stakeholder involvement in watershed management: lessons learned

This is not a peer-reviewed article. Pp. 046-050 in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental Regulations–II Proceedings of the 8-12 November 2003 Conference (Albuquerque, New Mexico USA), Publication Date 8 November 2003. ASAE Publication Number 701P1503, ed. A. Saleh.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: LESSONS LEARNED K. L. White, I. Chaubey, and T. A. Costello

ABSTRACT Currently, nonpoint source pollution management practices are primarily unregulated, but voluntary practices on agricultural production land in Arkansas are encouraged by the poultry industry and state/federal agencies. This voluntary system places stakeholders (or landowners) in a role of primary influence on implementation of management practices for water quality protection. We conducted a project in a small watershed, approximately 3,240 ha, in Northwest Arkansas as a follow-up to a study conducted approximately 10 years earlier in which landowners were encouraged with financial subsidies to implement management practices to abate nutrient nonpoint source pollutants. The project was initiated to evaluate the success and failures of the 1990 implemented management practices, the end goal being to incorporate this information into a contemporary watershed management plan. To accomplish this, landowner involvement was crucial, therefore multiple methods were used to involve stakeholders at different levels: one-on-one interviews, news articles, fact sheets, stakeholder meetings, and field days. The objective of this paper is to discuss the success and failures associated with different methods for gaining stakeholder participation and provide guidelines for future stakeholder dependent projects. Through one-on-one interviews, stakeholders provided information on their experiences with various management practices. In the process, additional knowledge was gained that improved our understanding of problems faced by landowners, of local issues we had not considered, and of methods for better stakeholder communication. This information helped us determine management needs that were watershed specific. Results from this study emphasize the inability of generalized standards or management practices to successfully address nonpoint source pollution in a watershed. It was readily apparent that stakeholders wanted to be involved, but they responded best to individual contact and inquiry rather than large public meetings or mass mail outs. By communicating personally with stakeholders, we were able to help close the loop on the education-subsidy scheme for encouraging landowners to implement voluntary nutrient management practices. KEYWORDS. Watershed management, Stakeholder, Management practices.

INTRODUCTION The idea of using education-subsidy as an approach to entice agricultural producers into implementing management practices to solve nonpoint pollution problems is not new. Historically, the education-subsidy approach has been successful in motivating agricultural producers through education, demonstrations, and cost sharing (Napier, 1990). The education – subsidy idea was first implemented in the United States in the early 1900s to address erosion concerns related to agricultural practices (Napier, 1990). More recently, education-subsidy has been promoted as a tool to address excessive nutrients that were entering waterways from agricultural activities (Beegle et al., 2000). Excessive nutrients are a concern because of their ability to cause noxious, oxygen consuming, and sometime toxic algal blooms; deterioration of fisheries; and general degradation of water quality (Sharpley et al., 1994; Park et al., 1994). Agricultural production can contribute to the nutrient load substantially by mismanaging or over applying fertilizer, manure, and litter to pastures (Edwards et al., 1996). Hence, nutrient loads

can be linked to agricultural production and are potentially mitigated by landowner implementation of voluntary nutrient management practices. In 1990, a project was initiated in Northwest Arkansas to implement management practices to address nutrient concerns in an agricultural watershed with the education-subsidy program, Long-term Agreements (LTAs). The subsidy program was directed by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (CES), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and provided 75% cost per practice (Dunigan, 2003). Practices that were implemented in the 1990 study included nutrient management, ponds, fencing, waste utilization, pasture and hayland management, and dead poultry composting. Under the LTA, the practices were to be kept in place for the life span of that particular practice (10-20 years) (Dunigan, 2003). Such education-subsidy programs for nutrient management have not only been implemented in Arkansas, but throughout the US. However, little is known about the long-term impacts of a subsidy program on water quality. To develop some understanding of this linkage, this stakeholder driven project was initiated. Our project evaluated the management practices that were subsidized for landowners in the 1990 project in Northwest Arkansas. To successfully evaluate the implementation and sustainability of these practices, we identified particular methods to involve stakeholders: one-on-one interviews, news articles/fact sheets, and stakeholder meetings/field day. The objective of this paper is to discuss the success and failures associated with different methods for gaining stakeholder participation and provide guidelines for future stakeholder dependent projects.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project was conducted in the Moores Creek Watershed, located in Northwest Arkansas. The watershed is part of the interstate Illinois River Watershed that crosses from Arkansas into Oklahoma. The watershed is dominated by agricultural production (poultry farms, cattle pastures, and haying operations (56 %) and forest (36 %) (based on 1999 land use - land cover data from the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST)). The primary water quality concern in the area is excessive phosphorus from land application of animal waste. Stakeholders within the 3,240 ha watershed were sought out for involvement through different techniques: one-on-one interviews, news articles, fact sheets, stakeholder meetings, and field days. One-on-one interviews were conducted to inventory management practices implemented in the 1990 LTA project. Identifying participants was somewhat difficult do to the unavailability of records from the previous project. The first step in this participant identification process was to review farm plans developed during the management practice implementation phase to determine the nature and extent of management practices planned. Twelve participants were identified from the review of farm plans. Of the twelve, two were deceased and three did not remember participating in the 1990 LTA study. We traveled on-site to meet with all available landowners and to assess the operation and maintenance of management practices that were installed. Table 1 lists the different management practices that were identified during the oneon-one interviews. Table 1: Management practices listed by participant from the one-on-one interviews conducted in Moores Creek Watershed, Arkansas Participant Management practices 11 Chicken compost3 Nutrient management 2 Waste utilization Fence Prescribed grazing Dead bird incinerator3 3 Waste utilization Fence Prescribed grazing Dead bird incinerator3 4 Waste utilization Filter strip 51 Waste utilization 6 Waste utilization 71 Pasture and hay

1

8 9 102 112 122

planting Nutrient management Prescribed grazing

Pond

Fence

* Management practices are identified by their name according to the National Conservation Practice Standards (NCPS) (http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/nhcp_2.html) 1

Participant 1, 5, and 7 do not recall being involved in the 1990 LTA study

2

Participants 10-12 were not available for one-on-one interviews

3

Chicken compost and dead bird incinerator were not NCPS identified practices

At this time additional insight was gained from the landowner’s perspective. Discussions with stakeholders included topics such as: their opinion on management practices implemented in the 1990 study or other management practices, how they thought it best to address nutrient problems in their watershed, and the optimum method for researchers to educate landowners on new information. Based on information gained from the on-site discussions, we published news articles and fact sheets to address issues or information gaps discovered. In addition, we held public meetings to establish a platform for relaying information and collecting input from the landowners. A more visual educational component was incorporated through stakeholder meetings and field/demonstration days. Demonstrations were organized to provide outreach and educate stakeholders on the linkages between on-farm agricultural activities and watershed-level water quality benefits. Multi-agency groups (including Washington County Conservation District (WCCD) and CES) coordinated efforts to accomplish these tasks.

ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS Through one-on-one interviews, stakeholders provided information on their experiences with various management practices. In the process, we gained additional knowledge that improved our understanding of problems faced by landowners, of local issues we had not considered, and of methods for better stakeholder communication. Although our primary goal was to inventory practices implemented and sustained from the 1990 LTAs, other information was obtained that helped us understand the landowner’s perspective and nutrient management needs. An interesting point of contention that was raised during one interview was the mass production of poultry litter in the area and the economics involved in using that litter for pasture fertilizer. Although a particular agricultural producer may produce poultry litter in excess of the nutrient requirements for his/her pastures, agriculture landowners without poultry production find it more expensive to obtain litter from a neighboring farm than to buy commercial fertilizer. Another nutrient management problem was that commercial fertilizer blends purchased for a particular pasture were often based on a soil test performed several years earlier or based on the landowners previous experiences instead of the nutrient needs of a particular pasture grass on a particular soil type. These observations from stakeholder interviews suggest that better management of organic and inorganic fertilizer is needed and could be accomplished in this particular watershed. One component that would aid in this endeavor is better education and communication between educators and stakeholders. Continued education is needed to help the landowners understand the proper use of fertilizers and communication is needed amongst the landowners to share valuable resources such as poultry litter. However for resource trading to succeed, a mutual benefit must be identified between those that produce excessive amounts of poultry litter and those that would like to use poultry litter as a fertilizer. Other, more personal issues, also influence the voluntary implementation of nutrient management practices. For example, some landowners would complain that others were not

2

implementing management practices and were contributing to the problem. False information or misunderstanding of the issues also caused landowners to become defensive and neglect or disregard nutrient management practices that were suggested by local agencies, particularly from NRCS nutrient management plans. This reinforced the idea that education is never finished, constant exposure to new findings and review of past information is critical. This on-going education could be accomplished through many different venues: news articles, television spots, billboards, brochures, mail outs, etc. While all of these methods of relaying information are fairly economical, Moores Creek landowners noted that the best way for them to receive information was from one-on-one contact or organized-small group settings. This type of environment leads to easy discussion, with stakeholders feeling more at ease. In addition, they have the opportunity to ask as many questions as needed without feeling self-conscious. The fact that one-on-one or small groups were advantageous became apparent through our news articles and fact sheet handouts. We did not receive any phone calls to follow up or ask a question after releasing our news articles. In addition, when holding the large stakeholder meeting few attended.

NEWS ARTICLES/FACT SHEETS News articles were included in multi-county publications to inform landowners of the project and entice stakeholder involvement. To date, one news article has been published in a tri-county (Washington, Benton, and Delaware Counties) newsletter that was sent to approximately 1,800 people. The news article contained detailed information on the project goals and encouraged stakeholder participation. The article described the one-on-one surveys and requested input from anyone interested in participating or learning more about the project. News articles contained contact information and requests for assistance and feed back from all those interested in the watershed, not one stakeholder contacted us after publishing the news articles. Fact sheets served a different purpose. They were developed based on educational needs determined from one-on-one interviews. Fact sheets were developed to address nutrient management with commercial and organic fertilizers and to describe potential management practices that would help mitigate nutrient concerns in the watershed. These topics were chosen for fact sheets to address weaknesses in stakeholder knowledge and to answer questions presented by the stakeholders. Fact sheet were distributed by the WCCD and CES. The WCCD can use the fact sheets as educational tools when speaking to landowners, particularly during development of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP). The CES can incorporate the fact sheets in field days, newsletters, and other organized activities.

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS/FIELD DAY Stakeholder meetings were held to provide a forum for discussion and information transfer. However, landowner turnout at meetings was low and the goals of the stakeholder meetings were not met. These meetings were organized through the CES and landowners were invited by mass mail outs. At one stakeholder meeting, 2000 invitations were mailed and less than 20 people attended. For this particular meeting, three groups presented information concerning the projects in the watershed: WCCD, CES, and University of Arkansas. The meeting format included a free meal followed by the three presentations and lasted approximately 1.5 hrs. The low turn out could be due to several factors, two of which we can control: method of invitation and meeting design. Based on discussions as noted earlier, a smaller group setting might be more appealing to the landowners. A small group setting would consist of 5-7 stakeholders. The group would meet at a location and time of their choice with the project leaders. This would provide the stakeholders with more control and ownership over the stakeholder meetings. The meeting would start with discussion questions posed by the project leaders. The project leaders would also present information they had obtained and seek stakeholder input. And opposed to the mail out invitations, personally contacting and inviting the landowners might increase participation.

3

CONCLUSIONS Although the goal of this research project was to inventory previously implemented management practices, additional information was obtained to help us better address the water quality issues for the watershed and more successfully initiate voluntary stakeholder participation. It was readily apparent that stakeholders wanted to be involved, but they responded best to individual contact and inquiry. In hindsight, •

Dedicating a person to maintain contact with individual stakeholders would have been advantageous. It was obvious that we gained valuable information regarding nutrient management in the watershed from one-on-one interviews and very little from the group meetings and mass mail outs.

•

Decisions on the best information to be included on a fact sheet should be made after determining the stakeholder needs of that particular watershed.

•

Small focus groups may be a better alternative to large public meetings when the main objective is to collect feedback from landowners and others in the community.

The key to successful management of agricultural land requires understanding of stakeholder knowledge, problems, and abilities. The education-subsidy idea will best work if those trying to encourage voluntary implementation of management practices take time to educate themselves on the stakeholders’ perspective. Without understanding the stakeholder point of view, information travels in only one direction. By communicating personally with stakeholders, we can close the loop on the education-subsidy approach for encouraging landowners to implement voluntary nutrient management practices.

REFERENCE 1.

Beegle, D. B., O. T. Carson, and J. S. Bailey. 2000. Nutrient management planning: justification, theory, practice. J. Environ. Qual. 29:72-79.

2.

Dunigan, Casey. 2003. Personal Communication. Washington County Conservation District Resource Conservationist.

3.

Edwards, D.R., T.C. Daniel, H.D. Scott, J.F. Murdoch, M.J. Habiger, and H.M. Burks. 1996. Stream quality impact of best management practices in a Northwest Arkansas Basin. J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 32(3):499-509.

4.

Napier, T. L. 1990. The evolution of US soil-conservation policy: from voluntary adoption to coercion. In Soil Erosion on Agricultural Land. 627-644. John Wiley & Son, Ltd.

5.

Park, S.W., S. Mostaghimi, R.A. Cooke, and P.W. McClellan. 1994. BMP impacts on watershed runoff, sediment, and nutrient yields. J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 30(6): 10111023.

6.

Sharpley, A.N., S.C. Chapra, R. Wedepohl, J.T. Sims, T.C. Daniel and K.R. Reddy. 1994. Managing agricultural phosphorus for protection of surface waters: issues and options. J. Environ. Qual. 23:437-451.

4