did not look into how effective these BMP recommendations were at
addressing water quality impairments. Future water quality monitoring and TMDL
studies will need to be correlated with BMP implementation to determine if these
mechanisms are addressing water quality impairments. This future research will most
likely be 8-10 years in the future when the OEPA conducts the next TMDL for
watersheds in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Another suggestion for research is whether
the non-regulatory feature of WAPs hinders implementation and accurate recording of
completed projects. Without valid and reliable data on project completion, it will be
difficult to say with any certainty the degree to which collaborative watershed action
plans are effective.
68
Chapter 2: Factors of Best Management Practices which Affect Implementation of
Watershed Action Plan Recommendations
The Western Lake Erie Basin has faced significant water quality challenges over
the years, including highly visible, massive algal blooms making headlines in the region
over the past few years. In 2011, the bloom reached close to 2,000 square miles; three
times larger than any prior recorded blooms in the area. The main cause of the 2011 algal
bloom was nutrient runoff or nonpoint source pollution, resulting from higher than usual
spring precipitation flushing pollutants from agricultural fields (Wines, 2014; Borre,
2013). There is heavy agricultural land use in the northern counties of Ohio. Some
policy makers argue that farming practices, including the application of fertilizers, may
need to be adjusted to prevent and reduce future algal blooms (OEPA, 2013).
As discussed in Chapter One, some algal blooms release toxins called
Cyanobacteria, and exposure to this can be harmful for swimmers, fisherman, and boaters
(Krouse, 2012; OHEPA, 2013). The effects of algal blooms are not limited to people;
they are also the cause of hypoxia, which is low oxygen in the water (Daloğlu, 2012).
Hypoxia kills fish populations as well as any organisms dwelling on the lake bottom.
Thus, hypoxia from algal blooms places both fisheries and the food web in the western
Lake Erie basin in danger (Daloğlu, 2012).
69
One approach to improving water quality is through collaborative watershed
management efforts. In Ohio, the Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) have developed a longstanding Watershed
Coordinator Grants Program. These grants are awarded competitively to local
government or non-profit organizations to support a watershed coordinator (ODNR,
2014). The financial support to fund watershed coordinator positions is conditional on
development of a collaborative Watershed Action Plan (WAP). The funding continues to
aid in implementation after the plan has been completed. The ODNR and OEPA
recognize the importance of watershed coordinators in developing and implementing
locally appropriate watershed action plans to address water quality.
Ohio EPA and ODNR are extremely proud of the work that the
coordinators have done in assisting their organizations and stakeholders
to accomplish to protect and restore water resources. Our primary vision
is that nonpoint source and watershed programs are ideally developed
and implemented locally. As watershed plans are produced by the
watershed stakeholders and their technical partners, we plan to recognize
these efforts and endorse the plans as the cornerstone for addressing
nonpoint source water pollution in Ohio (OEPA & ODNR, 2003).
This statement shows Ohio’s environmental agencies’ support for the program
and desire to foster collaborative decision making in both planning and implementation
efforts. The USEPA also recognizes Ohio’s effort to foster support for collaborative
watershed groups. In a section of the US EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed
70
Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters titled, “Ohio Builds Strong and Effective
Watershed Groups”, the US EPA praises Ohio:
Ohio has adopted a program philosophy that strong and effective
local watershed stakeholder groups are necessary to develop and
implement integrated watershed plans. According to Ohio, the key to
watershed organization capacity-building is active stakeholders that
provide technical knowledge, financial ability, networking ability,
organizational skills, and legitimacy (decision makers with the authority
to implement and support problem and solution statements and
recommended action items) (US EPA, 2008).
Collaborative watershed management has occurred in many places across
the United States (Leach & Sabatier, 2005; Imperial & Kauneckis, 2003; Koontz
& Newig, 2014). This collaborative approach to management recognizes that
watersheds are inherently cross-jurisdictional, in that they often span different,
municipalities, countries, states, and other political boundaries. Often watersheds
overlap, adding to the challenge of determining how to manage these units,
because smaller watersheds are nested within others (Bloomquist & Schlager,
2004). To tackle these cross-jurisdictional and complex challenges, policy
makers and scholars have increasingly emphasized the importance of
collaboration. Collaborative watershed groups involve multiple stakeholders with
different perspectives and interests who work together to develop and carry out
solutions. They can provide more equitable solutions than traditional top-down,
71
government-run approaches (Sabatier, Weible, & Ficker, 2005). These
stakeholders include governmental actors who are often from local municipalities
or soil and water conservation districts. Nongovernment involvement may
include nonprofit organizations, private firms, and concerned citizens (Koontz,
2004).
Although policy makers have recognized the importance of both plan
development and plan implementation, most prior research has focused on plan
development rather than implementation of a plan’s best management practices
(BMP) recommendations. Accordingly, little is known about the extent to which
implementation is taking place. Although, Chapter One asked watershed
coordinators for data on implementation that is being conducted, these individuals
may not have all the on-the-ground information. One scholar notes these
challenges of gathering data on implementation:
Many states have developed recommendations as a technical
resource for designing and implementing BMPs. However, there is
limited information on the extent to which the technical standards have
been implemented consistently and whether practices have been
maintained over time. There continue to be social, political, and cultural
issues associated with the adoption of BMPs (Robertson, 1999, p.14).
There is a knowledge gap regarding the factors perceived as important in
implementation of WAP recommendations as well stakeholder thoughts about BMP
implementation. To address this knowledge gap, this thesis research examines the factors
72
thought to affect implementation of WAP BMP recommendations. The primary research
questions of this chapter are: (1) What factors affect implementation of BMP
recommendations in WAPs? and (2) Which kinds of WAP BMP recommendations do
stakeholders think are most often implemented? Chapter Two utilizes data from four
WAPs from three watersheds in the Western Lake Erie Basin (see Table 2.1).
73
Watershed Action Plans
Portage River
Outlet/Lye Creek
Riley Creek
Lower Maumee
Table 2.1 Case studies included in Chapter 2
Watershed
Portage
Blanchard
Blanchard
Lower Maumee
74
Conceptual Framework for Implementation of Regulatory Policies
One of the foundational pieces of literature attempting to grapple with the
complexities of the implementation process was Sabatier and Mazmanian’s “The
Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis” (1983). The authors
focused on regulatory governmental policies that seek to change behavior of particular
target groups, often consisting of private citizens. The authors in that study defined
implementation as “carrying out a basic policy decision” (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983).
Regulatory policies direct action through mandates or statutes. These statutes address
both the problem of concern and the objective the proposed policy seeks to achieve
(Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983).
In related work, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1978) outlined five conditions that
affect attainment of an implementation objective. (1) The program is based on sound
theory and an accurate understanding of cause and effect and requires changes in target
group behavior. (2) The program has unambiguous policy directives that contribute to
structuring the implementation process to increase the likelihood of compliance among
target groups (Kendal, 2006). (3) The program has leaders committed to the policy’s
statutory objectives and possess sufficient managerial skill as well as political skills to
develop networks and convince target groups that they are being treated fairly (Kendal,
2006). (4) The program is supported by outside groups such as legislators or executives,
as well as courts (Kendal, 2006). (5) The program does not have conflicting policies or
social conditions that undermine technical or political support. Social problems that the
program intends to address may change through the course of the program and this may
75
affect the original approach used by the program (Kendal, 2006). Sabatier and
Mazmanian (1978) argue that if these five conditions are met a statute will be
implemented effectively.
Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983) later consolidated and condensed these five
criteria that affect attainment of the implementation objective into three categories: (1)
The tractability of the problem, (2) The ability of the statute to structure the
implementation process, and (3) The net effect of political variables on the balance of
support for statutory objectives (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983, p. 542). The authors
expanded these categories into 17 variables that influence the implementation process.
This implementation framework concludes with the stages of the implementation process,
which demonstrate the flow of a policy through actions, impacts, and finally major
revision of the policy (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983). Conceptually, their
implementation diagram simplifies the many processes involved in implementation of a
statute (See Figure 2.1). While Sabatier and Mazmanian’s (1983) seminal analysis of
public policy implementation is based on regulatory policy, it does offer insight into
challenges for implementation of the non-regulatory WAPs. In particular, the framework
includes several items that have been echoed in studies of collaborative watershed
management: funding (3. Financial resources), leadership (6. Commitment and
leadership skills of implementing officials), and trust (4. Attitudes and resources of
constituency groups).
76
Figure 2.1 Policy Implementation Framework, Source: Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983).
77
Explaining Collaborative Approaches and “Success”
Numerous prior studies have sought to examine collaborative watershed groups,
especially how the groups form, who joins the groups, and how leaders can foster greater
participation (Moore & Koontz, 2003; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). Other
studies have investigated what makes these groups “successful”, identifying key factors
such as trust, leadership, committed participants, and sufficient resources (Leach &
Pelkey, 2001), along with time and interdependence (Leach & Sabatier, 2005; Ansell &
Gash, 2008). However, such studies may be measuring different things, as “success” can
mean anything from achieving a group’s goals, to increasing social learning, to building
social capital, to attracting participants and resources, to carrying out watershed
improvement projects. Our focus here is on the latter type of success: the implementation
of collaboratively developed BMP recommendations. Are the factors that affect
“success” in general also important for implementation? A handful of prior studies have
closely examined the implementation of collaborative plan recommendations, identifying
key causal factors including funding, leadership, trust, networks, and, interpersonal
relations (Leach & Pelkey, 2001; Koontz & Newig, 2014).
Funding was found to be an important causal factor in implementing WAP
recommendations in Germany and the U.S. (Koontz & Newig, 2014). Funding was one
of the four themes that foster collaborative water partnership success. A good example of
collaborative implementation is Leach and Sabatier’s (2005) study of watershed groups
in California, Oregon, and Washington. The researchers identified success in terms of
multiple stakeholders reaching agreements, as well as implementing watershed projects.
78
More broadly, in a review of 37 studies of watershed partnerships, Leach and Pelkey
(2001) found that adequate funding was a key factor in 62% of the studies.
Leadership in collaborative watershed groups is often headed by a watershed
coordinator. There is significantly more literature stressing the importance of effective
leaders in group functioning and WAP creation (Bonnell & Koontz, 2007; Koehler &
Koontz, 2008; Leach & Pelkey, 2001), than WAP implementation. However, this
literature is relevant to understand how strong leadership in collaborative watersheds
groups can benefit implementation of WAP recommendations. Douglas Kenney (1999)
describes leadership of watershed coordinators as “keeping the ball moving”, in essence
to keep the process of implementation in continual motion or moving forward to the next
project. This is a challenge for watershed coordinators, considering they must assimilate
policies at all levels of government; local, state, and federal, into WAP development and
subsequently implementation of WAP recommendations (USEPA, 2008). Across
Germany and U.S. cases, Koontz and Newig (2014) found group leadership to be an
important factor for implementing plan recommendations.
Effective leadership keeps members engaged and helps these members develop
new leadership skills. Members can engage in creating new connections and this creates
greater avenues for collaboration and implementation. The new connections arise from
bringing awareness to potential stakeholders not involved in the collaborative watershed
group. Implementation will ultimately stem from empowered, informed, and effective
groups making decisions (Conway et al., 2003). Effective leadership is the catalyst for
these group dynamics.
79
Among these group dynamics is interpersonal trust.
Trust serves as a promoter
for agreement among stakeholders (Lubell, 2004). Leach and Sabatier (2005) find that
trust is only important for watershed groups that have worked together for three years or
longer. Each watershed group analyzed in this thesis research is over three years old and
has had adequate time to establish trust amongst the membership. Although, trust is one
of the four themes that make watershed groups a success, Leach and Pelkey (2001) did
not use implementation of recommendation as a measure of water partnership success.
There is a knowledge gap in the role that trust may play in recommendations being
implemented; does trust promote implementation or only aid water partnership success
more broadly?
In a study of Lake Tahoe collaborative efforts for water governance, Imperial and
Kauneckis (2003) concluded that interpersonal relationships served as crucial precursors
to action to more readily implement a watershed management plan. Other scholars
(Margerum, 2011; Koontz & Newig, 2014) have also stressed the importance of
interpersonal networks to encourage adoption of WAP recommendations. Margerum
(2011) finds that networks developed though political, social, and professional
connections all foster implementation. He also argues that while inter-organizational
networks aid implementation, they are difficult to maintain. Establishing these networks
also takes significant time and effort.
Committed participants were the last factor identified by Leach and Pelkey (2001)
that make watershed groups successful. Scholars have identified several means for
identifying committed participants. Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) suggest that
80
this process occurs over time through various either face-to-face or virtual interactions
among stakeholders. The authors name this interaction among stakeholders, “principled
engagement”. Through principled engagement, “people with differing content, relational,
and identity goals work across their respective institutional, sectoral, or jurisdictional
boundaries to solve problems, resolve conflicts, or create value” (Emerson, Nabatchi, &
Balogh, 2012, p.10) Ansell and Gash (2008) acknowledge the importance of stakeholder
interaction, contending that it must be among the “right” stakeholders. Having the right
stakeholders entails avoiding situations in which powerful stakeholders dominate
interests or agencies lack commitment to the decision making process (Ansell & Gash,
2008).
Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) also identify the variable “shared
motivation” as an important variable for participation in collaborative governance.
Shared motivation involves stakeholders developing trust, which will also generate
legitimacy, understanding, and commitment. Commitment also involves stakeholders
crossing their organizational and/or jurisdictional boundaries to agree on a shared action
(Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). Emerson, Nabatchi, and
Balogh (2012) suggest that principled engagement and shared motivation create a
feedback loop in which each variable supports the development of the other.
Other Influences that Foster Implementation
Political science and public policy literature provides additional insights into
implementation, including implementation targets and macro vs. micro levels. Schneider
81
and Ingram (1993) describe the importance of the target of the implementation (farmer,
citizen, public entity, etc.) having the power to decide which, if any, recommendation to
follow. The power of the implementation target to decide which recommendation to
implement applies to WAP BMPs, since WAPs are non-regulatory and rely on willing
policy targets to choose BMPs that work best for them. Also originating from the policy
literature are the concepts of macro and micro implementation levels.
Macro implementation involves central actors creating a governmental plan, while
micro implementation occurs as local organizations react to the macro level plans and
develop programs to implement them. (Matland, 1995, p.148). This is how Ohio’s EPA
and DNR are promulgating section 319 grants within the state. They allow local
governments, citizens, and watershed groups to collaboratively develop WAP plans based
on TMDL data, and to implement these distinctive plans (OHEPA & ONDR, 2003).
These collaborative watersheds groups are often driven by bottom-up approaches and
follow a micro level method of plan development. Berman (1978) suggests that a
problem with this micro level planning is, “most implementation problems stem from
interaction of a policy with the micro level institutional setting” (Matland, 1995, p.148).
For example, the power to utilize section 319 funding to implement recommendations
rests with local authorities, not the original developer of the policy, which is the federal
government through the development of the Clean Water Act. Ohio promotes local
authority to implement BMPs recommendations. Thus Berman (1978) would contend
that there may be implementation problems with Ohio’s collaborative approach to
implementation of WAP recommendations.
82
Economic influences may also be a factor that is affecting implementation of
WAP recommendations. Farmers are concerned with remaining in business as well as
market pressures such as costs for equipment and labor (Klapproth & Johnson, 2001).
Economists argue that farmers act rationally and focus on the stability of their business
and have no economic incentive to bear the cost of water quality improvements, which
produce benefits to others, especially when they feel their efforts will not have any effect
on water quality (Klapproth & Johnson, 2001; Libby, 1985). Scholars argue that
voluntary programs to address water quality impairments will be more likely adopted if
the program does not decrease farm profitability (Klapproth & Johnson, 2001; Valentin,
Bernardo, & Kastens, 2004; Sharpley, Kleinman, & McDowell, 2001). Other scholars
also suggest that programs (BMPs) that are simple to implement, profitable, and make
use of the farmer’s existing machinery will like be adopted (Nowak & Korsching, 1983;
Klapproth & Johnson, 2001; Marra & Zering, 1996). These market forces and economic
drivers may be contributing to BMP adoption in the Western Lake Erie Basin.
83
Methodology and Data Collection
To answer the research questions (1) What factors affect implementation of BMP
recommendations in WAPs? and (2) Which kinds of WAP BMP recommendations do
stakeholders think are most often implemented?, this study uses a comparative case study
approach. As described in the previous chapter, comparative case studies are appropriate
for complex situations that often require multiple data sources to corroborate information.
(Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989; George & Bennett, 2005; Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005). This chapter draws on data from the same three cases as Chapter
One. While Chapter One focused most on data from WAPs and interviews, this chapter
focuses on a survey instrument and interview data.
The survey instrument for this chapter included questions about factors important
to implementation of WAP recommendation. The survey instrument used a traditional
five-point Likert scale design to gauge responses from 11 individuals who participated in
this thesis research’s interviews (see Table 2.2). The interviewees were identified by
their heavy involvement in the development of the WAPs, as identified by listing in the
WAP documents as discussed in Chapter One.
The Likert scale questions were designed to test if the factors important to
watershed group success (Leach & Pelkey, 2001) are also important to implementation of
WAP recommendations. As mentioned above, Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) four factors
most important to watershed group success are: funding (important in 62% of studies),
leadership (59% of studies), interpersonal trust (43% of studies), and committed
84
participants (43% of studies) (Leach & Pelkey, 2001). In addition, studies of
collaborative plan implementation have identified willing land owners, level of
community concern, networks, and links from the plan to broader planning efforts
(Koontz 2005; Koontz & Newig 2014). Following these results, the Likert scale used in
this thesis research asked participants to rate seven factors based on their importance on
WAP implementation with the prompt, “On a scale of 1-5, 1 being not at all important, 5
being very important, please rate the following items in their impacts on plan
implementation.” These factors are (1) dedicated watershed coordinator or other leader,
(2) willing land owners, (3) Funding for recommendation, (4) engagement of
stakeholders in the WAP planning process, (5) level of concern in the community, (6)
networks within community, and (7) links between WAP and other land use planning
efforts or other efforts. This survey instrument is used to answer research question one,
what factors affect implementation of BMP recommendations of WAPs?
85
Frequency by Plan
1
1
7
WAP
Outlet/Lye Creek
Riley Creek
Portage River
2
Lower Maumee
11
Total Interviews
Affiliation
1 Government employee
1 Citizen
2 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
4 Government employee
1 Citizen
1 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
1 Government employee
3 Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
6 Government employee
2 Citizen
Table 2.2. Likert Survey Instrument Participants
86
The five-category Likert scale is the most frequently used version with a
symmetrical balance in its response categories (Lavrakas, 2008). This design does not
appear to suffer from the central tendency bias, which implies the respondent is hesitant
to select either response one or five (Lavrakas, 2008). However, this design may be
biased by either the acquiescence bias or the social desirability bias.
The acquiescence bias refers to respondents answering based on what they
consider to be the correct or appropriate response option (Lavrakas, 2008). To account
for this the researcher ensured confidentiality to the participant and kept the listed factors
simple to avoid confusion. The social desirability bias is when a respondent will
“attempt to portray themselves or an organization to which they belong in a favorable
light” (Lavrakas, 2008). This is minimized by again, ensuring confidentiality to the
participant and focusing not on how favorable something is, but rather on what factors
impact implementation. This thesis research has a small sample size and does not use
rigorous statistical analysis however; the data do provide a rough indication of which
factors are perceived to be most important among our participants.
The interviews followed the same approach as discussed in Chapter One. The
investigator used a semi-structured approach which involves asking follow-up or probing
questions based on the participants response (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003; Turner, 2010;
Yin, 2003; Mason, 2003). The interviews followed a snowball sampling technique, in
which interviewees suggest future participants to the study (Rowland & Flint, 2001), as
well as participant selection following criterion based sampling (Creswell, 2012). For
detailed descriptions of interview methodology see Chapter One.
87
To answer the second research question of this chapter, “Which kinds of WAP
BMP recommendations do stakeholders think are most often implemented?” this thesis
research analyzes the frequencies of BMP implementation mentioned as occurring by the
interviewees. Whereas Chapter One used 14 interviews (Table 1.4), the analysis of
Chapter Two used 16 interview participants. The data are then displayed as a percentage
of total interviews. For example, the BMP recommendation increase cover crop usage
was mentioned as being implemented in 56.3% (9/16) of the total interviews. The data
are also displayed for the Blanchard and Portage River watersheds to compare how much
implementation was said to be occurring in each. Some of the questions used to elicit
these responses from interviewees include: Who is implementing plan recommendations
if any? and, Are actions or best management practices (BMPs) not specifically listed in
the plan encouraged? (For the full list of interview questions see Appendix C)
Results
Three factors from the Likert scale questions were scored more important than the
remaining four. These factors were willing landowners, dedicated leader, and funding for
recommendation. Willing landowners was identified as the factor most important in
influencing successful implementation, with a mean response score of 4.86. This factor
is likely linked to the voluntary nature of the BMPs outlined within WAPs. This was
cited as both an advantage and disadvantage (OH-1, OH-3, OH-5, OH-6, OH-7, OH-10,
OH-12, OH-13). The voluntary nature of WAPs allows landowners to “do whatever they
88
would like” (OH-5). This can either lead to inaction or promote buy-in from
implementers. The same respondent, however, mentioned that with implementing BMPs
“we’re having to get creative”, a flexibility that may not be available or required if WAP
BMPs were regulatory (Int. OH-5). One landowner remarked, “There is no set recipe”
for BMP recommendation (Int. OH-12). The choice of recommendations also empowers
landowners; one respondent stated “Yea, I can make this work” when choosing a BMP
from among many choices (Int. OH-6).
89
Mean Responses for Factors Impacting WAP Implementation
5
Impacts on Plan Implementation
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
4.68
4.86
4.64
2
3.45
1.5
3.5
3.91
3.86
1
0.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Factors influencing implementation (n=11)
7
Figure 2.2 Likert Scale Results
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dedicated watershed coordinator or other leader.
Willing landowners.
Funding for recommendation.
Engagement of stakeholders in the WAP planning process.
Level of concern in community
Networks within community.
Links between WAP and other land use planning efforts or other efforts (another
improvement plan).
90
Voluntary implementation of WAP BMPs is almost entirely dependent on willing
landowners, according to one respondent (Int. OH-13). Other respondents were also
concerned about the reliance on willing landowners (Int. OH-7, OH-10). The concern
goes beyond not getting BMPs implemented, to repercussions from the federal
government that may stem from continued water quality impairments in the region, if
voluntary efforts are not seen as sufficient. If mandatory mechanisms for implementation
were to be added, one respondent said they cause “rebellion” from landowners and
farmers (Int. OH-10).
Factor one, which was a dedicated watershed coordinator or other leader, had the
second highest mean score of 4.68. Interviewees frequently mentioned the importance
of dedicated leaders in ongoing implementation efforts (Int. OH-3, Int. OH-8, Int. OH-12,
Int. OH-13, Int. OH-14). These same interviewees also specifically mentioned current
watershed coordinators in the Western Lake Erie Basin as important to implementation of
WAP recommendations. Some participants mentioned watershed coordinators or leaders
outside of the Western Lake Erie Basin as important for providing guidance and technical
assistance with implementation of WAP recommendations (Int. OH-1, Int. OH-6).
Lastly, several participants stated that the reason they learned of the WAP and BMPs that
were available for implementation was because of outreach by the watershed coordinator
(Int. OH-8, Int. OH-13, Int. OH-14).
The interview participants also rated funding for recommendation, factor three,
with near identical importance as factor one, dedicated leader. Funding for
recommendation had a mean response score of 4.64. As discussed in Chapter One,
91
funding is crucial for implementation (Int. OH-1, Int. OH-3, Int. OH-9, Int. OH-10, Int.
OH-12, Int. OH-14, Int. OH-15, Int. OH-16). This thesis research findings show that
without funding for a particular BMP, it is not offered as an option for implementation to
the landowner. After addressing funding as a factor most affecting implementation of
recommendations, one respondent added the need to “make the guy money” in reference
to the landowner, and also in reference to the landowner stated, “[There is] too much risk
without economic gain” (Int. OH-14). The same respondent went on to say that
landowners were not implementing BMPs merely for the good of the watershed itself, but
rather in response to monetary incentives (Int. OH-14). The BMPs increase cover crop
usage and increase conservation tillage practices are highly implemented in these
watersheds, and one explanatory factor for this is funding availability for these BMPs.
Landowners who are undecided about whether to implement a BMP often decide to
implement it if grant funding is available (Int. OH-6, Int. OH-12). One respondent put it
quite simply when describing why particular BMPs are occurring before others; “Money
talks, bullshit walks” (Int. OH-12).
Networks within the community (Factor 6) had a mean response score 3.91. This
factor was rated as less important to implementation than the top three factors: willing
landowners, dedicated leader, and funding for recommendation. However, the
stakeholders that were interviewed still scored this factor higher than the midpoint (3.0)
of the Likert scale. There were many different approaches to developing networks in the
community, particularly with landowners, to turn them into willing (to implement)
landowners. One watershed group used funds to hire outreach personnel to help farmers
92
understand how to get grant money for BMP implementation and to make sure the BMP
chosen was implemented correctly (Int. OH-1). This particular method of outreach and
networking educates the landowner and may create trust through working with
specialized individuals who support the farmer’s implementation efforts. Another
respondent understood their responsibility as finding funding and networking, to “sell the
landowners” (Int. OH-3). The same respondent stated a goal of theirs was to reach all the
operators (landowners) and have “Generalized increased awareness” in reference to
BMPs available for implementation.
Factor 7, links between the WAP and other planning efforts, had a similar mean
score (3.86) as the factor networks within the community. This factor identified the
significance of other plans in which the WAP could be linked, and was particularly
relevant to the Lower Maumee plan, in which a prior watershed management plan served
as guide to formulating the WAP. Interviewees cited the importance of other planning
efforts, such as coastal management plans or prior water quality management planning
efforts such as the Maumee AOC (Int. OH-1, Int. OH-2, Int. OH-8, Int. OH-10, Int. OH11, Int. OH-13). One interviewee who scored the factor links between the WAP and
other planning efforts a 5 on the Likert scale did not know the WAP existed (Int. OH-13).
This stakeholder, who was a landowner in Riley Creek watershed, did not disclose if he
relied on other planning efforts to decide what BMP recommendations to implement.
Some interviewees who rated this factor a 5 on its importance in the implementation of
WAP recommendations did not list what other management plan was linked to the WAP
(Int. OH-5, Int. OH-16).
93
Engagement of stakeholders (Factor 4) in the WAP planning process has the
lowest score (3.45) of the seven factors important for implementation. Interviewees
suggested that educational outreach was the most common form of stakeholder
engagement and interpreted educational outreach in varying contexts. One respondent
quoted a neighbor landowner as saying “I don’t have a clue where to start” in regards to
BMP implementation (Int. OH-12). This was one of the issues that many members of
collaborative watershed groups want to address. One watershed group hired outreach
personnel to educate landowners of BMPs available to them. One landowner who
worked with these outreach personnel said his choice of BMP was based on “what was
being promoted” (Int. OH-11). Outreach efforts focus on particular BMPs, especially
increase cover crop usage, develop nutrient management plans, and increase
conservation tillage practices. Thus, certain BMPs that are promoted are more
implemented. Another landowner considers the local soil and water conservation
districts as “an education service” (Int. OH-12). One landowner involved in BMP
implementation did not even know the WAP existed (OH-11), and some participants
acknowledged that implementation is not occurring as a result of the WAP per se, but as
a result of outreach efforts (Int. OH-5, OH-12).
Level of concern in community had a mean response score of 3.5. While not
identified as important as other factors for impacting WAP implementation, this factor is
still above the midpoint of the five-point Likert scale. This factor was discussed most
frequently by interviewees in references to algal blooms in the Western Lake Erie Basin
(Int. OH-1, Int. OH-2, Int. OH-12, Int. OH-14). As one interviewee said, “Nutrient
94
management is a quick fix, but it shows something is being done” in reference to the
BMP recommendation they chose to implement (Int. OH-14). Surprisingly, algal blooms
were only directly discussed by 25% (4/16) of the interview participants.
Which Kinds of BMPs Do Stakeholders Think Are Most Often Implemented?
In addition to responses to Likert-type scales, data about which BMPs are most
commonly implemented comes from date generated in the semi-structured interviews.
Figure 2.3 shows frequency counts of particular BMPs mentioned as being implemented
across the 16 interviews. The interview participants are the same as referenced in
Chapter One with the added inclusion of the Lower Maumee interview participants that
were not included in the first chapter. The participants include 8 individuals from nongovernmental organizations, 6 from governmental organizations, and 2 citizens (see
Table 1.4 and Table 2.2 Lower Maumee participants). This recorded frequency of
implementation is broadly defined. It includes implementation that has either been
occurring or completed since the approval of the WAP. This includes implementation
that has started or has partially completed. The BMPs present in Figure 2.3 are from
direct listing in at least one of the WAPs outlined for this thesis research. Figure 2.3
compares the frequency of BMP implementation that was mentioned as occurring by
interviewees from the Blanchard River Watershed, the Portage Watershed, and the total
from all three watersheds (including the Lower Maumee). The Lower Maumee was not
parsed out due to an insufficient number of participants (n=2), however, it was included
in the total watershed analysis.
95
The most frequently referenced occurrence of WAP recommendation
implementation mentioned in the interviews was: Meet TMDL goals (phosphorus and
nitrate loadings) /water quality monitoring. This is not a BMP; however it has been
included to demonstrate misconceptions by many interview participants that this action
constituted implementation of a BMP. Meeting TMDL goals is the aim of what most
WAP BMP recommendations are designed to attain. Initial interviews with watershed
coordinators indicated the significance of meeting TMDL goals as the “main parameter”
of the WAP (Int. OH-1, Int. OH-2). Another indicator that explains the frequency of this
BMP is that plan endorsement is conditional on addressing impairments in the TMDL.
“With the plan [WAP] we offer suggestions to go after impairments” (Int. OH-1). This
participant also expressed more interest in the implementation of BMPs dealing with
phosphorus and sediment loadings over habitat alterations (Int. OH-1). The frequent
mentions of Meet TMDL goals (phosphorus and nitrate loadings) /water quality
monitoring in Figure 2.3 can also be correlated to how water quality monitoring does not
require the buy-in from stakeholders, particularly landowners in the region. However, it
was mentioned that to conduct water quality monitoring required the permission of the
landowner (Int. OH-1).
96
Frequency (%)
BMP Implementation Mentioned as Occuring from Interviews
(n=16)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Blanchard
Portage
Total Watersheds (adding Lower Maumee)
Figure 2.3 Frequencies of BMP Implementation in Conducted Interviews (n =16)
97
Figure 2.3 indicates the highest frequency of implementation is occurring with the
BMP recommendations: increase cover crop usage and conduct educational outreach.
Each of these recommendations was mentioned in 56.3% (9/16) of the interviews. This is
interesting because the BMP increase cover crop usage was widely listed in the WAPs,
whereas the recommendation conduct educational outreach was mentioned sparsely.
This shows a discrepancy from what is listed in the WAPs and what interviewee’s state
as being implemented. An explanation for this could be bias from the selection of
interviewees. As discussed in Chapter one, many of the interviewees work with local
governmental agencies such as SWCDs that often conduct outreach. One of the roles
many of these interviewees take is the role of the front-line staff or field worker. Thus,
conducting educational outreach was may be one of the criteria for the employees at
SWCDs, and that is why results of the WAP BMP recommendation listings do not align
with data collected from interviewees. The other frequent mentions of implementation
by interviewees were the BMPs, increase conservation tillage practices and habitat
restoration / preserve habitat / preserve wetlands recommendations. Both of these BMPs
were mentioned extensively among the WAPs (see Chapter 1).
Interviewees indicated that the BMPs cover crops and conservation tillage are
advantageous from having other BMPs because they are easy to implement and grant
money is available in many cases (Int. OH-1, Int. OH-17). In contrast, BMPs that are
less frequently mentioned: Install 2-stage ditches, establish riparian buffers / buffer strips
and identify areas and install controlled drainage systems, are hindered by lack of local
support, particularly 2-stage ditches, in which some county engineers are actively
98
working against this recommendation (Int. OH-17). If county engineers are opposed to
2-stage ditches can this still be considered a BMP? From this interviewee’s perspective
they are not, but this thesis research still considers this WAP recommendation a BMP
because some organizations such as The Nature Conservancy are still implementing this
recommendation (Vollmer-Sanders, 2012). Riparian buffers / buffer strips are difficult
because farmers do not want to sacrifice acreage for this BMP recommendation (Int. OH17).
Overall, the results from the interviews and indicators listed in Figure 2.3 follow
three themes regarding factors that influence implementation: the need for funding for
implementation, outreach to landowners in the form of networks and education, and the
voluntary nature of the plan that relies on willing landowners. These themes are
consistent with several of the key factors indicated from the Likert scale questions
(Figure 2.2). First, the importance of funding is clear in both places. Second, outreach
and education to promote networks of landowners are indicated by interviewees as being
important, which is similar to the Likert scale factor (6) networks within the community
as well as (1) willing landowners. Third, the voluntary nature of the plan means high
reliance on willing landowners, which is again a factor highlighted in the Likert scale
data.
99
Discussion
Responses to these Likert scale questions show a correlation with Leach and
Pelkey’s (2001) four most important factors. Other factors this thesis research examined
were drawn from combinations of Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) four factors. The factors
trust and committed participants from Leach and Pelkey (2001) can be linked to the
factors willing landowners, engagement of stakeholders in the WAP planning process,
level of concern in the community, and networks in the community (Factors 2,4,5,6).
Committed participants as a factor was only identified in 43% of 37 case studies by
Leach and Pelkey (2001), and the mean response scores from my surveys show a
relatively higher perception that this factor is important to WAP implementation.
However, the contexts are different and may account for these discrepancies. Leach and
Pelkey (2001) focused on what made the collaborative group itself work, whereas this
thesis research specifically focused on the importance of the factors in implementing the
WAP. Thus, committed participants are seen as especially important to implementing
collaborative plans, as compared to overall group success.
On the Likert scale questions, interviewees scored willing landowners, dedicated
leader, and funding for recommendation as the most important factors to foster
implementation (see Figure 2.2). Willing landowners was a factor not explicitly
identified by Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) empirical literature review, but this factor links
together all of the factors that make collaborative watershed groups work, according to
Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) findings. These factors are: adequate funding, effective
100
leadership, interpersonal trust, and committed participants, and each one plays a role in
the willing landowner’s factor response. Funding can incentivize the landowner to
participate in a BMP. Koontz and Newig’s (2014) research of implementation of Ohio
WAPs showed that “linking funding to the collaborative plan recommendations is an
important means to foster implementation.” This thesis research also suggests funding is
essential to implementation. The Likert survey responses as well as what implementation
stakeholders think is occurring support findings from Chapter One in which watershed
coordinators verify that cover crops and conservation tillage are being implemented most
frequently because of grant funding available for these BMP recommendations. Cover
crops and conservation tillage were among the top BMP recommendations that
stakeholders in the watershed think is being implemented (see Figure 2.3).
Economic influences tie closely with the importance of funding for
recommendations. If a WAP recommendation is funded and does not hurt the
profitability of the farmer, then it will more likely be adopted (Klapproth & Johnson,
2001; Valentin, Bernardo, & Kastens, 2004; Sharpley, Kleinman, & McDowell, 2001).
Many interviewees who described the importance of funding stated that the WAP
recommendation needed to make the farmer or landowner money (Int. OH-8, Int. OH-12,
Int. OH-13, Int. OH-16). However, there may be other economic factors influencing
implementation of a recommendation such as crop prices or cost of farming supplies and
equipment. Although, this thesis research did not examine these economic factors, it is
worth mentioning their potential influence on WAP implementation. Future research
101
might include a broader set of economic and business factors that may foster adoption of
some BMPs more than others.
Leadership and trust are often necessary to convince the landowner the BMP is
beneficial to them and the watershed. This combination of leadership and trust must also
convince landowners to work with whoever is discussing the BMP recommendation with
them. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1978) would agree this type of leadership will help
attain implementation. These authors describe their factor three as a dedicated leader
utilizing political skill to build networks and work with policy targets. Koontz and
Newig’s (2014) research and this thesis research both conclude that a paid watershed
coordinator who fosters implementation through networks is influential. Leadership and
willing landowners can be tied to Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) committed participants.
Committed participants can be the willing landowners themselves, either through
involvement in the collaborative watershed group, a personal relationship with a member
from a collaborative watershed group, or outreach by collaborative watershed group
leadership. The factors from the Likert scale suggest that all of the most recurring factors
that make collaborative watersheds work (Leach & Pelkey, 2001) are also important for
plan implementation to occur at the most fundamental level: with the landowner.
The factor networks within community, is closely linked with interpersonal trust.
In review of the collaborative approach, trust is building relationships within the
collaborative group itself, as well as, in the broader community (Ansell & Gash, 2008;
Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). Building relationships fosters networks, as
establishment of networks within the community is based on mutual trust among
102
individuals, groups, or individuals and groups (Koontz & Newig, 2014; Layzer, 2008).
Networks were not discussed as a separate factor important to implementation by
Sabatier and Mazmanian (1978). This is because these authors studied mandates, which
use regulatory mechanisms for recommendation adoption, whereas WAPs use voluntary
mechanisms for implementation.
Results also show that the WAP recommendations increase cover crop usage,
conduct education outreach, increase conservation tillage practices, and habitat
restoration / preserve habitat / preserve wetlands are cited the most frequently by
implementers as occurring in the watersheds. Prior research on collaboratively developed
water quality plans and collaborative watershed groups focus greatly on the processes of
how plans are developed or how groups are formed and function. There is sparse prior
research on how recommendations in these collaboratively developed are implemented
and if factors important for collaborative group processes are also important factors to
foster implementation. This thesis research builds on the current knowledge of watershed
planning by identifying what recommendations listed in these plans are being
implemented most frequently. One surprising result of this thesis research was the
recommendation conduct educational outreach being listed so frequently by
interviewees. This finding is interesting because conducting educational outreach was
not frequently recommended in the WAPs.
For the second research question of this chapter, What factors affect
implementation of WAPs?, results suggest that several factors identified by prior studies
as facilitating implementation of collaborative watershed plans also influence
103
implementation of WAP BMP recommendations. The factors that most affect
implementation of BMP recommendations are: dedicated watershed coordinator or other
leader, willing landowners, and funding for recommendations. This aligns with the key
themes identified by Leach and Pelkey (2001) that make watershed groups successful:
adequate funding, effective leadership and management, interpersonal trust, and
committed participants. Funding for recommendations and dedicated watershed
coordinator overlap seamlessly with Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) findings. Willing
landowners is the product of not only available funding for BMP recommendations, but
also interpersonal trust and the committed participants gained through network
development based on trust between implementers and farmers or landowners (Emerson,
Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). This thesis research further demonstrates that some factors
important to collaborative implementation identified by Koontz and Newig (2014) were
supported, such as networking through interpersonal trust based relations and availability
of funding for recommendations.
Figure 2.3, which shows the frequency of BMP recommendations which
stakeholders think is occurring, highlights an important aspect of WAP implementation.
The most frequently referenced BMP recommendation was meeting TMDL goals,
however this is not a BMP. Meeting TMDL goals is primarily related to funding. WAP
development and payment of the watershed coordinator salary through Section 319 grant
money necessitates the need to focus on meeting TMDL goals. Factor 2 of Sabatier and
Mazmanian’s five conditions that affect implementation is the program having
unambiguous policy directives. Interview data suggest that stakeholders understand the
104
goal of implementing WAP recommendations, which is to meet the TMDL goals.
However, these stakeholders do not realize that meeting a TMDL goals in itself, is not a
WAP BMP recommendation.
Like all research, this study does have limitations. A limitation with the case
study chosen for this thesis research is its lack of generalizability to a larger population.
The researcher attempted to mitigate this limitation by drawing from multiple cases and
by focusing on variables and classes of events, so that inferences can be made to classes
of events rather than populations (George & Bennett, 2005). Limited sample size of
interview participants for both the Likert survey instrument (Figure 2.2) and the BMP
frequency data from stakeholders (Figure 2.3) was another limitation of this thesis
research. For the Likert survey instrument (Figure 2.2), two of eleven participants were
watershed coordinators, which may have skewed the scoring of this factor. Figure 2.3
incorporated interview data from another watershed coordinator, which makes 3/16 or
18.8% of the interviewee’s watershed coordinators. The researcher conducted interviews
with stakeholders with diverse affiliations (Government, non-governmental organization,
and citizens) to address this limitation. Lastly, Chapter Two primarily draws on
interview data, which limits robust conclusions to be drawn from the limited sample size.
Results raise important questions for practitioners and scholars. For policy
makers, results suggest which BMP recommendations should be funded more frequently
because willing landowners will be available to implement. For managers they support
the practice of diversifying BMPs and conducting more educational outreach.
Educational outreach may allow farmers or landowners to learn about the benefits of
105
BMPs and help build trust between water quality managers and farmers. Trust can aid in
the development of networks, which should encourage future implementation of BMP
recommendations. Trust through the development of networks aids implementation
efforts by creating knowledge exchanges, reducing transaction costs, and stabilizing
relationships between stakeholders (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh,
2012; Leach & Sabatier, 2005). The results are also important for scholars because this
thesis research uses policy literature which is typically top-down regulatory to explore
non-regulatory recommendations of the WAPs. This thesis research will help future
scholars narrow their research questions to better focus on strategies to implement BMPs.
Conclusions
Collaborative watershed management has moved well beyond the planning stage
in many places. While prior research has mainly focused on collaborative activities
leading up to plan implementation, relatively less is known about the degree to which
recommendations are translated into action. In particular, for nonpoint source pollution
in agricultural dominated landscapes, the links from WAP recommendations to BMP
actions on the ground are not well described. But it is precisely these links which need to
be made if the promise of collaborative approaches to improve environmental quality is
to be realized.
This chapter of the thesis drew on three cases of collaborative watershed
management in Ohio to examine (1) What factors affect implementation of BMP
106
recommendations of WAPs? and (2) Which kinds of WAP BMP recommendations do
stakeholders think are most often implemented? For the first research question results
support Leach and Pelkey’s (2001) findings about what makes watershed groups
successful. The results indicate that interviewees perceived that willing landowners,
dedicated watershed coordinators or other leaders, and funding for recommendations are
the most important factors expected to influence implementation of BMP
recommendations. In addition, interviewees scored several other factors above the
midpoint of the Likert scale, including networks within community (3.91), links between
WAP and other planning efforts (3.86), level of concern in the community (3.50), and
engagement of stakeholders in the WAP planning process (3.45). These survey results
were supported by comments from interviews about which factors were important for
implementing BMPs.
For the second research question, the results suggest that the most implemented
WAP recommendations according to interviewees are: increase cover crop usage,
conduct education outreach, increase conservation tillage practices, and habitat
restoration / preserve habitat / preserve wetlands. These results align with key factors
that influence implementation, especially funding, outreach to landowners to build
networks, and the voluntary nature of the BMPs.
Results from this chapter of the thesis shed new light on factors that may be
affecting implementation of WAP recommendations in the Western Lake Erie Basin.
Prior literature on what makes watershed groups successful (Leach & Pelkey, 2001) was
utilized to test if similar factors would foster implementation of WAPs. Through
107
stakeholder interviews and a survey instrument, the investigator discovered factors that
were believed to foster implementation. Among the highest scored of these factors were
willing landowners, dedicated leader, and funding. This thesis research contributes to
watershed literature by demonstrating that factors that promote groups success also aid in
implementing plan recommendations.
Further research is needed to determine if the factors identified in these studies of
collaborative plan implementation apply to a broader range of collaborative watershed
groups and/or collaborative groups. The groups studied here were not broadly
representative of the population of collaborative groups; rather they were selected for
study because they had recently completed WAPs and were located in the Western Lake
Erie Basin and Ohio. It remains to be seen if these results apply to agricultural
landscapes in other basins, and to other types of landscapes.
Research will also be needed to link collaborative implementation of BMPs to
verifiable project completion and ultimately, water quality improvement. As described in
Chapter 1, there is insufficient record keeping to objectively determine which particular
BMPs have been implemented, thus data presented here relies on interviewee
perceptions. Asking multiple stakeholders in each watershed helps to corroborate the
data, but it would be helpful to obtain authoritative documentation of BMP completion.
Ultimately, measuring water quality data linked to the BMPs for particular watersheds
would provide stronger evidence about implementation success. Ecological data is often
scarce in environmental management, and collaborative efforts are also disadvantaged by
not focusing attention on baseline conditions (Koontz & Thomas, 2006). Recent TMDL
108
work has filled in some baseline data, but longitudinal measures are needed to compare
with the baseline data in order to draw conclusions.
109
References
Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking. Cengage Learning.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice.Journal
of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Arbuckle, J. G., Brownwell, F. W., Case, D. R., Halbleib, W. T., Jensen, L. J., Landfair,
S. W., & Sullivan, T. F. (1989). Environmental law handbook.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations:
Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update. 33(1), 1-4.
Barton, B. (1999). Agriculture and section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Implementation
of Nonpoint Source Policies in Southern Agriculture. 1.
Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. O. (Eds.). (2011). Carrots, sticks,
and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (Vol. 1). Transaction
Publishers.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro and micro implementation of social policy. Rand.
Bidwell, R. D., & Ryan, C. M. (2006). Collaborative partnership design: the implications
of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Society and Natural
Resources, 19(9), 827-843.
Blanchard River Watershed Partnership. (2014). About. Retrieved from
http://www.blanchardriver.org/organization/about/.
110
Blanchard River Watershed Partnership. (2011). The Outlet/Lye Creek Watershed Action
Plan. Retrieved from http://www.blanchardriver.org/action-plan/.
Blomquist, W., & Schlager, E. (2004). Political pitfalls of integrated watershed
management. Society and Natural Resources. 18(2), 101-117.
Bonnell, J. E., & Koontz, T. M. (2007). Stumbling forward: The organizational
challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management.
Society and Natural Resources. 20(2), 153-167.
Borre, L. (2013, April 24). Harmful algae blooms plague Lake Erie again. National
Geographic News Watch. Retrieved from
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/24/harmful-algae-bloomsplague-lake-erie-again/.
Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International
Journal of Educational Research, 31(8), 659-671.
Bowen, E. R. (1982). The Pressman–Wildavsky paradox: four addenda or why models
based on probability theory can predict implementation success and suggest
useful tactical advice for implementers. Journal of Public Policy. 2(1), 1-22.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Chesapeake Research Consortium. (2003). Agricultural BMP descriptions. Retrieved
from http://www.chesapeake.org/OldStac/pasturemgt/cbbmpefficiencies.pdf.
111
Census V. (2012). [Toledo, Ohio population: Census 2010 and 2000 interactive map,
demographics, statistics, quick facts] Moonshadow Mobile, Inc. Retrieved from
http://censusviewer.com/city/OH/Toledo.
Chess, C., Hance, B. J., & Gibson, G. (2000). Adaptive participation in watershed
management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(3), 248-252.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage publications.
Conway, F. D. L., et al. Watershed stewardship education program—A multidisciplinary
extension education program for Oregon’s watershed councils. Journal of
Extension. 42(4).
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in
organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top Managers1. British
Journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236.
Daloğlu, I., Cho, K. H., & Scavia, D. (2012). Evaluating causes of trends in long-term
dissolved reactive phosphorus loads to Lake Erie. Environmental Science &
Technology.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in
high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of management
journal, 31(4), 737-770.
112
Elmore, R. F.(1982). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy
decisions. Studying Implementation, edited by W. Williams. Chatham: Chatham
House.
Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and Backword Mapping: Reversible Logic in the Analysis
of Public Policy. Springer Netherlands.33-70.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for
collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
22(1), 1-29.
Environtmental Defense Fund. (2014). Our mission and history. Retrieved from
http://www.edf.org/about/our-mission-and-history.
Gall, G., & Gall, J. P. Borg.(2003). Educational research: An introduction.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. 1967.Weidenfield &
Nicolson, London.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences. 2004. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Cambridge,
MA.
Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development. Academy of Management journal, 31(1), 9-41.
Goldstein, A. E., & Reiboldt, W. (2004). The multiple roles of low income, minority
women in the family and community: A qualitative investigation. The Qualitative
Report, 9(2), 241-265.
113
Hardy, S. D., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Reducing nonpoint source pollution through
collaboration: Policies and programs across the US States. Environmental
Management 41(3), 301-310.
Heisler, J., Glibert, P. M., Burkholder, J. M., Anderson, D. M., Cochlan, W., Dennison,
W. C., ... & Suddleson, M. (2008). Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: a
scientific consensus. Harmful algae, 8(1), 3-13.
Houck, O. A. (2002). The clean water act TMDL program: Law, policy, and
implementation. Environmental Law Institute.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multilevel nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy
Sciences. 42(1), 73-89.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hunt, S. (2012, November 25). Algae, invaders threaten Lake Erie. Columbus Dispatch.
Imperial, M. T., & Kauneckis, D. (2003). Moving from conflict to collaboration:
Watershed governance in Lake Tahoe. Natural Resources Journal. 43, 1009.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to
collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
Kendal, S.L. (2006). The Implementation of Public Policy: University Amalgamations in
Australia in the 1980’s and 1990’s. (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, Australia.
114
Kenney, D. S. (1999). Historical and sociopolitical context of the western watersheds
movement. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35(3), 493503.
Kenney, D. S. (1997). Resource management at the watershed level: An assessment of
the changing federal role in the emerging era of community-based watershed
management.
Klapproth, J. C., & Johnson, J. E. (2001). Understanding the science behind riparian
forest buffers: factors influencing adoption (No. 420-154). Virginia Cooperative
Extension.
Koehler, B., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Citizen participation in collaborative watershed
partnerships. Environmental Management 41(2), 143-154.
Koontz, T. M. (2005). We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative
stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Studies Journal. 33(3),459481.
Koontz, T. M., (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for
government? Resources for the Future.
Koontz, T. M., & Newig, J. (2014). From planning to implementation: Top down and
bottom up approaches for collaborative watershed management. (2012). Policy
Studies Journal.
Krouse, P. (2012, July 06). Dangerous algal blooms on Lake Erie may be fewer this year,
scientists say. Cleveland Plain Dealer. Retrieved from
115
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/07/dangerous_algal_blooms_on_
lake_1.html.
Lavrakas, P. J., (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
Layzer, J. (2008). Natural experiments: Ecosystem management and the environment.
Species Distribution to Biodiversity Conservation, Diversity and Distributions 13,
243-251.
Leach, W.D., & Pelkey, N. W. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of
the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
127(6), 378-385.
Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Are trust and social capital the keys to success?
Watershed partnerships in California and Washington. Swimming Upstream:
Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. 233-258.
LEEP (Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority). (2013). Recommendations to reduce nutrient
loadings and harmful algal blooms. International Joint Commission.
http://www.ijc.org/files/publications/Draft%20LEEP-Aug29Final.pdf.
Libby, L.W. 1985. Paying the nonpoint pollution control bill. Journal of Soil & Water
Conservation 40:33-36.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucrats. Nova York: Russel Sage.
Lohmar, B., Wang, J., Rozelle, S., Huang, J., & Dawe, D. (2003). China's agricultural
water policy reforms: increasing investment, resolving conflicts, and revising
incentives (No. 33643). United States Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
116
Lubell, M. (2004). Collaborative watershed management: A view from the grassroots.
Policy Studies Journal, 32(3), 341-361.
Malik, A. S., Larson, B. A., & Ribaudo, M. (1994). Economic Incentives for Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control1.
Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaboration to Solve Complex
Public Problems. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Marra, M., & Zering, K. (1996). Finding the" best of the best" in water quality BMPs: the
economists' viewpoint. North Carolina State University, Department of
Agricultural and Resource Economics. AREP, 96-1.
Mason, J., Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. F. (2003). The Sage
encyclopedia of social science research methods. Sage Publications.
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguityconflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 5(2), 145-174.
May, P. J. (2003). Policy design and implementation. Handbook of public administration.
223-233.
McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews, viewed 5 October
2014.
Michalak, A. M., Anderson, E. J., Beletsky, D., Boland, S., Bosch, N. S., Bridgeman, T.
B., ... & Zagorski, M. A. (2013). Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused
by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future
117
conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 64486452.
Migliaccio, K. W., Li, Y., & Obreza, T. A. (2007). Evolution of water quality regulations
in the United States and Florida.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Sage Publications, Inc.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2014). Conservation Practices. Retrieved from
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practices.aspx.
Moore, E. A., & Koontz, T. M. (2003). Research note a typology of collaborative
watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships.Society
&Natural Resources, 16(5), 451-460.
Narciso, Dean. (2014). Thick algae blooms foreseen in Lake Erie. The Columbus
Dispatch.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2005). Western Lake Erie Basin Water
Resources Protection Plan. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved
from http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/files/mai-research/pdf-14-western-lake-erie-basinwater-resources-protection-plan.pdf.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2014a). About NRCS. United States
Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/about/.
118
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2014b). Environmental quality incentives
program. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practices.aspx.
North Carolina Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts. (2014). Agricultural
cost-share program. Retrieved from http://ncaswcd.org/?page_id=84.
Nowak, P. J., & Korsching, P. F. (1983). Social and institutional factors affecting the
adoption and maintenance of agricultural BMPs. Agricultural Management and
Water Quality. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa. 1983. p 349-373, 2 fig, 5
tab, 64 ref. Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station Project,
(2364).
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2003). Ohio EPA/ODNR vision/ expectations for
watershed projects under Ohio’s Watershed Coordinator Program.Retrieved
from
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/12/water/watershedprograms/Coordinator%20p
rogram%20overview.pdf.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2014). Watershed management program –
About. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/24085/Default.aspx.
Ohio, E. P. A. (2013). Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force. Final report. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency 90pp. Ohio EPA 2013. Phosphorus Loading
and Concentration Recommendations.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Harmful algal blooms.Retrieved from
http://epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/HAB.asp&xgt.
119
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Maumee River Watershed. (2014).
Retrieved from http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/MaumeeRiver.aspx.
Ohio State University, The. (1998). Agricultural drainage. [Extension bulletin 871-98].
Retrieved from http://ohioline.osu.edu/b871/b871_2.html.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(39),15181-15187.
Partners for Clean Streams, Inc. (2014). About us.Retrieved from
http://www.partnersforcleanstreams.org/index.php/about-us.
Peters, G. B. (2005). The problem of policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis. 7(4), 349-370.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of public administration. Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1988). Longitudinal field research on change: theory and
practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267-292.
Portange River Basin Council. (2014). Portage River Basin Council. (2014). Toledo
Metropolitan Area Council of Governments. Retrieved from
http://www.tmacog.org/prbc.htm.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: how great expectations in
Washington are dashed in Oakland: or, why it's amazing that federal programs
work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as
told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of
ruined hopes. University of California Press.
120
Robertson, P. (1999). Agricultural pollution in coastal zone management areas of the
south implementation of section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990. Implementation of Nonpoint Source Policies in Southern
Agriculture. 7(15).
Robertson, S., & Nielsen-Pincus, M. (2009). Keys to Success for Watershed Management
Organizations.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research:
a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of public policy. 6(1), 21-48.
Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1978). The conditions of effective implementation: a
guide to accomplishing policy objectives. Policy analysis, 5(4), 481-504.
Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1983). The Implementation of Public Policy: A
Framework of Analysis*. Policy studies journal, 8(4), 538-560.
Sabatier, P. A., Weible, C., & Ficker, J. (2005). Eras of water management in the United
States: Implications for collaborative watershed approaches Swimming
Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. 23-52.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford
University Press.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations:
Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review 87(2),
334-347.
121
Sellner, K. G., Doucette, G. J., & Kirkpatrick, G. J. (2003). Harmful algal blooms:
causes, impacts and detection. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and
Biotechnology. 30(7), 383-406.
Sharpley, A. N., Kleinman, P., & McDowell, R. (2001). Innovative management of
agricultural phosphorus to protect soil and water resources. Communications in
Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7-8), 1071-1100.
St. Joseph River Watershed River Initiative Partnership. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.sjrwi.org/
Thomas, C. W., & Koontz, T. M. (2011). Research designs for evaluating the impact of
community-based management on natural resource conservation. Journal of
Natural Resources Policy Research 3(2), 97-111.
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments. (2011). Portage River Watershed
Plan. Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments Portage River Basin
Council.
Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Handbook for developing
watershed plans to restore and protect our waters. DIANE Publishing.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). What is Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Pollution. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). Great Lakes: Basic
information. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/basicinfo.html.
122
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). Great Lakes: Facts and
statistics. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lakestats.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012c). Water: Pollution runoff: What
is nonpoint source pollution? Retrieved from
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Water: Total maximum daily
loads (303d) What is a TMDL? Retrieved from
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overviewoftmdl.cfm.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014a). Nutrient pollution; Harmful
algal blooms. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/harmfulalgal-blooms#cause.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014b). Water: Total maximum daily
loads (303d) impaired waters and total maximum daily loads. Retrieved from
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/.
United States Geological Survey. (2014). Eutrophication. Retrieved from
http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html
Valentin, L., Bernardo, D. J., & Kastens, T. L. (2004). Testing the empirical relationship
between best management practice adoption and farm profitability. Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy, 26(4), 489-504.
Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: typologies and theories. Carrots, sticks, and
sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation, 21-58.
123
Vollmer-Sanders, C. (2012, December 1). Western Lake Erie Basin, a Place for
Innovative Thinking and Collaboration. Retrieved October 17, 2014.
WELP (Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership. (2014). 4R Certification Training Kicks
Off as Lake Erie Forecast Expected. Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership.
http://wleb.org/.
Wines, M. (2014, February 26). Fertilizer limits sought near Lake Erie to fight spread of
algae. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/fertilizer-limits-sought-near-lake-erie-tofight-spread-of-algae.html?_r=0.
Winter, S. (2003). Implementation perspectives: status and reconsideration.Handbook of
public administration, 212-222.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource managment. Island Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc. 5,
11.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations.
124
Appendix A: Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Diagram Involved in Implementation
Process
125
Appendix B: Interview Questions
1. Tell me about plan implementation. Who is implementing plan recommendations
if any? Is this the implementer(s) suggested by the watershed action plan (WAP)?
2. What is their role in implementation? Who is responsible for implementation?
3. What is their involvement? How many of the recommendations have been
implemented?
4. Which factors most affect implementation of recommendations? Do these make
implementation easier or harder? Which recommendations are being done before
others, and why?
5. Is there a specific timeline for this implementation? If so, what is it?
6. Does the target of the implementation (farmer, citizen, public entity, etc.) have
power to decide a particular recommendation versus another? In what ways are
targets of the recommendation making it harder or easier to implement?
7. Where does the funding for implementation come from?
8. Do you think this implementation is occurring as a result of the watershed action
plan development or is the implementation a result of the plan itself, or neither?
9. Are actions or best management practices (BMPs) not specifically listed in the
plan encouraged? Why? How?
126
10. Is there anything else you can tell me that will help me understand plan
implementation?
11. Who else should I contact to learn more about WAP implementation?
127
Appendix C: Likert Scale Interview Questions
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being not at all important, 5 being very important, please rate the
following items in their impacts on plan implementation.
1. Dedicated watershed coordinator or other leader.
2. Willing landowners.
3. Funding for recommendation.
4. Involvement in the WAP planning process.
5. Level of concern in community.
6. Networks within community.
7. Links between WAP and other land use planning efforts or other efforts (another
improvement plan).
128
Appendix D: BMP Recommendation Data
129
Recommended
Actions
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
WAP
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Geograph
ic Area
Below
Potato
Run
Policy
Tool
Incentive
Specified Policy
Implementor
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
State
Universitites will
be contacted,
BRWP
Policy
Target
Farmer
Amount
Farmer
100
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
2,900
acres
20122016
Farmer
50
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
500
linear
feet/year
20122016
Sermon
Funding
Source(s)
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
N/A
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Incentive
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Contrac
tor
Demo
stration
Project
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Sermon
EQIP
Hancock SWCD,
EDF, landowner
Farmer
2
systems
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Below
Potato
Run
Sermon
N/A
Farmer
N/A
20102016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 199)
Incentive
Farmer
4,800
acres
20122016
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 199)
Incentive
Farmer
50
acres/yea
r
20122016
Establish Filter
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 199)
Incentive
Farmer
4,800
acres
20122016
Increase Cover
Outlet/
Brights
Incentive
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
OSU Extension,
BRWP, Hancock
SWCD,
Landowner
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
Farmer
50
2012-
130
2,900
acres
Time
line
20122016
Crop Usage
Lye
Creek
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 199)
Sermon
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
EDF, landowner
Install Grass
Waterways
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 199)
Incentive
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Incentive
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Incentive
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Sermon
N/A
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Stahls
Ditch
Regulatio
n
319
Funds
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 197)
Sermon
N/A
OSU Extension,
BRWP, Hancock
SWCD,
Landowner,
Wyandot Health
Department
Wyandot Health
Department,
Hancock Board
of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
Wyandot
Engineer
State
Universitites will
be contacted,
BRWP
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
131
acres/yea
r
2016
Farmer
250
linear
feet/year
20122016
Farmer
2,250
acres
20122016
Farmer
100
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
2,250
acres
20122016
Farmer
50
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
1000
linear
feet/year
20122016
Farmer
N/A
20122016
Farmer
2
practices
per/year
20122016
Landow
ner
16.4
lbs/HST
S/year
20112016
Contrac
tor
Demo
stration
Project
20122016
Wetlands
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 197)
Sermon
EQIP
Hancock SWCD,
EDF, landowner
Landow
ner
N/A
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Brights
Ditch
Upstream
(TR 197)
The
Outlet
Sermon
N/A
Farmer
N/A
20122016
Incentive
Farmer
9,000
acres
20122016
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Incentive
Farmer
200
acres/yea
r
20122016
Establish Filter
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Incentive
Farmer
9,000
acres
20122016
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Incentive
Farmer
100
acres/yea
r
20122016
Install Grass
Waterways
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Incentive
Farmer
4000
linear
feet/year
20122016
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Sermon
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP
OSU Extension,
BRWP, Hancock
SWCD,
Landowner
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
EDF, landowner
Farmer
3
systems
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Sermon
N/A
Farmer
2
practices
per/year
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
The
Outlet
Sermon
CREP
OSU Extension,
BRWP, Hancock
SWCD,
Landowner
BRWP,
Contractor,
Hancock SWCD,
EDF
Contrac
tor
5 acre
wetland
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Blancard
River
above The
Outlet
Incentive
2,500
acres
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Blancard
River
above The
Incentive
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Farmer
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Farmer
100
acres/yea
r
20122016
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
132
Practices
Outlet
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
N/A
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
City of Findlay,
Findaly Engineer,
Contractor,
BRWP, ODNR
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
Hancock SWCD,
ODNR,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), NRCS
State
Universitites will
be contacted,
BRWP
OSU Extension,
BRWP, Hancock
SWCD,
Landowner
Establish Filter
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Blancard
River
above The
Outlet
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Blancard
River
above The
Outlet
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Blancard
River
above The
Outlet
Incentive
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Riverside
Dam at
Riverside
Park
Sermon
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Incentive
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Incentive
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Sermon
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
N/A
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Sermon
N/A
133
Farmer
2,500
acres
20122016
Farmer
100
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
1000
linear
feet/year
20122016
Contrac
tor
Sediment
Island
20122013
Farmer
5,800
acres
20122016
Farmer
200
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
5,800
acres
20122016
Farmer
200
acres/yea
r
20122016
Farmer
5000
linear
feet/year
20122016
City of
Findlay
,
Hancoc
k
County
Farmer
N/A
20122016
2
practices
per/year
20122016
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Regulatio
n
319
Funds
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock County
Engineer
Landow
ner
N/A
20122015
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Sermon
N/A
City of
Findlay
,
Hancoc
k
County
1 ditch
20122016
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Outlet/
Lye
Creek
Lye Creek
Sermon
N/A
Hancock SWCD,
BRWP,
Environmental
Defense Fund
(EDF), Hancock
Engineer, Findlay
Engineer
BRWP
N/A
N/A
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Incentive
5,455
acres
20132017
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Incentive
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
200
acres/yea
r
20132017
Establish Filter
Strips
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Incentive
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
5,455
acres
20132017
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Incentive
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
100
acres/yea
r
20132017
Install Grass
Waterways
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Incentive
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
1000
linear
feet/year
20132017
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Sermon
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
Local
Support
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmers
Ongo
ing
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Sermon
Local
Support
N/A
Ongo
ing
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Riley
Creek
Binkley
Ditch
Sermon
N/A
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmers
N/A
Increase
Participation in
CRP/CREP
Each
Farm
N/A
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Incentive
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
BRWP, Hardin
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Hardin
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Hardin
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
Farmers
5,444
acres
20132017
134
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Strips
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
Local
Support
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Increase
Participation in
CRP/CREP
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Local
Support
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Sermon
N/A
Riley
Creek
Upper
Riley
Creek
Regulatio
n
319
Funds
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Incentive
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Incentive
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
135
ODNR
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
200
acres/yea
r
20132017
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
5,444
acres
20132017
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
100
acres/yea
r
20132017
Hardin SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
1000
linear
feet/year
20132017
BRWP, Hardin
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Hardin
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Hardin
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock County
Engineer, BRWP
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmers
N/A
Ongo
ing
N/A
Ongo
ing
Each
Farm
20132017
Landow
ners
16.4
lbs/HST
S/year
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
5, 402
acres
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
200
acres/yea
r
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
5, 402
acres
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
Farmers
150
acres/yea
20132017
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
N/A
Install Grass
Waterways
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Incentive
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Sermon
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Sermon
Local
Support
Increase
Participation in
CRP/CREP
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Sermon
Local
Support
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Reduce
Streambank
Erosion
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Regulatio
n
319
Funds
Riley
Creek
Marsh
Run
Incentive
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Eqip,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
N/A
136
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
r
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
1000
linear
feet/year
20132017
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
Allen County
Health
Department,
Allen County
Engineer, BRWP
Farmers
Each
Farm
20132017
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Landow
ners
N/A
Ongo
ing
N/A
Ongo
ing
16.4
lbs/HST
S/year
20132017
NRCS, Allen
SWCD, EDF,
BRWP
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Landow
ners
Stabilize
500 feet
N/A
Farmers
5, 761
acres
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
200
acres/yea
r
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
5, 761
acres
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
175
acres/yea
r
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
1000
linear
feet/year
20132017
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
Farmers
Each
Farm
20132017
Plans
EDF, ODNR
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Local
Support
Increase
Participation in
CRP/CREP
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Local
Support
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Riley
Creek
Middle
Riley
Creek
Regulatio
n
319
Funds
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Establish Filter
Strips
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Install Grass
Waterways
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Incentive
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Sermon
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
EQIP,
CRP,
CREP,
Cost
Share
N/A
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Local
Support
Increase
Participation in
CRP/CREP
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Sermon
Local
Support
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Riley
Creek
Lower
Riley
Creek
Regulatio
n
319
Funds
137
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Hancock
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Allen County
Health
Department,
Hancock County
Engineer, Allen
County Engineer,
BRWP
Allen SWCD,
Putnam SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Landow
ners
N/A
Ongo
ing
N/A
Ongo
ing
16.4
lbs/HST
S/year
20132017
Farmers
6, 128
acres
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Putnam SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
200
acres/yea
r
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Putnam SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
6, 128
acres
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Putnam SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
175
acres/yea
r
20132017
Allen SWCD,
Putnam SWCD,
NRCS, EDF,
ODNR
Farmers
1000
linear
feet/year
20132017
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Putnam
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Putnam
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
BRWP, Allen
SWCD, Putnam
SWCD, NRCS,
EDF, ODNR
Putnam County
Board of Health,
Allen County
Farmers
Each
Farm
20132017
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
Landow
ners
N/A
Ongo
ing
N/A
Ongo
ing
16.4
lbs/HST
S/year
20132017
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Portag
e
River
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Regulatio
n
N/A
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Portag
e
River
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Incentive
Cost
Share
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Portag
e
River
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Incentive
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Portag
e
River
Repair and
Portag
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Needles
Creek
Above
Rader
Creek
Rader
Portag
e
River
Health
Department,
Putname County
Engineer, Allen
County Engineer,
BRWP
Wood Health
Department,
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Landow
ner
23
systems
20132022
Farmers
1,000
acres
20132027
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
400
acres
20132027
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
500
acres
20132027
Landow
ner
50 acres
wetland
20132027
Landow
ner
750
linear
feet
20132027
Farmers
10,063
acres
20132027
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
10,000
acres
20132022
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
500
acres
20132027
Regulatio
N/A
Wood Health
Landow
88
2013-
138
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
e
River
Creek
n
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Portag
e
River
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Portag
e
River
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Rader
Creek
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Rader
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Portag
e
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Regulatio
n
Incentive
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Department,
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
ner
systems
2022
Farmers
1,100
acres
20132027
Farmers
500
acres
20132027
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
750
acres
20132027
Landow
ner
75 acres
wetland
20132027
Landow
ner
900
linear
feet
20132027
Farmers
10,044
acres
20132027
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
11,000
acres
20132022
Farmers
600
acres
20132027
N/A
Wood Health
Department,
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
52
systems
20132022
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
500
acres
20132027
139
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Portag
e
River
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Portag
e
River
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Portag
e
River
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Farmers
300
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Landow
ner
25 acres
wetland
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Landow
ner
400
linear
feet
20132027
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
10,036
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
5,000
acres
20132022
140
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Portag
e
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
300
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rader Cr.
to Above
Rocky
Ford
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Regulatio
n
N/A
Landow
ner
176
systems
20122022
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
250
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood Health
Department,
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Farmers
50 acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
300
acres
20122027
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
500
linear
feet of
oxbows,
25 acres
wetland
200
linear
feet
20122027
Portag
e
River
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
23,404
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Rocky
Ford
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
1,000
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
300
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Regulatio
n
N/A
Wood Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
30
systems
20122022
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
141
Landow
ner
20122027
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Portag
e
River
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Portag
e
River
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Below
Rocky
Ford
Creek to
Above
South
Branch
Portage
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rocky
Ford
Creek to
Above
South
Branch
Portage
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rocky
Ford
Creek to
Above
South
Branch
Portage
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rocky
Ford
Creek to
Above
South
Branch
Portage
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rocky
Ford
Creek to
Above
South
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
1,500
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
700
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Landow
ner
2,000
linear
feet
oxbows
20122027
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
8,424
acres
20122027
142
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Portag
e
River
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Branch
Portage
River
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Rocky
Ford
Creek to
Above
South
Branch
Portage
River
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20122027
Regulatio
n
N/A
Wood Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
45
systems
20122022
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
625
acres
20122027
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
400
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Farmers
250
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Landow
ner
20122027
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
Bull
Creek
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
700
linear
feet
oxbows,
10 acres
wetland
1,000
linear
feet
9,611
acres
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
2,000
acres
20122027
Bull
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
South
Branch
Portage
Regulatio
n
N/A
Wood Health
Department,
Hancock County
Landow
ner
79
systems
20122022
143
Farmers
20122027
20122027
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Portag
e
River
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Portag
e
River
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Portag
e
River
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer
TMACOG,
OEPA
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
2,200
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
730
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Farmers
600
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Landow
ner
400
linear
feet
oxbows,
50 acres
wetland
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Landow
ner
3,000
linear
feet
20122027
144
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Portag
e
River
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Portag
e
River
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Headwate
rs to
Above
East
Branch
Portage
River
East
Branch
Portage
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
17,292
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
10,000
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
600
acres
20122027
Regulatio
n
N/A
Landow
ner
81
systems
20122022
East
Branch
Portage
River
East
Branch
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood Health
Department,
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
3,200
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
800
acres
20122027
East
Branch
Portage
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Farmers
250
acres
20122027
145
Strips
River
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
East
Branch
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Portag
e
River
East
Branch
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Incentive
Cost
Share
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Portag
e
River
Incentive
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Portag
e
River
Habitat
Portag
East
Branch
Portage
River
East
Branch
Portage
River
East
Branch
Portage
River
South
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
South
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
South
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
South
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer,
Hancock
Engineer
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Landow
ner
20 acres
wetland
20122027
Landow
ner
500
linear
feet
20122027
Farmers
11,427
acres
20122027
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
7,000
acres
20122027
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
500
acres
20122027
Regulatio
n
N/A
Wood Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
39
systems
20122022
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
1,200
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
800
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Wood SWCD,
Landow
500
2012-
146
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
e
River
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Portag
e
River
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Portag
e
River
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Portag
e
River
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
South
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
South
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
South
Branch
Portage
River
Below
East
Branch to
Above
Middle
Branch
Portage
River
Below
South
Branch to
Above
North
Branch
Portage
River
Below
South
Branch to
Above
North
Branch
Portage
River
Below
Share
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
ner
linear
feet of
oxbows
2027
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
6,584
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
8,000
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20122027
Regulatio
n
N/A
Landow
ner
52
systems
20122022
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood Health
Department,
Hancock County
Board of Health,
Hancock
Engineer,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Wood SWCD,
Hancock SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
5,744
acres
20122027
Sermon
N/A
Wood SWCD,
OSU Extension,
NRCS,
Farmer
and
Landow
N/A
20132018
147
South
Branch to
Above
North
Branch
TMACOG,
OEPA, Black
Swamp
Conservancy,
ODNR,
landowners
Wood Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
ner
Landow
ner
256
systems
20122022
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
Regulatio
n
N/A
Portag
e
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
3,800
acres
20122027
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
800
acres
20122027
North
Branch
Portage
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Farmers
725
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Landow
ner
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Wood Engineer
Landow
ner
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
18,953
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
17,000
acres
20122027
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Adopt and
Implement
New
Agriculture
Technologies
Portag
e
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
North
Branch
Portage
River
3,000
linear
feet
oxbows,
50 acres
wetland
1,900
linear
feet
Incentive
Cost
Share
Wood SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
500
acres
20122027
Sermon
N/A
Farmer
and
Landow
ner
N/A
20122020
Conduct
Educational
Outreach
Portag
e
River
North
Branch
Portage
Sermon
N/A
All 5 county
SWCD and
Engineers,
ONDR, USDA,
USGS,
TMACOG, GIS
Consultant
BGSU, City of
Bowling Green,
Wood SWCD,
Farmer
and
Landow
N/A
20122015
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
148
20122027
River
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Portag
e
River
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Portag
e
River
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Portag
e
River
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Portag
e
River
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Portag
e
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Wood Health
Department,
PRBC,
TMACOG
Sandusky Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
ner
Landow
ner
127
systems
20122022
Portage
River
Below
North
Branch To
Above
Sugar
Creek
Portage
River
Below
North
Branch To
Above
Sugar
Creek
Portage
River
Below
North
Branch To
Above
Sugar
Creek
Portage
River
Below
North
Branch To
Above
Sugar
Creek
Portage
River
Below
North
Branch To
Above
Sugar
Creek
Sugar
Creek
Regulatio
n
N/A
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Sandusky
Engineer
Farmers
200
acres
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Sandusky
Engineer
Landow
ner
25 acres
wetland
20122027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
NRCS, farmers,
Sandusky
Engineer
Landow
ner
250
linear
feet
20122027
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
9,011
acres
20122027
Regulatio
n
N/A
Sandusky Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
150
systems
20122022
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20122027
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers
Farmers
50 acres
20122027
149
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers, County
Engineers
Farmers
150
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers, County
Engineers
Landow
ner
25 acres
wetland
20122027
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
250
linear
feet
18,886
acres
20122027
Sugar
Creek
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers, County
Engineers
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers
Farmers
1,500
acres
20122027
Sugar
Creek
Incentive
Cost
Share
SWCDs, NRCS,
farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20122027
Portag
e
River
Lower
Portage
River
Regulatio
n
N/A
Sandusky Health
Department,
Ottawa Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
193
systems
20132022
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Lower
Portage
River
Lower
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
250
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
50 acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Lower
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
100
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Lower
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
20 acres
wetland
20132027
Portag
e
River
Lower
Portage
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
15,639
acres
20132027
Portag
e
Lower
Portage
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
Farmers
1,000
acres
20132027
150
Farmers
20122027
River
River
Portag
e
River
Lower
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
200
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Regulatio
n
N/A
Sandusky Health
Department,
Ottawa Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
72
systems
20132022
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Little
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
2,000
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
600
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
400
acres
20132027
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
35 acres
wetland
20132027
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
400
linear
feet
20132027
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
10,384
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Little
Portage
River
Little
Portage
River
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
1,500
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
600
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Regulatio
n
N/A
Sandusky Health
Department,
Ottawa Health
Department,
TMACOG,
OEPA
Landow
ner
300
systems
20132022
Portag
e
Lacarpe
Creek –
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
Farmers
320
acres
20132027
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Repair and
Replace Failing
HSTS (Home
Septic
Treatment
Systems) /
Reduce E.Coli
Increase Cover
Crop Usage
NRCS, farmers
151
River
Identify Areas
and Install
Controlled
Drainage
Systems
Establish
Riparian
Buffers / Buffer
Strips
Portag
e
River
Portag
e
River
Habitat
Restoration /
Preserve
Habitat /
Preserve
Wetlands
Install 2-Stage
Ditches
Frontal
Lake Erie
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
NRCS, farmers
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
94 acres
20132027
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Incentive
Cost
Share
Farmers
69 acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
7 acres
wetland
20132027
Portag
e
River
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Incentive
Cost
Share
Landow
ner
59 linear
feet
20132027
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plans
Establish Filter
Strips
Portag
e
River
Incentive
NRCS
Cost
Share
Farmers
5738
acres
20132027
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
320
acres
20132027
Increase
Conservation
Tillage
Practices
Portag
e
River
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Lacarpe
Creek –
Frontal
Lake Erie
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Sandusky
Engineer, Ottawa
SWCD, Ottawa
Engineer, NRCS,
farmers
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Incentive
Cost
Share
Sandusky SWCD,
Ottawa SWCD,
NRCS, farmers
Farmers
108
acres
20132027
Portag
e
River
152