Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Management: a Case Study of Sunday Creek

Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Management: A Case Study of Sunday Creek

Watershed Management Plans in Southeastern Ohio

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Melissa E. Menerey

June 2011

This thesis titled

Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Management: A Case Study of Sunday Creek

Watershed Management Plans in Southeastern Ohio

MELISSA E. MENEREY

has been approved for

the Department of Geography

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Dorothy Sack

Professor of Geography

Benjamin M. Ogles

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

ABSTRACT

MENEREY, MELISSA E., M.A., June 2011, Geography

Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Management: A Case Study of Sunday Creek

Watershed Management Plans in Southeastern Ohio

Director of Thesis: Dorothy Sack

This thesis explores the involvement of stakeholders in the Sunday Creek watershed in southeastern Ohio by examining the drafting process of the 2003 and 2011 comprehensive watershed management plans. Utilizing an established, active, multistakeholder watershed management group in southeastern Ohio, the Sunday Creek

Watershed Group (SCWG), helped provide insight into what makes such a group and its process of developing a management plan successful. This research relies primarily on qualitative data obtained from group observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis to reconstruct and analyze the experiences of drafting two management plans in eight years for a single watershed.

Utilizing qualitative methods this research explores the role of the watershed management document for stakeholders, and finds the actual document lacking effectiveness for daily activities in the watershed. Also, stakeholders perceive the document as long and technical. The research identifies the main groups of stakeholders in the Sunday Creek watershed as agency personnel, watershed staff, community members, and nonprofit groups. The process of writing the 2003 management plan was more effective at incorporating different groups of stakeholders than the 2011 plan. In the past stakeholders participated in surveys and public meetings to discuss the plan. 4

Overall stakeholders seemed satisfied with their levels of involvement however, more open lines of communication are necessary to keep stakeholders informed about the

Sunday Creek watershed. Involvement in the group, especially of community members, has dwindled since its establishment. This thesis also suggests what a watershed management document should contain and then compares the state of Ohio‟s current regulation for such plans to the suggested requirements. The current watershed management plan needs to be altered for some stakeholders; ideas for alterations include adding community involvement and environmental education components to the plan as well as an executive summary to encourage more readership among stakeholders.

Approved: ______

Dorothy Sack

Professor of Geography 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Dorothy Sack, for her support, patience, and thorough editing without which this thesis would not have come to fruition. I extend my gratitude to Dr. Geoffrey Buckley, Dr. Harold Perkins, and Dr.

Natalie Kruse for their instruction, comments, and encouragement. Thank you to the

Ohio University Geography Department for their support throughout my graduate career and future endeavors. I would also like to extend a very special thank you to my fellow graduate students who have acted as sounding boards for academic ideas and made my time as a graduate student more enjoyable. To all of the individuals I interacted with during my research and to all the people I interviewed, thank you for making this research possible and sharing your stories with me. Also, thanks to Seth Brodbeck for calming and supportive words throughout this process. Finally to my family, especially my parents, who have offered unwavering support and words of encouragement throughout my life and education, for which I extend my sincerest gratitude.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgments...... 5 Table of Contents ...... 6 List of Tables ...... 8 List of Figures ...... 9 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 10 Research Questions ...... 13 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 15 Grassroots Watershed ...... 15 Governance ...... 21 Success in Watershed Management: Incorporating Stakeholders ...... 25 Conclusion ...... 31 Chapter 3: Sunday Creek watershed ...... 33 Climate ...... 34 Geology ...... 35 Discharge ...... 35 Census Data ...... 36 History of the Watershed ...... 36 Chapter 4: Methods ...... 40 Data Collection ...... 40 Data Analysis ...... 44 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion ...... 46 Role of the Document ...... 48 Importance of the Document...... 49 Stakeholder Perception of the Documents ...... 51 Stakeholder Involvement in Preparing the Management Plans ...... 53 Stakeholder Input ...... 54 Stakeholder Opinions of the Plans ...... 57 7

Ideal Watershed Document ...... 63 Appendix 8 Compared to Ideal ...... 65 Alteration of Plan ...... 67 Conclusion ...... 75 Chapter 6: Conclusion...... 77 References ...... 83 Appendix A: Sample Interview Schedule ...... 89 Appendix B: Consent Form ...... 91

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Key Questions for Evaluating Watershed Plans ...... 29

Table 2: 20 Themes Contributing to Successful Partnerships ...... 31

Table 3: Average Annual Discharge Values for the Sunday Creek...... 35

Table 4: Census Data for Sunday Creek Region ...... 36

Table 5: Emerging Themes Derived from Interviews and Observations ...... 47

Table 6: Comparisons of the 2003 and 2011 Plans...... 56

Table 7: Phases of Drafting a Management Plan ...... 72

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Map of the Sunday Creek Watershed………….……………………………… .33

Figure 2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Sunday Creek Watershed………………………. .34

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Watersheds are natural regions that correspond with how water drains across the terrain; synonyms for watershed include drainage basin or catchment. These terms are defined as the region that contributes surface water to a given stream system. All channelized flow in the drainage basin drains to a common point. A watershed is a natural region for water flow; therefore it makes sense to use watersheds as administrative units for resource management (Downs et al., 1991; Kondolf et al., 2002;

Vaughan et al., 2009). However, watersheds are complex systems because they include physical, biological, chemical, and human factors.

Management of watersheds is typically an interdisciplinary undertaking because of the complex nature of interactions within the drainage basin system. A multidisciplinary management approach uses many different methods and the expertise of several groups including biologists, chemists, engineers, environmental scientists, geologists, geographers, government agencies, and political scientists. Stakeholders are people who live in or are affected by the watershed, and this group often includes various individuals with skills that are needed or useful for watershed management. A multistakeholder watershed management group may have the motivation for sustaining the quality of the watershed and often the diverse set of skills needed to do so.

Collaborative multistakeholder watershed management groups have a record of success in the United States (Bonnell and Koontz, 2007; Duram, 2008). One region where they have been especially active is southeastern Ohio. Examples include Raccoon

Creek Partnership, Huff Run Watershed Restoration Project, Leading Creek Watershed 11

Group, Monday Creek Restoration Project, and Sunday Creek Watershed Group.

Watersheds in Appalachian Ohio historically have experienced environmental degradation due to past land uses such as logging, quarrying, and coal mining. Historic deep coal mines in Appalachia allow rainwater to gain access to the exposed coal, which causes chemical reactions and produces acidic water often contaminated with heavy metals. This acidic discharge, called acid mine drainage (AMD), harms aquatic organisms and makes the water unfit for human consumption. Some stakeholders in this region have responded to AMD and other problems by taking active roles in the management of their watersheds.

Watershed management includes drafting and implementing action plans, also called watershed management plans, to improve or maintain the quality of the watershed.

These management plans offer possible solutions to existing problems and strategies for maintaining appropriate interactions among the different watershed system components.

After implementation of a management plan, it must be revisited and updated periodically to ensure continued health and improvement of the drainage basin.

A good watershed management plan incorporates the goals and ideals of many stakeholders, the needs of the watershed‟s communities, and requirements of government agencies (Malone, 2000). Allowing multiple groups to aid in the drafting of a management plan provides stakeholders the opportunity to be involved in the process

(Koontz and Johnson, 2004).

What does it take to develop a watershed management plan that is supported by multiple stakeholders and is therefore potentially successful? There is a lack of explicit 12 guidelines for establishing a successful watershed management group and for successfully incorporating numerous stakeholders into the process of drafting a watershed management plan. This thesis uses the example of an established, active, multistakeholder watershed management group in southeastern Ohio, the Sunday Creek

Watershed Group (SCWG), to gain insight into what makes such a group and its process of developing a management plan successful.

The SCWG, founded in the late 1990‟s, developed its first management plan in

2003 to address several impairments existing within the 225 km2 drainage basin. The group completed a revised and updated management plan in 2011. This research relies primarily on qualitative data obtained from group observation, interviews, and document analysis to reconstruct and analyze the experiences of drafting two management plans in eight years for a single watershed. From these data, generalizations are made about what contributes to successful stakeholder involvement in this watershed and the evolution of stakeholders‟ involvement over time. Results of this case study will help reveal some of the challenges and rewards of incorporating multiple stakeholders into watershed management, and strategies that can lead to successful involvement of multiple stakeholders. This information will benefit new and developing watershed groups and help them draft and implement successful management plans in a timely fashion.

Reaching environmental quality goals for a watershed quickly and efficiently will benefit the watershed and the people living in it.

Research Questions

Research questions that help in understanding stakeholder involvement in the Sunday

Creek Watershed Group are:

1. What is the role of the watershed management document?

a. How important do stakeholders consider the actual document for the

watershed?

b. How is the document perceived by the different groups of stakeholders?

2. Who are the different stakeholders and how involved have the various

stakeholders been in the development of the watershed management plans?

a. What input have stakeholders had in the management of the watershed?

b. If stakeholders have been involved what are their opinions about the

management process?

3. Ideally what should a watershed management document contain?

a. Do Ohio Environmental Protection Agency‟s Appendix 8 guidelines cover

these ideals?

b. Do the OEPA guidelines and resulting watershed management documents

need to be altered to be meaningful to some stakeholders?

The following chapter consists of a literature review that focuses on the emergence of grass roots efforts in watershed management, the nature of shared governance, and suggestions for assessing success of stakeholder participation in watershed management. Chapter 3 provides context for the watershed and the watershed group. Chapter 4 details the methods used in acquiring and analyzing these data. 14

Chapter 5 presents results and discussion, focusing on the research questions and conclusions appear in Chapter 6. 15

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The trend in resource management, watershed management included, has been a shift away from state and federal agencies playing leading roles and toward an ecosystem-based management which is often nonprofit (Bonnell and Koontz, 2007;

Norman and Bakker, 2008) in watersheds this is known as a watershed management approach. In communities throughout the country local people, in a grass roots effort, have helped build nonprofit groups advocating for the health of their streams and rivers

(Lubell, 2004). Such a shift from agency management to community collaboration is termed from government to governance, and watersheds in Ohio are not exempt from this trend (Koontz and Johnson, 2004; Koehler and Koontz, 2008). The success of these watershed groups or watershed partnerships is hard to gauge but many researchers posit useful strategies for undertaking such an assessment (Conley and Moote, 2003; Sabatier et al., 2005a), often focusing on the active involvement of stakeholders. This literature review focuses on three topics critical to understanding the context of stakeholder participation in the management of the Sunday Creek watershed including: background on the emergence of grass roots efforts in watershed management, the nature of shared governance, and ways to measure success of stakeholder participation in watershed management.

Grassroots Watershed

Many grassroots movements in watershed management typically emerged from the notion of collaborative management. In the late 1960‟s and early 1970‟s legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the 16

Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 were enacted to prevent and remediate environmental degradation (Kubasek and Silverman, 2008, 139). Dissatisfaction with the system of top-down, agency-based environmental regulation and litigation enforcing these environmental laws, was one of the reasons that sparked a new movement. This movement was established by community members and environmentalists in the mid-

1980‟s based on collaboration among stakeholders and alternative dispute resolution

(Sabaatier et al., 2005b).

In the last two decades, the collaborative watershed group movement has grown; by 2008 there were over 1,000 watershed associations in the United States with numbers continuing to increase (Duram et al., 2008). Such groups are characterized by their grassroots style, integrated watershed management practices, and partnerships. The recent large increase in the number of these watershed groups is partly due to funding for nonpoint-source pollution cleanup through the United States Clean Water Act Section

319 (which offers federal grants) and state governments offering technical and financial support to encourage watershed restoration (Bonnell and Koontz, 2007). A few community members often initiate the idea of improving their local stream environment, and solicit the help of others in the community as well as technical support, and a watershed partnership begins. Duram et al. (2008) utilized the “Know Your Watershed

Database” through the Conservation Technology Information Center at Purdue

University to map the geographical distribution of watershed groups across the United

States. They also compiled a list of general reasons why watershed associations form. 17

Typically these groups form in response to a local river, stream, or wetland having a nonpoint-source pollution issue, such as excess sedimentation, nitrogen, or phosphorus

(Duram et al., 2008).

In order to investigate how local groups come together, balance stakeholder interests, and perceive the planning process, Duram et al. (2008) conducted a case study on the Cache River in Illinois. Agriculture is the largest land use within this particular watershed, and also one of the largest contributors to pollution. The case study consisted of interviews with key players in the planning process, focus groups of various stakeholders, and a telephone survey of watershed residents. Duram et al. (2008) found that the completion of a plan produced clout for agency groups and increased funding for various projects within the watershed. Initially, non-agency individuals, such as farmers, felt that the planning meetings were not inclusive and were driven largely by a government or agency agenda (Duram et al., 2008). However, with increased two-way communication stakeholders felt more involved in the process. Farmers, residents, watershed staff members, and agency personnel had different knowledge and experiences within the watershed. Establishing a more transparent process and initiatives for the watershed group to educate and learn from residents led to a more unified understanding of watershed issues (Duram et al., 2008).

Ideally a community-based management system offers citizens hope and a sense of accomplishment in a sometimes depressing world of social and environmental problems. Bernard and Young‟s (1997) book The Ecology of Hope highlights communities that collaboratively manage such resources as rangelands, forests, fisheries, 18 and watersheds. In a subsequent book, Hope and Hard Times, Bernard (2010) describes and analyzes the long-term development and empowerment of these communities by becoming involved in the management of natural resources. In both of these books, qualitative methods were utilized as the authors participated in community events and interviewed various community members to gain insight into the management of various resources (F.E. Bernard, pers. comm., 2011). Bernard (2010) highlights the many successes of managing resources at this local community level; he also discusses various setbacks, and analyzes the successes of communities by grouping each into one of three clusters of resilience. These clusters are top, middle, and lower, based on “elements of sustainable resource management” and “markers for what a resilient community looks like” (Bernard, 2010, 269-271) developed in Ecology of Hope. Watershed groups exist in three of the communities featured by Bernard and Young (1997) and Bernard (2010).

These watershed groups are the Mattole River Restoration Council in northern California

(established in 1983), the Plumas County Feather River Coordinated Resource

Management also in northern California (created 1985), and the Monday Creek

Restoration Project in southeastern Ohio (founded in 1994).

The Mattole River Restoration Council in northern California formed in 1983 with the help of their partner the Mattole Salmon Group, with the main focus including habitat restoration and preservation. The Salmon Group was established for the purpose of preserving and protecting important habitat for the king salmon which in turn would protect other vulnerable species, such as the steel head trout. The Mattole River

Restoration Council seeks to learn about natural processes and best management 19 practices and to share their findings with friends and neighbors in order to undertake,

“cooperative projects in watershed restoration to enhance those processes, healing the landscape as we heal our relations with one another” (Mattole.org in Bernard, 2010, 177).

The river restoration council consists of diverse groups of people including ranchers, foresters, naturalists, and fish ecologists, and is currently one of the largest employers in the river valley (Mattole Restoration Council, 2011). Because the council serves the community and uses a watershed approach, it is able to reach the length and breadth of the river valley, which gives it a powerful impact on the environment and the habitat of the endangered fish. Bernard (2010) places the Mattole River Restoration Council in the top cluster of resilient communities because when facing the desiccation of land in the upper watershed, it responded with innovation by bringing new groups focused on water conservation into the collaborative process to save the salmon.

The Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (FRCRM), also in northern California, was established in 1985 to maintain and improve the condition of the

Feather River (Bernard, 2010). The FRCRM brings government agencies, community members, and nonprofit groups together to manage their 930,000 hectare watershed

(Feather River Coordinated Resource Management, 2011). In the past 26 years, the watershed group has implemented over 115 watershed projects, ranging from stream restoration to public outreach. Stream restoration projects along the Feather River have treated over 70 kilometers of contaminated streams and restored 1,580 hectares of floodplain (FRCRM, 2011). The fact that this grassroots watershed group is still active after 26 years is encouraging for other watershed restoration groups across the country. 20

The continued existence of the group and the number of projects it has completed suggests that collaborative efforts can stand strong through difficult times. However,

Bernard (2010) lists this community in the middle cluster of resilient communities due to the equity gaps among local residents in the community coupled with unsustainable income sources.

The Monday Creek Restoration Project was founded in 1994 by a group of concerned people. The goal of the project was and continues to be to restore Monday

Creek for the good of the community. This is a large task because Monday Creek was deemed an unrecoverable stream by the US EPA in the 1990‟s because of severe acid mine drainage. Yet with a concerned group of technical experts and citizens, the group was able to tackle the unthinkable and began to reclaim the stream (Bernard and Young,

1997). Throughout the years, the group formed many working relationships with partners in southeastern Ohio including: Wayne National Forest, Ohio Department of Natural

Resources (ODNR), ODNR Division of Mineral Resources Management Abandoned

Mine Land Office, Little Cities of Black Diamonds (a group dedicated to preserving history and stories of coal mining towns in southeastern Ohio), and others (Monday

Creek Restoration Project, 2011). With over 13 projects in the watershed aimed at improving water quality in a once dead stream, the Monday Creek Restoration Project has been slowly achieving goals and becoming a nationally recognized watershed partnership (Bernard, 2010). Even with national recognition, the Monday Creek

Restoration Project falls short of Bernard‟s (2010) top cluster of resilient communities due to limited involvement of local residents. This lack of involvement is a complex 21 issue involving harsh socioeconomic conditions and a host of environmental justice issues stemming from the history of resource extraction in southeastern Ohio.

The Mattole River Restoration Council, Plumas County Feather River

Coordinated Resource Management, and Monday Creek Restoration Project have existed for a substantial amount of institutional time. However, to truly have an impact on the environment these partnerships must persevere for an ecological amount of time, which could span decades or even centuries. The fact that Bernard (2010) rates these groups in the middle and top clusters of resilience demonstrates that these collaborative watershed groups offer positive attributes for other partnerships to emulate. Consideration of successes and setbacks of various watershed communities allows a more complete and well rounded understanding of similar challenges that may influence the Sunday Creek

Watershed Group, studied in this thesis.

Governance

To ensure that proper watershed restoration work takes place more than one agency or stakeholder must be involved (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). Through the analysis of 276 surveys from watershed group members in Oregon, Dakins et al. (2005) found that several groups must be involved in decision making as well as the implementation process for greatest watershed group success. The term governance is often used to describe this complex management process of bringing the various groups together to manage a resource. Governance may loosely be defined as “the act or process of governing” (Painter, 2000, 317) yet the term encompasses more than just a state-based government; it includes federal agencies, state agencies, non-governmental organizations 22

(NGOs), and citizens, especially when working together to manage resources. An alternative definition for environmental governance is “regulatory processes, mechanisms and organizations through which political actors influence environmental actions and outcomes” (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006, 298).

In support of this shift from government to governance, the National Research

Council issued a statement in 1999, that although current regulations protect drinking water effectively, the patchwork of regulations is an overall poor regulator of water quality in general. The National Research Council concluded that using natural systems or a watershed approach would incorporate not only the surface water flowing through the designated area but also vegetation, wildlife, and human land use activities. The council encouraged collaboration among federal agencies, state governments, citizens, and environmental groups in order to manage watersheds using a natural systems approach with an emphasis on shared governance (National Research Council, 1999).

The recent shift from government to governance in the realm of resource management has received mixed reviews. Some argue that governance associated with watershed groups is more suitable than management based on governmental, or political, boundaries (National Research Council, 1999; Born and Genskow, 2001) but others criticize the effectiveness of management by governance citing cuts in state and federal funding leading to this shift (Evans, 2004; Brown and Purcel, 2005; Sabatier et al., 2005).

One positive aspect of governance is that it can allow several states to provide financial or technical support to multi-stakeholder partnerships to ensure that these groups have at least some access to technology and model-building capabilities (Bonnell and Koontz, 23

2007). Through a case study of the Little Miami River Partnership in southwest Ohio involving interviews, observation, and document analysis Bonnell and Koontz (2007) found that federal and state governments rely on these watershed groups to solve problems, such as sedimentation or acid mine drainage, that are not easily solved with command and control statutes.

Much of the literature involving environmental governance focuses on comprehending, quantifying, and contrasting the effectiveness of governance with the traditional roles of command and control government regulations while critiquing their intrinsic democratic limitations. Lemos and Agawal (2006) reviewed several studies regarding environmental governance issues and concluded that a decentralized administration with increased governance may lead to more efficient environmental outcomes because choices are made at a local scale close to the issue, allowing local knowledge provided by residents to mix with the expertise of technical support.

Norman and Bakker (2009) utilized qualitative methods of semi-structured interviews and participant observation to compare the United States and Canada

(Washington state vs. British Columbia; Montana vs. Alberta). They argue that local- level management has not led to greater empowerment of the local community. When trying to implement watershed actions across international borders factors such as mismatched government between countries, a limited ability to implement tasks across borders, and little to no intra-jurisdictional integration come into play (Norman and

Bakker, 2009). Norman and Bakker (2009) argue that rescaling environmental management to a local watershed scale may not necessarily be positive or empowering 24 for the community, because often with a shift from government to governance responsibilities are transferred without legitimate power or resources to tackle the problems at hand. This power shift leads to restoration in some watersheds and deterioration in others.

Human-imposed boundaries on the landscape, such as county or country boundaries, lead to complications when managing resources. Watersheds do not always match political boundaries and this can cause problems especially when data are collected at the county level. There is often no way to aggregate that data without introducing some error into the extracted data set. Other difficulties due to boundaries include regulations for water quality and water use that differ between countries and which lead to complications when trying to access funding or support from government agencies

(Norman and Bakker, 2009).

An important factor to consider when talking about collaborative resource management (watersheds included) and issues of governance is scale. Feitelson and

Fischhendler (2009) divide issues of scale in relation to water resources into the three categories: operational, political, and international relation scale. The operational scale involves delineating what level best integrates the many complex issues of watershed governance; the main branches in this literature consist of the concept of basin management and a drive toward community involvement. The political scale addresses the power structures and economic drivers that help influence watershed management.

Finally, as the name suggests, the international relations scale focuses on managing resources on an international level (Feitelson and Fischhendler, 2009). Feitelson and 25

Fischhendler (2009) apply their theories and definition to a case study of Israeli water resource relations with neighboring countries.

Governance literature defines governance as a shift from centralized government agencies implementing command and control statutes to a more collaborative approach among citizens, agencies, and nonprofit groups (Painter, 2000). Several studies conclude that this involvement of many different people is necessary for successful resource management but some caution that government agencies may rely too heavily on nonprofit groups to cope with water quality issues such as excessive sedimentation

(National Research Council, 1999; Bonnell and Koontz, 2007). When considering governance an appropriate scale should be considered, and some argue that the local scale allows for citizen knowledge to mix readily with technical experience to influence decision makers (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). Applied to Sunday Creek in this thesis, knowing these themes helped direct attention to the relationship among all of the groups involved in the shared governance. In addition these themes aided in carefully considering the scale and the levels of responsibility shared within this governance process.

Success in Watershed Management: Incorporating Stakeholders

One of the greatest concerns about the shift toward shared governance in resource management is whether or not partnerships are successful in achieving their goals, for example, improved management and achieving better water quality (Griffin, 1999).

Much of the literature on evaluating success in resource management suggests that collaborative groups must actively consult their stakeholders, which includes the public 26

(Duram and Brown, 1999; Johnson et al., 2002; Johnson, 2009). However, the inclusion of the public in resource management receives much criticism (Kweit and Kweit, 1981;

Griffin, 1999; Rhoads et al., 1999; Tesh, 1999). This criticism includes the notion that the public lacks experience and expertise, especially in hydrology, biology, and chemistry, and can offer no important information to the watershed management process

(Korfmacher, 2001). Lay people may have viewpoints that conflict with other members of the public and with scientists, which make reaching consensus difficult. Despite these concerns, researchers have found several reasons why it is beneficial to incorporate the public through a collaborative watershed management plan. These benefits include giving the public a voice in their community and recognizing the local knowledge and values that exist within the watershed (Koehler and Koontz, 2008).

Another important component to the collaborative watershed management process is that stakeholders, including the public, will learn about their watershed through involvement. If stakeholders are involved throughout the drafting and implementation of a watershed plan, they will understand the logic behind and need for the plan, as well as offer comments and ideas to help set goals and create solutions for their watershed. This understanding and involvement often leads to public support of a watershed management plan (Cockerill et al., 2006).

A few different types of watershed groups exist, including citizen-based, agency- based, and mixed. These membership descriptions refer to the majority of people forming the group, thus citizen-based means primarily comprised of citizens, agency- based refers to a group containing mostly agency personnel, and mixed groups consist of 27 roughly equal numbers of citizens and agencies. Utilizing survey and focus-group methods, Moore and Koontz (2003) explored how the three different groups perceive and report their accomplishments. Moore and Koontz (2003) sent a survey to watershed coordinators in the state of Ohio and received 64 completed surveys. The researchers followed up the surveys with six focus groups of semi-structured interviews consisting of two focus groups from each category of watershed group (citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed). Citizen-based members listed influencing policy as one of their greatest accomplishments. Both citizen-based and mixed groups perceived increasing public awareness as a successful outcome. Agency-based and mixed groups considered development and longevity of the group a significant achievement. Mixed groups cited creating a management plan as an accomplishment more often than the other groups

(Moore and Koontz, 2003). As Moore and Koontz‟s (2003) study indicates, different groups are likely to perceive different accomplishments as significant achievements.

Due to the differences in perception of what constitutes accomplishments in watershed management, firm guidelines for measuring and evaluating the progress of watershed management is difficult to achieve, but some form of evaluation is needed.

The rise of multistakeholder partnerships has increased the level of public participation in environmental management. Griffin (1999) concludes that the mere presence of the great number of watershed groups, despite immense difficulties (political, financial, etc.), is proof of their success. Yet, Griffin argues that more criteria are needed to evaluate the success of this new movement in public involvement especially to determine which techniques work and which do not. 28

Knowing the goals that the group wishes to accomplish and the achievements it has posted thus far are vital for developing criteria to evaluate a group‟s success. The evaluation can take different forms, including a summary of the project, an account of the process by which it was formed, or how a particular project impacted the community

(Chess, 2000). Chess (2000) notes that evaluation often focuses on process or the outcome of a project and developed questions associated with each evaluation technique.

Table 1 shows these key questions that assist in evaluating a collaborative management process. An evaluation can indicate when collaborative efforts are effective, reveal criticisms, and allow a forum for grassroots constituents and institutions to communicate with one another (Conley and Moote, 2003). Evaluative questions, when asked to stakeholders, encourage individuals to share their perceptions of the plan or project resulting in rich qualitative data.

Many researchers and watershed coordinators agree that bringing diverse stakeholders together to discuss watershed issues is important, and several studies and evaluations have found that watershed groups comprised of a mixture of citizens and agencies are the most effective, as long as roles within the group are defined (Floress et al., 2009). According to Korfmacher (2001), management projects, especially those that require environmental modeling, should include a transparent process. This means that continuous involvement of stakeholders should occur throughout the process, participation should be representative of the watershed community, stakeholders should be involved in decision-making processes, and a clear role of participant groups should exist in the watershed. 29

Table 1 Key Questions for Evaluating Watershed Plans (after Chess, 2000)

Form of Evaluation Reasons for Criteria: Process Criteria: Outcome Evaluation Summative -Worthwhile? -How did agencies -What -Accountability and citizens environmental -Should it be interact? outcome resulted? replicated? Formative -Planning Purposes -How are agencies -Is progress being -Mid-course and citizens made toward correction interacting? environmental -Accountability problem decision making? Impact -Assess long term -How did project -How did project effects influence agency affect long term -Determine policy policy? environmental decision quality?

Johnson (2009) compared New York State‟s Irondequoit Creek watershed and the

Cayuga Lake watershed management and modeling processes looking for good practices of public involvement. By conducting three focus groups for each watershed and participating in both of the projects, Johnson utilized the Korfmacher (2001) criteria for public involvement in watershed modeling processes to evaluate each of the watershed groups. If these criteria are met the watershed group has involved the public in the watershed management process. Johnson (2009) found that the Irondequoit Creek management and modeling process was not transparent and accessible, and thus it eventually resulted in failure. Conversely, the Cayuga Lake watershed included a transparent process, continuous involvement, and representative involvement, leading to a successful modeling and management plan (Johnson, 2009). The process of bringing 30 diverse groups of people together to make a watershed group or management plan can be difficult but rewarding for the overall management of the watershed.

Despite some criticism of subjectivity and lack of a theoretical basis (Sabatier et al., 2005b), the previous research on watershed groups has identified more than 200 factors, grouped into 20 themes, that can contribute to successful partnerships (Table 2)

(Leach and Pelkey, 2001a). That research has studied such topics as the distribution and function of groups (Kenney, 1999), environmental and social issues leading to new group formation (Leach and Pelkey, 2001b), and positive and negative influences such groups have had on democracy (Kenney, 2000).

When determining the success of a watershed group, or deciding how to monitor success, themes in the literature include active stakeholder participation (Duram and

Brown, 1999), knowing watershed group type and their perception of success (Moore and

Koontz, 2003), employing various techniques for evaluating projects performed by the group (Chess, 2000), maintaining a diversity of stakeholders (Floress et al., 2009), establishing transparent process and involvement of stakeholders (Johnson, 2009) and knowing indicators of success (Leach and Pelkey, 2000).

Table 2 20 Themes Contributing to Successful Partnerships (after Leach and Pelkey, 2001a)

-Funding -Trust -Well defined process rules -Monitoring outcomes -Board and inclusive membership -Low or medium level of conflict -Consensus rules -Training in collaborative skills -Cooperative, committed participation -Geographic scope -Formal enforcement mechanisms -Agency support and participation -Effective leader/ coordinator/ facilitator -Limited scope of activities -Effective communication -Legislative encouragement -Bottom up initiation/ leadership -Adequate time -Adequate scientific and technical information -Community resources

Conclusion

With the recent shift away from state and federal agencies playing leading roles in watershed management and toward a collaborative ecosystem approach, communities throughout the United States have helped build watershed groups advocating for the health of their local streams. A rich history of grassroots watershed groups has started to emerge. This shift from agency management to community collaboration, from government to governance, encompasses a wide variety of issues at the operational and political scales most important for watershed groups located in the U.S. The success of these watershed groups or watershed partnerships is hard to gauge but many researchers 32 posit useful strategies and indicators for undertaking such an assessment, including diverse and active stakeholder participation, knowing different measures of success for various groups, and identifying the indicators of success within a given watershed group.

While some studies have focused on hardships in sustaining long term watershed management, others have honed in on scale with governance issues, and some have posited ways to gauge success for watershed groups. These studies largely neglect the relationship between watershed groups and the management plans that they develop and revise. This thesis builds on the preceding research by applying that knowledge to the

Sunday Creek Watershed Group and the processes by which its two management plans were drafted.

CHAPTER 3: SUNDAY CREEK WATERSHED

The Sunday Creek watershed is a third-order drainage basin that covers 225 km2 in Athens, Perry, and Morgan Counties and a small portion of Hocking County, all located in southeastern Ohio (Figure 1). The headwaters of Sunday Creek are located near Tatman‟s Gap, Sulfur Spring Road, and the northeastern end of the Santoy area in

Perry County. The creek flows through several small towns including Hemlock,

Oakfield, Corning, Glouster, Jacksonville, and Trimble entering the Hocking River near the town of Chauncey.

Figure 1 – Sunday Creek watershed shown in relation to the United States (after ODNR,

2011; SCWG, 2011).

Climate

The Sunday Creek watershed has a humid continental climate with rather large annual and daily temperature ranges. Coldest temperatures occur in January and the warmest temperatures occur in July. The average temperature is 12.8°C with annual precipitation of 103.4 cm (NOAA, 2011). The humid climate and sufficient rainfall support a wide range of vegetation including beech (Fagus grandifolis), sugar maple

(Acer saccharum), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and oak (Quercus spp.). Wooded areas account for a large portion of the Sunday Creek watershed (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Wooded areas (shown in green) are the most prevalent land cover in

the Sunday Creek watershed (after ODNR, 2011; SCWG, 2011). 35

Geology

The geology of this region is comprised of sedimentary rocks of the Monogahela,

Conemaugh, Allegheny, and Pottsville Groups. The economic coal and clay beds are located within the Allegheny and Pottsville Group (Brockman, 1998). Geomorphically, the Sunday Creek watershed represents the unglaciated Appalachian foothill region of southeastern Ohio exhibiting a moderately high relief of 90 meters (Stachler, 1997). The

USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle maps for the watershed include: New

Lexington, Deavertown, Rokeby Lock, New Straitsville, Corning, Ringgold, Nelsonville, and Jacksonville, Ohio, quadrangles.

Discharge

The USGS has two stream gauging stations on the Sunday Creek, one outside of

Glouster (0315900), which was operational from 1951 to 1981, and the other downstream from Millfield (03159246). Table 3 shows average annual discharge as recorded by the

USGS at the Millfield Ohio gauging station and conversions into cubic meters (USGS,

2011).

Table 3 Average Annual Discharge Values for the Sunday Creek

Millfield, OH Discharge Discharge Water Year ft3/s m3/s 2003 126.2 3.6 2004 259.7 7.4 2005 218.8 6.2 2006 102.7 2.9 2007 152.9 4.3 2008 189.9 5.4 2009 99.7 2.8 36

Census Data

Limited economic opportunities exist within the watershed and the median household incomes and the percentage of those below poverty line reflect that situation.

Table 4 shows the population, median household income, and percentage of individuals below poverty line for the United States, Ohio, Athens County, Morgan County, and

Perry County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

Table 4 Census Data for Sunday Creek Region

Median % of Individuals Household Below Poverty

Population Income ($) Line

US 307,006,550 51,425 13.5% Ohio 11,511,858 59,208 13.6% Athens Co. 63,073 30,190 32.8% Morgan Co. 14,495 33,601 19.4%

Perry Co. 35,080 42,299 16.5%

History of the Watershed

In prehistoric times the Adena tribe inhabited the Sunday Creek watershed. Prior to the Treaty of Greenville the Shawnee Native American tribe also lived in the watershed, but the treaty forced Native Americans to move out of the state of Ohio

(Winnenburg, 2000). The first European explorers to name and explore Sunday Creek were Solomon and Cyrus Tuttle. The Tuttles left the town of Athens (then Middleton) 37 and explored northward naming Sunday Creek and Monday Creek after the days of the week each was discovered (Blower, 1965).

Shortly after exploration, economic activity in the watershed was established in the form of logging, mining, brick manufacturing, and gas and oil extraction. Logging started in the early 1800‟s, and the first lumber mill soon followed, opening in 1802

(Beatty and Stone, 1984). As logging was profitable, companies started building more mills in the area, and eventually railways connected southeastern Ohio to the rest of the country. The railroads especially benefited lumber barons and later the coal companies of the region (Beatty and Stone, 1984).

Ceramic plants in Glouster and Trimble produced bricks in the watershed

(Sturgeon, 1958). Although the soil is not sufficiently clay-rich to provide raw material for the bricks at these locations (USDA, 1985) shale bedrock found in the area crushed into a powder and tempered supplied the resources to make bricks. Drilling for both oil and natural gas was common in the watershed prior to 1952, and several companies owned deep wells to extract these resources. This was profitable and offered employment especially in the town of Corning (Sturgeon, 1958). Historically, more than a third of the watershed has been mined for coal in surface or underground mines

(SCWG, 2003; ODNR, 2009; SCWG, 2011). The coal from these seams was high volatile, bituminous coal used for domestic fuel, steam generation, and for firing pottery.

Sunday Creek Coal Company Mine No. 6 at Millfield was the site of the worst coal-mine disaster in the state of Ohio, which killed 82 miners on November 5, 1930 (Crowell, 38

1995). Coal production in this area peaked during World War I and has dropped dramatically since that time (Sturgeon, 1958).

Presently some oil and natural gas is extracted, but it is not one of the primary economic activities in the watershed. Currently there are a few small strip-mining operations and one deep mine north of Glouster. Coal mining is no longer the economic backbone of the watershed as most coal mining companies left the area in the 1970‟s due to tighter regulations on air quality, land reclamation, safety, and health issues (SCWG,

2003).

Although mostly historic, brick production and coal mining left a continuing impact on the watershed of Sunday Creek primarily as acid mine drainage (AMD). In addition to this physical impairment to the watershed, the near collapse of these industries, especially coal mining, left the region with limited economic activity. Despite these physical impairments and economic hardships, the watershed has some assets. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the Thomas A. Jenkins Dam in 1950 to prevent flooding in the area (ODNR, 2010). Two years after the construction of the dam, the state of Ohio established the reservoir and the area around it as Burr Oak State Park.

Located upstream from AMD sites, the state park offers safe water for recreational activities such as camping, swimming, boating, and hiking, and the park is maintained by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR, 2010). Another asset is Wayne

National Forest, which owns land along the watershed boundary and thus provides additional recreational opportunities and a vegetative buffer zone for Sunday Creek. 39

The Sunday Creek Watershed Group formed in the late 1990‟s because concerned citizens saw the need for improvement of water quality. The group procured office space in the town of Glouster and joined forces with an established nonprofit group active in

Appalachia, Rural Action. After this partnership, SCWG hired a watershed coordinator to write the first watershed management plan. The Comprehensive Watershed

Management Plan for the Sunday Creek Watershed of 2003 lists acidic water and heavy metals as watershed impairments caused by mining. Other impairments to the watershed noted in 2003 are pathogens, such as fecal coliform from animal and human waste; litter and debris from illegal dumping; turbidity, erosion, and dissolved solids from the lack of a riparian corridor and from agricultural activities in the northern part of the watershed

(SCWG, 2003). That list of impairments offers a baseline from which to monitor improvements to the watershed since the implementation of the management plan. The group has made several strides since the 2003 plan. They have removed several tons of trash from the watershed, the town of Corning now has a waste water treatment plant, and a number of subsidence holes have been closed.

Like some other states, Ohio requires watershed groups to prepare a watershed management plan to receive funding from the state (OEPA, 2010). These plans must have useful baselines and goals for monitoring progress and determining success in terms of water quality remediation. In mid-2003 OEPA mandated all watershed groups to follow an outline, called Appendix 8, for watershed action plans. In 2010 SCWG received a mandate to revise the 2003 plan to the Appendix 8 format, and in April 2011 the revised watershed management plan was endorsed by the state. 40

CHAPTER 4: METHODS

In order to gain multiple insights into stakeholders‟ involvement and satisfaction with the drafting of the management plans for the Sunday Creek watershed, qualitative methods were utilized for this study. Qualitative methods are useful for gathering different perspectives in research and utilize triangulation. Triangulation is an important technique to ensure rigor in qualitative studies. Triangulation employs multiple methods for data collection to ensure validity of data (Winchester, 2005). The methods used for this study are participant observation, interviews, and document analysis. Through participant observation I was involved in the Sunday Creek Watershed Group as a volunteer. This led to a better understanding of the process of watershed management described by the interviewees and informants (Emerson, 2005). Interviews allow participants reflect on their experiences with the Sunday Creek Watershed Group and share their thoughts on the process of managing the watershed (Emerson, 2005; Hay,

2008). This multiple strategy offers a more complete and balanced perspective of stakeholder involvement by taking into account not only what is observed and collected through interviews, but by also consulting documents written about the various Sunday

Creek watershed projects (Hay, 2008).

Data Collection

In compliance with Ohio University‟s Institutional Review Board (IRB), before starting the research, Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Human Subject

Research Training was completed, and IRB approval of the research project was 41 received. Participant observation was conducted while serving as a volunteer for the

Sunday Creek Watershed Group during the summer and fall of 2010. Volunteer activities consisted of participating in a stream clean up, helping to plan a watershed day camp, and serving as a group leader for the week-long day camp. I also attended community meetings for the watershed group which were held every other month. Volunteering for the group provided the opportunity to interact with the staff members, children of the watershed, and approximately 30 other volunteers. About half of the people I came into contact with knew I was actively researching the watershed. The volunteering experience allowed firsthand experience with the group; it also facilitated understanding of the organization and activities of the group. While engaged in the volunteer activities I wrote down sentences, phrases, and quotes throughout the day and wrote comprehensive field notes when I left the field. After a day of volunteering or attending a meeting, I recorded as many details as I could remember from the experiences, trying to include as much information as possible. Writing the field notes typically occurred in the evening after a day of volunteering. In all cases field notes were completed before the next volunteer activity to ensure materials were written in chronological order and to limit confusion.

In addition to participant observation, 13 individual interviews were conducted from September 2010 to January 2011 with various stakeholders including agency personnel, watershed staff, community members, and nonprofit associates. The target number of interviews was 13, ideally one person from each of the 13 stakeholder groups listed in The Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the Sunday Creek (2003).

While one person cannot accurately speak for the whole group, having at least one 42 opinion for each of the groups allows the sharing of many perspectives. Although the target number of interviews was reached, several individuals no longer served groups in the same capacity as listed in the 2003 plan. Others felt they would not have enough knowledge to contribute to the study and declined an interview. Thus the interviews do not completely correspond to the stakeholder groups listed in the original management plan.

The 13 interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format to allow flexibility during the interviews, and to encourage a free-flowing conversation (Dunn,

2005). The interview schedule can be found in Appendix A. Each interviewee was asked to choose the location for the interview so that they would feel more at ease during the interview; some locations included offices of the interviewees, outdoors, and even coffee shops. Each interviewee signed a research compliance form, as per IRB procedure. That document offers anonymity or the option of using a pseudonym instead of actual names and can be found in Appendix B.

Each interview began by soliciting background information about the interviewee including how he or she became interested in his or her current field of work. This background information allowed for rapport to build before moving to more sensitive questions. These interviews ranged between 25 minutes and 90 minutes, with most interviews lasting approximately 45 minutes. Each interview was recorded using a digital voice recorder to avoid relying solely on researcher notes for the interview data.

The digital voice recorder allowed me to put full time and energy into listening and asking questions during the valuable interview time. 43

Interviews started with staff members of SCWG and proceeded using a snowball method of sampling. A snowball method allows a researcher to ask interviewees names of others who might be willing to participate in the research to build a large pool of potential contacts (Dunn, 2005). After the interview, if the informant provided contact information of a member of a group not consulted yet, that person was contacted.

Interviews continued until a suitable saturation point was achieved. A saturation point occurs when interviewees respond similarly to questions and the researcher is no longer collecting new data (Dunn, 2005).

After each interview, the digital files were transferred to a secured laptop computer and imported to Express Scribe. Express Scribe is free transcribing software that replaces the need for a foot pedal to stop, slow down, and speed up an interview while manually transcribing. Each of the interviews was transcribed verbatim to

Microsoft Word using the keyboard short cuts of Express Scribe to control the speed of the recording. Transcription was conducted from September 2010 to January 2011, the same time frame during which the interviews occurred.

Document analysis is the process of collecting and studying various forms of media including news articles, government reports, and different types of nonprofit group writings relating to the research topic. In this case many documents related to the Sunday

Creek watershed were located and analyzed. Document analysis was the longest phase of research, lasting from September 2010 to February 2011. Documents were read critically to determine if information written about the group and its operation meshes with information gathered during participant observation and the data obtained in the 44 interviews. Documents for this thesis included media mentioned above and website information from Rural Action, and the “Rural Rambler,” which is a blog site operated by

Rural Action to share information and stories from various communities that Rural

Action helps sponsor.

Data Analysis

After the field work, interviews, and transcribing were completed all of the materials compiled were studied meticulously in order to try to identify themes or connections that were not evident while collecting the data and materials. NVivo software was used to help organize the multiple themes found during this analysis.

Reading through the collected materials and identifying themes is referred to as coding

(Burck, 2005; Saldana, 2009).

NVivo is a program that allows the researcher to organize all data gathered through the research process as different files in the same project. NVivo differs from

Microsoft Word in offering tools for organizing and linking data. Interview transcriptions, field notes, and several document notes were imported into NVivo software before the coding process began. When a researcher identifies a theme in one interview (or another document) he or she can code sections of the interview by highlighting sentences or paragraphs in the program and NVivo will automatically group coded themes together in a separate document for easy data management. As the researcher continues to code other interviews, materials, or field notes that demonstrate that same theme, NVivo adds those sentences to the file and saves them. The coded theme files are linked to the original document and other sentences or paragraphs that 45 have the same code. This linkage allows researchers to go back and read a sentence or paragraph in the context of the interview. In addition NVivo allows users to link memos

(notes to oneself about the research or coding process) to keep research organized. After all of the materials are read and themes found, each theme can be revisited and all of the sources that included that theme can be reviewed in a single document to determine if any other similarities exist. In the first round of coding materials numerous separate themes were identified. These initial themes, or codes, were then consolidated into a smaller number of more general, final themes. 46

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The field notes, interview data, and analyzed documents were used to assess the involvement of stakeholders in SCWG‟s planning process. While coding the information

83 themes emerged. These initial themes were then consolidated into 11 major themes.

Table 5 lists the major themes along with their sub-themes. The list of themes highlights the complexity of managing a watershed.

The themes derived from analysis of data were used to answer the research questions presented in Chapter 1. The research focused on the importance of the actual document in the watershed, involvement of various stakeholders in the watershed management process, and what the watershed management document should contain.

Table 5 Emerging Themes Derived from Interviews and Observations

2003 Plan Stakeholders History of Sunday Creek 2003 Agency partnership Getting started How effective Rural Action Tensions rural Didn't need 501 c 3 Action vs. SCWG Missing Personalities Fun Negative Public involvement Important Services Planning Documents Relationships Day camps Appendix 8 Important to the Education AMDAT people Flooding 2010/1 Impairments Outreach AMD General Plans Corning Monday Creek compared to Truetown Sunday Creek Alter for more meaning Sewer & septic Background Importance of having Home watershed plan Watershed defined Should be Initial involvement Living Document Coordinator & Involvement Staff Job story Balance Previous experience Overall management Funding Reason for leaving For education Role of coordinator Funding Turnover Funding agency VISTA/AmeriCorps Fund raising Stretched

Role of the Document

In 2000, the Sunday Creek Watershed Group adopted the following mission statement:

The Sunday Creek Watershed Group is committed to restoring and preserving water quality through community interaction, conservation, and education; in pursuit of a healthy ecosystem capable of supporting bio-diversity and recreation (SCWG, 2011).

Ideally the watershed management document should allow the SCWG to engage in their mission statement of bringing together community and education for better water quality and a healthy ecosystem.

In addition to the mission statement Ohio EPA mandates that watershed groups produce a watershed management document to ensure similar management across the state of Ohio. The fact that the state requires such a document shows that the process of managing a watershed does not completely come from the community. The shift from government to governance has not fully occurred. This section investigates the role that the document actually plays in the management of a watershed, how important stakeholders consider the document, and how this document is perceived by different groups of stakeholders. Most stakeholders felt that having a planning document for the watershed is necessary:

As far as the water quality stuff, you absolutely need the written plan to be able to assess need and to be able to leverage whatever funds you can (personal interview, September 30, 2010).

The plan will help outline and prioritize what water quality issues should be addressed and aid in acquiring funding for projects. Also the document:

Is necessary…With watershed groups in particular there‟s a lot of turnover, so you have a lot of temporary people. And coordinators don‟t stay for incredibly long… so if you don‟t have some written plan ... it could get difficult for new people (personal interview, January 7, 2010).

Importance of the Document

The actual document provides guidance to the watershed, which is especially helpful in an office environment where staff members are temporary or only stay for a short time. The document:

Gives them that framework, where they can go and they know all the data is there (personal interview, January 7, 2010).

The compilation of the data is a valuable resource to consult. For government agencies:

It‟s nice to have… a document that has some consistency in hitting these very important issues. And all the watershed action documents are going to hit these issues (personal interview, September 23, 2010).

However, the process of drafting the 2011 plan in conjunction with the Appendix 8 guidelines presents a struggle for some groups:

One of the things I think that has been a frustration to these mine drainage watershed groups is right now they have some money to work on their biggest issue, which is mine drainage. So what they struggle with is: do I take time to work on actually investigating all of these Appendix 8 issues or should I be out there implementing projects? (personal interview, September 23, 2010).

Some felt that the document is important but is trumped by implementing AMD treatment.

Many of the interviewees believe that the document is somewhat important, but not as important as the process that it represents. The process behind the management plan involves establishing baseline studies, pooling of stakeholders, collecting background information on the physical features of the watershed, identifying problems, and setting goals for watershed protection and implementation. After these phases are completed it is important to go back and evaluate any implementation projects, and update the plan as various projects end. This process is similar, no matter the watershed.

Because of this general process some conclude that the watershed management plans are not specific enough to the Sunday Creek watershed to adequately address the problems within the watershed. The Acid Mine Drainage Abatement Treatment

(AMDAT) was cited as a more comprehensive and relevant document than the watershed management plan. However, the AMDAT only addresses the specific concern of acid mine drainage, which is the main pollutant in Sunday Creek. But it is important to have a big picture understanding of the different factors in the watershed; if only one problem is focused on then other things may be neglected. During the summer of 2010 an algal bloom warning for Burr Oak State Park within the Sunday Creek watershed went into effect, which highlights that if the group only focuses on AMD treatment and preventative measures, other sources of pollution may be overlooked.

The actual plan allows the group to attain 319 nonpoint-source pollution grants from the federal government. Without these grants many of the projects, such as closing 51 mine subsidences, would not be within reach of the watershed group. While some felt that drafting this plan takes the coordinator away from doing important activities such as environmental education, writing grants, and focusing on implementation, it is a necessary component for obtaining funding to support the cause of cleaning up Sunday

Creek.

Stakeholder Perception of the Documents

The document is perceived differently by individuals and stakeholders. Some people believe that the management plan is very technical:

I‟m not so much with technical... maybe [the next interview] can address that more (personal interview, October 17, 2010a).

Perceptions of the plan as technical, alienates some stakeholders to the point where they do not felt comfortable discussing the watershed impairments. The length and detail of the plan may influence the perception of the document being overly technical:

Appendix 8 plans are useful but geez, it‟s detailed (personal interview, September 21, 2010).

Others comment that the length of the document is not really helpful for a watershed action plan:

It‟s not really an action plan. It‟s more like a whole history and anything you want to know about the watershed book (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

One [management plan] this thorough is not as helpful for everyday use, to be honest (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

The length and technical nature of the plan hinder community involvement in the SCWG because people are less likely to read the plan and offer input. 52

Some interviewees cite the lack of a community involvement section as something that is missing from the document and the addition of such a section would make the plan more accessible and pertinent. These people tend to consider the document to be useful as far as technological planning goes, but they do not see the plan as being helpful for their role in the watershed group.

Others felt that the plan is effective but meticulously addressing all concerns to ensure that no possible pollutants are overlooked. The fact that OEPA has a lengthy check list of material to include in a plan ensures that a variety of problems are addressed and diagnosed. Because so many factors must be included, group members felt that the process is too long and time consuming for a final document that is not contextualized to the specific watershed. They believe that the resulting plan will be about the same no matter where in the state the watershed is located. Many expressed the view that if a problem is not relevant to a watershed it should be adequate to state the problem once; however, with the current guidelines the issue must be stated several times.

In the past the role of the watershed document, has been limited. The document does provide some guidance for the impairments of the watershed, but the AMDAT document addresses the main impairment of Sunday Creek, acid mine drainage, and dominated remediation projects for Sunday Creek. The interviewed stakeholders consider the process that the watershed planning document represents is important, but have mixed perceptions of the watershed plan. Some felt that the document is too long and technical for some groups of stakeholders. Others emphasize that the plan as well as 53 the process behind drafting the plan are useful and necessary to restore water quality within Sunday Creek.

Stakeholder Involvement in Preparing the Management Plans

SCWG has many different groups of stakeholders. The most actively involved stakeholders are agencies, watershed staff, community members, and nonprofit associates. The government pays agency members to address many responsibilities and their role in the Sunday Creek watershed is just one of many projects for them.

Watershed staff members, on the other hand, are paid through grants; it is their full time job to focus on improving conditions in the Sunday Creek watershed. Community members live in the watershed currently (or have lived there in the past) and care about the restoration of the creek in their community. Finally, nonprofit employees receive funding through grant money and complete many projects for their work, and SCWG contributes a small portion of that work load. Seven of the thirteen interviewees were involved in at least two different groups. The thirteen interviewees played a total of 21 roles in various groups: 5 agency, 6 watershed staff, 6 community members, and 4 nonprofit roles.

These different groups played a variety of roles in the development of both of the management plans. The extent of stakeholder involvement varies considerably between the 2003 and 2011 plans. The process of drafting the original plan:

Took a lot of effort for us to put this type of management plan together. It included a lot of input and citizen involvement. We did surveys. We did public meetings. We tried to get the vision and thoughts of the people (personal interview, September 10, 2010).

[With] the first plan they [the stakeholders] were very active (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

In comparison, for the 2011 plan:

I did most of the research and updating, I did make a few phone calls and e-mails, but I was on a very tight timeline (personal interview, October 21, 2010)

Because of this rush to complete the 2011 document some stakeholders were unaware of, and not involved in, the planning process:

I‟m going to have to be quite honest with you, I was not aware that they had done a 2010 plan (personal interview, November 4, 2010).

I don‟t think I ever even got to see anything from the 2010 plan (personal interview, September 30, 2010).

Some believe that for the 2011 plan state agencies dealing with technical issues were more involved than local citizens and more involved than they were in the process in

2003:

I think that the stakeholders, as far as like the agencies… or the technical resources are probably more involved, in the second one [plan] (personal interview, January 7, 2011).

Stakeholder Input

The planning process was more inclusive for the 2003 plan than for the 2011 plan.

To complete the Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the Sunday Creek

Watershed 2003 the SCWG held public meetings, involved agencies, and conducted surveys of community members. The SCWG made community involvement a priority in

2003. A survey within the watershed solicited citizens‟ views and concerns. The top three concerns in the watershed voiced in the 117 completed citizen surveys were 55 illegally dumped trash, acid mine drainage, and flooding (SCWG, 2003). This information helped the SCWG know where to focus efforts to ensure continued community support. The 2003 plan addressed the top three concerns, but in a different order: AMD, improperly treated human and animal waste, illegal dumping and urban runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and finally flooding.

In 1997 the state of Ohio published A Guide to Developing Local Watershed

Action Plans in Ohio, which offered groups a preliminary idea of what OEPA wanted in these documents. By 2003, OEPA added the Appendix 8 update which established defined guide lines for what watershed groups must include in management plans for endorsement. Unfortunately for SCWG, this update occurred shortly after submitting the first edition of the 2003 plan. To address Appendix 8 issues a second edition of the plan was drafted and later conditionally endorsed by the state.

The contents of the two plans are similar both addressing the impairments of acid mine drainage, improperly treated waste water, illegal trash/urban runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and flooding (SCWG, 2003; SCWG, 2011). However, the 2003 management document offers generalized information about the entire watershed issuing a problem statement, description, effects, indicators, impacts, solutions, goals, objectives, and actions for each of the 5 impairments. The 2011 plan divides the watershed into 4 sub-basins to focus management and for each of the sub-basins the plan includes a sub- watershed description, water quality inventory, impairments, restoration and protection goals (including actions), and implementation. See Table 6 for further comparison between the two documents. 56

Table 6 Comparison of the 2003 and 2011 plans

2003 Plan 2011 Plan Impairments Covered Impairments Covered AMD AMD Improperly treated waste water Improperly treated waste water Illegal trash dumping/urban runoff Illegal trash dumping/urban runoff Erosion & sedimentation Erosion & sedimentation Flooding Flooding

Organization - 6 Sections: Organization: 3 Sections, 8 Chapters Section 1: Introduction Section 1: Watershed overview Section 2: Describe the watershed Chapter I: Introduction Section 3: Watershed issues action Chapter II: Watershed plan development strategies indicators resources and Chapter III: Watershed Inventory timelines Section 4:References Section 2: Watershed action plans for 14 Section 5: Appendix HUC sub watersheds Section 6: Maps Chapter I: Water quality standards and impairments Chapter II: East Branch Sunday Creek Chapter III: West Branch Sunday Creek Miscellaneous Chapter IV: Upper Sunday Creek 92 pages before appendixes Chapter V: Lower Sunday Creek Includes surveys of residents 100 + pages of data (chemical, fish, Section 3: Glossary & References macro invertebrates, pebble counts, community groups)

Miscellaneous 134 pages before appendixes Includes 2003 surveys of residents

OEPA mandated the 2011 plan to improve and update the 2003 plan. Therefore the motivations behind each plan were very different. In 2003 the newly formed group had a level of excitement and wanted to establish baseline data for future improvements to the watershed. The completion and conditional endorsement of the plan marked an accomplishment and provided a guide to implementing projects for improved water quality. In 2011 more external push factors drove the completion of the plan. Because of the mandate and rush to meet the deadline public meetings were not held while drafting the 2011 plan, and no new surveys were sent out. The public‟s level of involvement in drafting the new plan has been minimal at best. The Appendix 8 updates focus on water quality, and have limited space for focusing on community organizing and collaboration.

In addition to a lack of community involvement, agency involvement in the 2011 drafting process occurred at the end of the process when several reviewers read the final document and offered comments to improve the content. These differences in drafting motivations and foci help explain the vastly different levels of participation of the stakeholders in the process of drafting the watershed management plan in 2003 and 2011.

Stakeholder Opinions of the Plans

Despite the different motivations for drafting a plan each version offered something slightly different and stakeholders have mixed levels of satisfaction with the first management plan. It is still too early to gauge the level of satisfaction of the 2011 management plan, as it was endorsed in April of 2011. One watershed staff member stated:

It [2003 plan] was one of the first two [plans] that were done here in the state of Ohio. Sunday Creek and Raccoon 58

Creek were the first two watersheds to get a plan conditionally approved. And the state made a big deal out of it (personal interview, October 18, 2010).

In 2003, OEPA and other state agencies were pleased that the two watershed groups had written management plans and hoped that other watershed groups would follow suit.

Stakeholders are proud of their accomplishment and feel that the conditional OEPA endorsement of the 2003 plan established SCWG as a credible watershed group and allowed the group to communicate their mission:

I think it [the plan] was really effective at getting the group some publicity. The group was brand new. It was getting the word out. This is what people are doing (personal interview, January 7, 2011).

Even though it is viewed as no longer adequate, the 2003 document is considered appropriate for a newly formed watershed management group at the time:

I think it was effective for the time it was done because we were a new watershed [group] (personal interview, September 21, 2010).

Complaints address the length of both the 2003 and the 2011 documents:

One [management plan] this thorough is not as helpful for everyday use, to be honest (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

Both the 2003 and 2011 management plans are lengthy, totaling 92 and 134 pages, respectively, before appendixes. The size of the documents serves as a barrier to many community members who do not have enough time or drive to read such lengthy plans.

In addition to serving as a knowledge barrier, the document is not deemed efficient for managing the creek on a daily basis. Instead some interviewees with technical skills mentioned the usefulness of the Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and 59

Treatment (AMDAT) document for managing the Sunday Creek watershed.

They [SCWG] already had the AMDAT the acid mine drainage abatement treatment plan… which is our bible (personal interview, September 21, 2010).

Clearly, some stakeholders consider the AMDAT a more valuable document for watershed restoration in watersheds afflicted with acid mine drainage.

Based on the interview responses, there is some tendency for community members to felt that the Sunday Creek watershed management plans do not directly affect them. Most, however, also appreciate the funding opportunities and direction that the plans offer the group. Some felt that the 2003 plan gave the group validity, similar to the clout described in Duram et al. (2008), enabled projects to restore water quality in the watershed, and increased opportunities for receiving grants. Agency-based individuals tend to believe that the 2003 plan was appropriate for the time, but that the 2011 plan greatly improves and updates the ordinal plan. Individuals with a technical background tend to believe that the AMDAT is a more effective tool than the watershed management plan for guiding the watershed through water quality issues.

Many of the different stakeholders have varying opinions about the plan drafting process. Most of the individuals interviewed feel that developing the management plan was a valuable process:

[The plan] is like a thesis. It‟s not the… actual document that‟s important…it‟s the process of getting there that is valuable (personal interview, September 23, 2010).

Expressed by another interviewee:

Probably the most important part of the planning process…is the thought and discussion and analysis that goes into it (personal interview, November 4, 2010)

One person interviewed commented that Appendix 8 makes the process more meaningful:

The good thing about Appendix 8 is it forced people to look at a whole variety of things that they might not be comfortable looking at (personal interview, January 12, 2011).

Appendix 8 requires investigating a variety of potential water quality concerns. This is especially useful for new watershed groups, but it allows established watershed groups to diversify so they address several issues and do not focus too narrowly on a single topic.

The three examples quoted here illustrate how the process of thinking about and devising the plan is viewed as vital to assessing the impairments of a watershed, and to solving or remediating the problems. Transparency and open communication are critical components of the processes because they allow multiple stakeholders to maintain an active role and stay informed about activities and circumstances in the watershed.

Based on the interviews, most community stakeholders are not concerned with the drafting process of the management plan. Instead they prefer to focus on the end goal of a clean stream with better water quality even though they realize it will take time to accomplish this goal. Some people view formulating the plan as a necessary, but time consuming, process that the coordinator must undertake to obtain federal and state funding. Many felt content with SCWG staff members and various agencies drafting and administering the plan with its technical nature. 61

The answers to the question concerning the level of satisfaction with involvement vary depending on which plan is the focus, 2003 or 2011, and what stakeholder group is involved. A few stakeholders mentioned involvement during the 2003 plan:

I was involved on the 2003 plan. We helped, we did all that work. Our committee looked at every aspect of that plan (personal interview, October 17, 2010b)

In the first one I think there was a lot of involvement that was the intention of the plan. And then the second plan, that‟s not the focus (personal interview, January 7, 2011).

However, stakeholders reported much less involvement with the 2011 plan.

We really haven‟t been involved much (personal interview, January 12, 2010).

And other stakeholders reported not being aware that 2011 drafting process had even started. Due to time one stakeholder admitting to not being involved:

I‟m not. I‟d like to be more involved (personal interview, October 17, 2010a).

Time constraints and other commitments hinder involvement in the watershed group and in the time constrained drafting process.

Many people are satisfied with the level of involvement with the first plan. The involvement of citizens and agencies through the public meetings and surveys allowed a fairly transparent process for the 2003 management plan. This allowed the SCWG to proceed with community-based action, ensuring the support of interested parties before moving forward. Also, the group drove the completion of the document in 2003 fostering excitement in the watershed and sparking community members‟ involvement. However, the 2011 planning process failed to incorporate many stakeholders resulting in surprised 62 responses when asked about the 2011 plan. The mandate from the OEPA to complete the project in 2011 placed added strain on the drafting process for the management plan.

Community organizing is difficult enough without an additional mandated deadline for a document whose primary audience is technically oriented agency personnel. Given the time constraint for the 2011 plan, involving the community members to the same level of involvement as the 2003 would have been almost impossible.

The different types of actively involved stakeholders include government personnel, watershed staff, community members, and nonprofit employees. The watershed staff typically has been very involved in the development of the watershed management process and the other groups have had limited involvement during that process. Stakeholder input during the management of the watershed varies. During the

2003 watershed drafting process community members had a chance to attend meetings about the development of the plan. Surveys soliciting the opinions of the community were also included in that drafting process. The 2011 plan did not have the same level of community involvement due to time constraints. However, SCWG has offered public meetings throughout their existence to try to field questions about the management process. Stakeholders have had the opportunity to offer input; however, sometimes communication about the management process was strained. Most felt that the process of managing Sunday Creek is valuable. Interviewees have generally been content with the process but some do offer suggestions for improving that process. 63

Ideal Watershed Document

The list of necessary components for the successful management of a watershed varies among stakeholders. Some mention the useful nature of having a plan:

We needed a plan in order to be eligible for funding (personal interview, October 17, 2010b).

The plan allows SCWG to be eligible for various state and federal grants. That funding is an important component for the management of a watershed group. As one stakeholder explains:

Where are you going to get your money, your funding?... It‟s from the departments, the state … As citizens we can‟t foot the bills (personal interview, October 17, 2010).

Without state and federal grants it would be far too costly for the community to fund the

SCWG and its projects. One individual explains the number of grants required to fund the SCWG:

[The SCWG] has an Office of Surface Mining grant, we have Ohio EPA 319 grants, … I‟m part of the watershed coordinator grant… a lot of that funding comes from the federal government and filters through the state government or just comes from the state budget (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

Adequate funding from government grants is important for the continued management of the watershed. SCWG must comply with state and federal regulations for grant requirements and water quality standards, however, the management should consider local stakeholders:

[Management] should, always reflect the concerns of the constituents (personal interview, October 17, 2010b).

The partnerships among all the stakeholders are also deemed important:

The partnerships are not free and easy… It takes a lot of work to develop the kind of relationships you need to have good partnerships and maintain them over time (personal interview, November 4, 2010).

The stakeholders felt that having a plan, obtaining funding, and the presence of the community are important for the management of a watershed.

People felt that having a plan is necessary for state and federal funding and it also provides a guide to address the water quality issues of the watershed. Holding meetings with all stakeholders for the purpose of updating and informing is essential for the inclusion of the community and maintaining strong partnerships. Such meetings help make the process accessible and transparent so those who are interested can participate and learn. For the complex and technical issue of acid mine drainage, meetings with the technical advisory committee of the SCWG are essential for planning and implementing watershed projects. But the technical group needs to report to other partners using language and explanations that people with various backgrounds can understand.

People recognize that many factors are involved in successful management of the watershed. These include water quality issues (chemical and biological factors), community efforts (sustained involvement and local support), and environmental education (helping the youth to understand environmental stewardship). Excellent organizational skills on the part of the coordinator are needed to ensure that all stakeholders are working together to meet the common goals of the watershed. Other hard-working individuals from government agencies, nonprofit groups, and the community at large help to ensure balance in the management process. This management 65 process includes establishing baseline data for water quality, developing a plan of action for the watershed, ensuring funding to complete projects to correct problems, engaging in follow-up studies to assess the effectiveness of a project, and correcting any mistakes or problems that occur over time.

Some stakeholders felt that there is something missing from the planning process.

As stated previously, some stakeholders do not concern themselves with the plan, as other aspects of SCWG are more important to them. Those who had strong feelings about the drafting process also offered comments about other components of the plan, including parts that were missing. One stakeholder said:

I feel like these plans don‟t include community and environmental education. So that was missing in the „03 plan and it‟s also missing in the 2011 plan… we‟re writing it for the government agency (personal interview, October, 21, 2010).

Appendix 8 Compared to Ideal

The community involvement and activities that are so vital to a watershed group are not included in the comprehensive watershed management plan because government agencies focus on water quality, not community. Some felt that the Appendix 8 requirements are lacking:

[Appendix 8] should be a guideline, but not so strict and rigid that it can‟t be modified to meet the needs of a watershed…Each watershed action plan is going to be different, because of different needs in a watershed (personal interview, October 18, 2010).

The requirements for Appendix 8 are lacking in flexibility for watersheds to develop meaningful plans. Also: 66

There is no focus on community or education efforts [in Appendix 8]… The government is trying to improve water quality. So they want to know the projects or the implementation, which is fine. But from a community aspect, when you‟re working with community, they want to see the education (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

The guidelines for drafting the watershed management document are not concerned with community activities and outreach. The focus for the plan is purely water quality improvement. Many felt that water quality is the primary focus for the watershed group.

But other factors, such as building community support, also play an important role. If the comprehensive document for the watershed does not include a section on community building and involvement, part of the complete mission of the watershed group is lost.

A couple of stakeholders cited the idea that a watershed management plan is a

“living document”:

Is a living document. It always needs to be updated. It‟s not stagnant. (personal interview, September 10, 2010).

However, in practice the management document was not revised until a mandate came from the OEPA.

[The 2003] wasn‟t much of a working document. I don‟t know if it was because there had been several coordinators… but to follow along and know what was done, I actually had to go through old monthly reports to see what happened. The documentation, the organization, of keeping it a living document didn‟t happen (personal interview, October 21, 2011).

The process of writing and actively allowing the document to drive remediation activities in the watershed was lost. With the 2011 document, SCWG plans to utilize components of the document to record progress with projects throughout the watershed. 67

Two important things emerge from the history of drafting the plans. One is the target audience of a watershed action plan is government personnel who focus on water quality improvement within the watershed, not community involvement or environmental education. The other is that the process of gathering data and the discussion that results from drafting a plan is often more meaningful than the final document.

With the focus of these plans primarily being water quality many felt that these plans lack references and relevance to the community. There are no sections to address environmental outreach, education, and community building activities. These missing parts present a problem for community members and agency personnel because those parts often create a forum so people in the watershed may learn about the water quality issues. While improved water quality is the goal for many watershed groups, an involved and understanding community surrounding the watershed is important as well. With no section in the documents about community, state agencies miss out on a large portion of what watershed groups strive to do, bringing together the community to appreciate the water.

Alteration of Plan

Eleven out of thirteen interviewees mentioned that the watershed management document should be altered in some way to have more meaning for more people.

For me…or someone like me, a synopsis just a very succinct [document]… (personal interview, October 17, 2010a).

Others echoed the idea of adding an executive summary to the document to allow more people to access the information presented in the larger document. 68

I feel there should be shorter version for an action plan (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

So, I mean you can have an executive summary, and you can hand them that part and say if you want to know more here is this book (personal interview, January 12, 2011).

The idea of requiring extra material for a lengthy document may seem counterproductive.

However, if the executive summary captures the essence of the more than 100 page document, community members and other stakeholders would be more willing to read the summary and offer feedback. Hopefully, this process would result in a dialog among the stakeholders about the plan and the future of the watershed.

Another thing that was missing from the plan includes:

The community events we do and the environmental education stuff that takes up some of our time that is very beneficial (personal interview, October 21, 2010).

These community engaging activities help SCWG build and maintain successful relationships with partners in the community. The document focuses on water quality however, without community support achieving water quality goals would be difficult.

The document is well suited for OEPA and federal agencies whose main focus is water quality improvement. With the prime purpose of the Appendix 8 updates being water quality improvement this makes sense. The plan is a very long piece of literature reviewing natural history of the watershed, impairments, glacial history, and endangered species but lacks a certain human element that would involve more of the community members and help the document be implemented in local areas. Many felt that the current plans are suitable for their designated audience of agency personnel but many would like to encourage more people to read and become familiar with the plan. 69

Based on interviews watershed stakeholders are not likely to read the long watershed management plan. In order to be more meaningful to stakeholders, the management plan should include executive summaries of each section. Some interviewees suggest these summaries should circulate in waiting rooms of local establishments (such as hair salons or restaurants). Summarizing and using less technical terminology in the document may take more time to write, but allows more people to access the information.

The document is long and very thorough when it comes to water quality improvement. However, it lacks a certain human or community element. For long-term success and stakeholder support a shorter more accessible document should be available.

The addition of a community outreach section, an environmental education section, and the involvement of community in the plan would make the document more relevant to more stakeholders.

When asked what a watershed management plan should be, eleven out of thirteen stakeholders had suggestions about what a management plan should entail. One states:

You should have an assessment of the watershed, biologically, chemically, physically and causes and sources of impairment and the recipe for improvements (personal interview, January 12, 2010).

Others felt it should require a bit more background information:

I think you need to address the historical background of the site, the present condition of the site… the methods to address the impacts… identify what the impacts are…address how those can be… looked at and managed (personal interview, October 18, 2010).

A common thread among these responses is characterizing the watershed and identifying impairments:

It has to identify or recognize the problems that are out there… It has to, in a broad sense, propose some solutions… You need to identify the problems and propose the general solution, but don‟t try to prescribe exactly what‟s going to happen because our technology is constantly changing (personal interview, November 4, 2010).

Many of the stakeholders felt that the plan primarily should address the water quality in the watershed by establishing baseline conditions and identifying any impairment present. When asked directly, only two people mentioned that the plan should include the community and an educational component. One respondent answered that the management plan should address water quality or simply the plan should:

Do the job…and get people to have part in education, to get people to really think (personal interview, October 17, 2010 a).

In addition to the water quality component this stakeholder also felt that mentioning education of the community was a valuable part of the management plan and should be included. Another respondent made the point that:

It should always reflect the concerns of the constituents (personal interview, October 17, 2010b).

Others agree that these concerns must be addressed; however, they felt the need for a shorter document:

An action plan to me would be maybe a five, ten, twenty page document with more like bullet point goals…I feel that it should definitely be a smaller document or more of a checklist (personal interview, October, 21, 2010). 71

After talking to stakeholders of the SCWG and reviewing the requirements for watershed plans, it appears that the methods for drafting and implementation should be completed in phases. One of the my recommendations is a large document, called a watershed management plan, to house all of the watershed data (such as the background historical data, geological, biological, water quality data, demographics, concerns of the watershed). But this document should also contain a subdocument which is a watershed action plan outlining the necessary steps for the watershed to attain water quality goals.

As water quality changes and improves the action plan would be updated, but the background and history of the longer management plan would only need minimal revision.

Because many interviewees felt that Appendix 8 was a comprehensive document to follow for watershed management plans, this structure should be followed to organize the overarching watershed management document. The main components of Appendix

8 are an introduction, watershed plan development, watershed inventory, watershed impairments/definition of problems, watershed restoration and protection goals, implementation, evaluation, and updating (OEPA, 2003). For the shorter watershed action document the watershed restoration and protection goals can be combined with implementation. This way the watershed groups would, in theory, have a shorter more meaningful document to work with on a daily basis. Below are some suggestions for how watershed action plans should be undertaken (Table 7).

Table 7 Phases of Drafting a Management Plan

Phase Action Initial Delineate watershed, review water quality standards, establish water sampling techniques, develop a sampling plan, collect data Phase 1 Continued water quality sampling, community survey Phase 2 Draft the plan using Appendix 8 guidelines, community update meetings

Phase 3 Seek state endorsement, government agencies should allow some leeway with Appendix 8

requirements Phase 4 Implementation including writing grants,

implementing projects, continued community meetings

Phase 5 Monitor water quality Phase 6 Update plan when projects are completed

In the initial phase of a group the collaborators must delineate the watershed to establish the boundaries of the drainage basin. The group should also review federal and state standards for water quality to implement proper water sampling sites. This sampling will allow the group to establish the baseline conditions of the watershed.

Connection to stakeholders should occur as no one group can manage a watershed alone.

After these preliminary actions are taken, the group can move on to the different phases for a watershed management plan and eventually implementation.

The first phase of a watershed management plan should include continued water quality testing of biological and chemical parameters to establish a baseline or to track the current health of the watershed. A subpart of phase one must also look at the 73 concerns of stakeholders in the watershed to find out what impairments, if any, are important to the demographic. This part of the process should include surveys of residents who live in the watershed and community meetings to raise awareness that the management plan is being drafted.

After the collection of data in phase one, the second phase of drafting the document can begin. During this phase the primary authors should follow Appendix 8 guidelines. If the water quality data show certain issues are not relevant for the watershed simply stating that fact should be sufficient. During this phase the primary authors will hold meetings updating stakeholders about the progress of the management plan.

The third phase for the management plan would include seeking state endorsement for the management plan. Reviewers should read through the document and offer comments for how the document should be improved. These comments should focus on the overarching goal of improving water quality within the drainage basin, following the spirit of Appendix 8 and not necessarily every detail. No management plan is perfect, as there is considerable uncertainty with basin management.

State governments should recognize this and allow leeway for watershed groups because these watershed groups try to improve water quality which allows state agencies to undertake other projects. After addressing the comments from state agencies, the group should have a meeting detailing the watershed management plan focusing attention on the smaller watershed action plan. Hopefully, this compact watershed action document will be utilized more frequently to improve water quality in the watershed. 74

The fourth general phase is the implementation of the plan. This is a broad phase involving writing grants from various state and government agencies to obtain funding to begin water quality improvement projects. Part of this phase would also include the implementation of those projects and holding meetings to discuss the projects.

The fifth phase includes monitoring water quality in the watershed especially in project locations to gauge water quality improvement. Water quality is constantly in flux and should be monitored frequently.

The sixth phase includes updating the action plan as projects are completed and water quality (hopefully) improves. These phases are generalized in hopes that watershed groups will have the ability to personalize the watershed action plan to fit the needs of their watershed. No watershed is exactly the same; therefore no standardized plan could exist to fit all watersheds.

The management plan should be more than just a final document presented to state and federal agencies. It should be a process involving the establishment of baseline studies, pooling stakeholders, collecting background information, identifying problems, setting goals for watershed protection, and actions for implementation. Each of these steps should include as many stakeholders as possible. With every new edition of the plan a survey soliciting the concerns of the community can be conducted. This will also help gauge the level of satisfaction with the improvements made to the stream.

The Sunday Creek Watershed Group accomplished successful stakeholder engagement during the drafting of the first management plan, but that has tapered off. 75

Some recommendations for stakeholder engagement are continued partnership with other groups such as Little Cities of Black Diamonds, including more local children in their watershed day camps, working closely with Rural Action‟s environmental education in local schools to encourage children to learn about Sunday Creek watershed, and encouraging staff members to volunteer in other community organizations to build rapport and stronger relationships with individuals in the community.

Conclusion

This research utilized field notes, interview data, and various documents to assess the involvement of stakeholders within the planning process of SCWG. The research focused on the importance of the actual document in the watershed, involvement of various stakeholders in the watershed management process, and what the watershed management document should contain. This research has demonstrated that technical agencies and watershed staff members are often more involved than other stakeholders in the management process because they are the audience and authors of such documents.

State agencies also have the power to provide endorsement and funding for projects in the watershed. For the most part the stakeholders seem content with the management plan and drafting process, however, some things could be improved. Many felt that a watershed management plan is necessary for the management of the watershed. Also, open lines of communication between various organizations within the watershed are essential; this is where the coordinator‟s role is very important. The satisfaction of stakeholders with the level of involvement in the drafting process varies from group to group; many would like to see more communication during the drafting process of the 76 management plan. Lack of a human component to the plan is often mentioned by non- agency persons. The actual watershed document is considered a necessary and time- consuming document to complete. Some felt that it may not be worth the time involved if the document sits untouched until the next update. The document is perceived as long and technical by most stakeholders. If the document included several series of executive summaries for each part the document would be more meaningful and easier to communicate to more people.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

This thesis focused on the drafting of two watershed management plans in the

Sunday Creek watershed. Utilizing qualitative methods questions concerning the role of the document, types and involvement of stakeholders, and what an ideal management plan should address were answered.

Typically the role of the management plan organizes the action of the watershed group. The document allows them to access state and federal funding. The process behind the document allows various stakeholders to come together. However, the lengthy nature of the document renders the management plan cumbersome for the watershed group, meaning the plan is not used regularly for the management of the watershed.

Stakeholders view the document as necessary for obtaining money to accomplish water quality goals. However, many stakeholders felt that the process of drafting the plan, including all the discussion and analysis, are more meaningful to the watershed group overall than the document itself. The watershed documents are often perceived as long and technical. Many stakeholders do not read the management plan because of its length.

The different types of stakeholders include agency personnel, watershed staff, community, and nonprofit groups. Agency and staff members have been the most involved in the drafting of the management plan, because it is part of their job to draft and comment on the plan. Community and nonprofit groups play a limited role in the drafting of the management plan because their focus is geared toward community 78 involvement and environmental education, not the technical components of water quality improvement. The level of input during the drafting process varies from the 2003 to the

2011 plan. During the 2003 process more opportunities existed for stakeholders to voice their concerns for the watershed. The 2011 document was mandated and very little opportunity existed for stakeholders to offer input. Stakeholders‟ opinions about the drafting process range from contentment to slightly unsatisfied.

Ideally a watershed action plan would be slightly shorter but also include a more comprehensive section about community outreach and environmental education. The

Appendix 8 guidelines offer a good foundation for management but lack a human element. For the plan document to be more meaningful to stakeholders the watershed management document should include the current sections, a more detailed section about community involvement and environmental education, and offer executive summaries to allow more stakeholders access to the information. But a shorter action plan would be housed in this larger document. The action plan would combine the current watershed restoration goals section and the implementation section.

With the 2011 plan drafted and endorsed by OEPA the Sunday Creek Watershed

Group intends to maintain better bookkeeping with a timeline and activity sheet for the four existing 14 digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) the East Branch, West Branch,

Upper Sunday Creek, and Lower Sunday Creek. Hopefully, this will provide for updating and maintenance of the plan so that the drafting effort will not have been in vain. 79

The SCWG was a grassroots watershed movement in the past. As time passed and a full-time watershed coordinator worked toward water quality improvement, some community participation dwindled. This wane in involvement is a complex issue but several other grassroots groups experienced lower periods of involvement and the turnover of active members. In the case of Sunday Creek Watershed Group the lessening of stakeholder involvement may be the result of the complexity of the acid mine drainage issues in the Sunday Creek watershed. The two largest impairments include discharges at

Corning and Truetown which are complex problems that have not been fixed and are not close to being solved. Sunday Creek watershed would be a healthy creek if these problems were remediated, yet many community members (and some technical state employees) do not felt that they have knowledge to contribute to the implementation of solutions to these problems. Knowing of these AMD issues but being unable to solve the problems may result in a feeling of paralysis for stakeholders.

Another contributing factor to the lower stakeholder involvement may include the establishment of the official watershed group which has different committees and a full- time watershed coordinator to work on the problems of Sunday Creek watershed. The emergence of such a governing group may allow peace of mind for some community members and for them to feel as though the watershed group can manage the problems without their involvement. Stakeholders may feel like their time could be better spent on other endeavors.

Yet another contributing factor to limited stakeholder involvement is the history of resource extraction of the area. Those living in the community did not cause the acid 80 mine drainage problems in the watershed; mining companies no longer in business are responsible. Thus encouraging involvement in the watershed group is difficult because

Sunday Creek watershed was not a clean stream in the lifetime of many of the current residents and the community members are not responsible for the current condition of the creek. Bernard and Young (1997) mark a group‟s resilience by how well it survives such waxing and waning levels of community involvement.

SCWG plays a vital role in the governance of the Sunday Creek watershed. The group facilitates communication among different stakeholders in the watershed.

Technological support from the government allows the group to expand its resources, similar to the Bonnell and Koontz (2007) study. Norman and Bakker (2009) argue that watershed groups do not lead to community empowerment. But the stakeholders of

Sunday Creek watershed felt that the group has helped the community regain some of its pride and has started to improve water quality. The governance demonstrated in the management of Sunday Creek watershed is not perfect. The Ohio State government plays a guiding role in what is required for the management of a watershed and the availability of funding makes implementing projects (such as septic system installation and repair) difficult if the water quality issue is not in vogue at the time.

Feitelson and Fischhendler (2009) address three different scales of watershed governance. This thesis involves the operational and the political scales. The operational scale focuses on the complex issues of governance, such as drafting a document and bringing stakeholders together. The political scale is concerned with the power structure 81 and economic drivers of the watershed, such as agencies‟ power to endorse management plans and the government‟s abilities to fund water quality improvement.

Sunday Creek Watershed Group had some success in the past with incorporating stakeholder involvement, such as including community members (and other stakeholders) in the process of drafting the 2003 management plan. However, as the title to Bonnell and Koontz‟s 2007 paper suggests, “Stumbling Forward: The Organization Challenges of

Building and Sustaining Collaborative Watershed Management,” this management and stakeholder process can include trial and error. Presently many resources exist to help guide watershed groups in their missions. Websites such as River Network (2011) help bring watershed groups from across the county together to discuss and support one another. More resources exist today to help guide watershed groups than when the

SCWG was first founded. The Sunday Creek Watershed Group is well situated to continue to improve water quality and engage the community assuming funding exists for the continuation of the watershed group.

Future research could include collecting oral histories of various watersheds, including Sunday Creek. Leading Creek Watershed‟s oral history was collected and published; this is a good way to build a strong community within the watershed.

Understanding the history of individual watersheds is important to contextualize various decisions in the watershed. Another study could examine comparisons between Sunday

Creek and Monday Creek focusing on the effectiveness of stream remediation and community involvement in the two watersheds, as they were founded differently. An extension of that research may consider Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership, to 82 include each of the watershed groups officially involved with the nonprofit group Rural

Action. Comparison studies such as these may offer some more insight into how differing watersheds are able to involve community members within different contexts.

Future studies more pertinent to Sunday Creek may include quantitative surveys of the various stakeholder groups to gauge their level of success in the watershed and satisfaction level. Continued studies to better understand the mine pools for the Corning and Truetown discharges may help government agencies and the watershed group better understand possible methods of treatment for Sunday Creek‟s two largest impairment sources.

REFERENCES

Bernard, T. 2010. Hope and hard times. East Haven, CT: New Society Publishers.

Bernard, T. and Young, J. 1997. Ecology of hope. East Haven, CT: New Society Publishers.

Blower, J. A brief history of Trimble township, Athens County Ohio; its towns villages and people. Akron, Ohio.

Bonnell, J. and Koontz, T. 2007. Stumbling forward: The organizational challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Society and Natural Resources 20: 153-167.

Born, S. and Genskow, K. 2001. Toward understanding new watershed initiatives: A report from the Madison watershed workshop. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Brockman, S. 1998. Physiographic regions of Ohio. Division of Geological Survey, Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Brown, C. and Purcell, M. 2005. There‟s nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum 36: 607-624.

Burck, C. 2005. Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: The use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27: 237-262.

Chess, C. 2000. Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43:769-784.

Cockerill,K., Passell, H., and Tidwell, V. 2006. Cooperative modeling: Building bridges between science and the public. Journal of American Water Resources Association 42: 457-471.

Conley A. and Moote, M. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 16: 371-386.

Dakins, M., Long, J., and Hart, M. 2005. Collaborative environmental decision making in Oregon watershed groups: Perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41: 171-180.

Downs, P.W., Gregory, K.J., and Brookes, A. 1991. How integrated is river basin management? Environmental Management 15: 299-309.

Dunn, K. 2005. Interviewing. In Hay, I., ed., Qualitative research methods in human geography. New York: Oxford University Press, 50-81.

Duram, L. and Brown, K. 1999. Insights and applications assessing public participation in U.S. watershed planning initiatives. Society and Natural Resources 12: 455- 467.

Duram, L., Loftus, T., Adams, J., Lant, C., and Kraft, S. 2008. Assessing the US watershed management movement: National trends and an Illinois case study. Water International 33: 231-242.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., and Shaw, L.L. 2005. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Evans, J. 2004. What is local about local environmental governance? Observations from the local biodiversity action planning process. Area 36: 270-279.

Feather River Coordinated Resource Management. 2011. Feather River coordinated resource management Plumas County. http://www.feather-river-crm.org/. Accessed February 14, 2011.

Feitelson, E. and Fischhendler, I. 2009. Spaces of water governance: The case of Israel and its neighbors. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99: 728- 745.

Floress, K., Mangun, J., Davenport, M., and Willard, K. 2009. Constraints to watershed planning: Group structure and process. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45: 1352-1360.

Griffin, C. 1999. Watershed councils: An emerging form of public participation in natural resource management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 505-518.

Hay, I. 2008. Qualitative research methods in human geography. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, M. 2009. Public participation and perceptions of watershed modeling. Society and Natural Resources 22: 79-87.

Johnson, N., Munk-Ravnborg, H., Westermann, O., and Probst, K. 2002. User participation in watershed management and research. Water Policy 3: 507-520. 85

Kenney, D. 1999. Historical and sociopolitical context of the western watersheds movement. Journal of American Water Resources Association 35: 493-503.

Kenney, D. 2000. Arguing about consensus: Examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder: Rep Natural Resources Law Center.

Kubasek, N. and Silverman, G. 2008. Environmental Law, sixth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Koehler, B. and Koontz, T. 2008. Citizen participation in collaborative watershed partnerships. Environmental Management 41: 143-154.

Kondolf, G.M., Piegay, H., and Landon, N. 2002. Channel response to increased and decreased bedload supply from land-use change: contrasts between two catchments. Geomorphology 45: 35-51.

Koontz, T. and Moore-Johnson, E. 2004. One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences 37: 185-204.

Korfmacher, K. 2001. The politics of participation in watershed modeling. Environmental Management 27: 161-176.

Kweit, M. and Kweit, R. 1981. Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. New York: Praegger.

Leach, W. and Pelkey, N. 2001a. Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127: 378-385.

Leach, W. and Pelkey, N. 2001b. Federal environmental law and the occurrence of collaborative watershed partnerships. Proceedings of the Symposium on Integrated Decision-Making for Watershed Management.

Lemos, M. and Agrawal, A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review Environmental Resource 31: 297-325.

Lubell, M. 2004. Collaborative watershed management: A view from the grassroots. Policy Studies Journal 32: 341-361.

Malone, C. 2000. Ecosystem management policies in state government of the USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 48: 57-64.

Mattole Restoration Council. 2011. About the council. http://www.mattole.org/content/about-council. Accessed February 14, 2011.

Monday Creek Restoration Project. 2011. Partners. http://www.mondaycreek.org/about_partners.html. Accessed February 11, 2011.

Moore, E. and Koontz, T. 2003. A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen- based, agency-based and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources 16: 451-460.

NOAA, 2011. Climate resources. http://www.weather.gov/climate/climate_resources.php?wfo=rlx. Accessed April 30, 2011.

National Research Council. 1999. New strategies for America‟s watersheds. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6020&icn=Openbook+interrupt&ici= Choose#toc. Accessed February 11, 2011.

Norman, E. and Bakker, K. 2008. Transgressing scales: Water governance across the Canada-U.S. borderland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99: 99-117.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Geographic Information Management System. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/gims/default/tabid/15402/Default.aspx. Accessed April 4, 2011.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Burr Oak State Park. http://www.ohiodnr.com/parks/tabid/719/default.aspx. Accessed, June 28, 2010.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Department of Geological Survey. 2009. Abandoned Mine Locator. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/website/geosurvey/geosurvey_mines/disclaimer.htm. Accessed, August 4, 2010.

Painter, J. 2000. Governance. In Johnston, R., Gregory, D., Pratt, G., and Watts, M., eds., The dictionary of human geography. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 316-318.

Rhoads, B., Wilson, D. Urban, M., and Herricks, E. 1999. Interactions between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: 87

Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management 24: 297-308.

Sabatier, P., Leach, W., Lubell, M., and Pelkey, N. 2005a. Theoretical frameworks for explaining partnership success. In Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., and Matlock, M., eds., Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Boston: MIT Press, 171- 200.

Sabatier, P., Weible, C., Ficker, J. 2005b. Eras of water management in the United States: Implications for collaborative watershed approaches. In Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., and Matlock, M., eds., Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Boston: MIT Press, 23-52.

Saldana, J. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stachler, P.M. 1997. Chemical and hydrologic variability of acid mine drainage from abandoned Esco # 40 underground coal mine, Ohio. M.S. thesis, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 103 p.

Sunday Creek Watershed Group. 2003. A comprehensive management plan for the Sunday Creek Watershed. Glouster, OH: SCWG.

Sunday Creek Watershed Group. 2010. About Sunday Creek watershed group. http://www.sundaycreek.org/about.html. Accessed January 26, 2011.

Sunday Creek Watershed Group. 2011. A comprehensive management plan for the Sunday Creek watershed. Glouster, OH: SCWG.

Tesh, S. 1999. Citizen experts in environmental risk. Policy Sciences 32: 39-58.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. American fact finder. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGeoSearchByListServlet?_lang=en&_ts= 322306937064. Accessed April 30, 2011.

Vaughan, I.P., Diamond, M., Gurnell, A.M., Hall, K.A., Jenkins, A., Milner, N.J., Naylor, L.A., Sear, D.A., Woodward, G., and Ormerod, S.J. 2009. Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: A priority for river science and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 113-125.

Winchester, H. 2005. Qualitative research and its place in human geography. In Hay, I., ed., Qualitative research methods in human geography. New York: Oxford University Press.

Winnenburg, J. 2000. The story of our community: The little cities of black diamonds of southern Perry County. In A comprehensive watershed management plan for the Sunday Creek Watershed 2003, Glouster, OH: SCWG, 44-47.

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

1) What watershed do you live in?

2) How do you explain a watershed to others?

3) How long has your agency been involved with the Sunday Creek Watershed Group?

4) In your opinion what should a watershed management plan be?

5) Can you tell me about your agency‟s role in drafting the Comprehensive Sunday Creek

Watershed Management Plan of 2003?

a. What were some of the positive outcomes of helping with the drafting process?

b. Where there any negative components of helping with the drafting process?

6) How effective do you feel the 2003 plan was?

a. Was there anything missing from the plan?

b. Where there any things included in the plan that you felt should not have been?.

c. How necessary do you feel the written plan is for the watershed?

d. How do you perceive the success? of the management plan?

e. Does the document need to be altered to be more meaningful?

7) Can you tell me about your agency‟s role in drafting the Comprehensive Sunday Creek

Watershed Management Plan of 2010?

a. What were some of the positive outcomes of helping with the drafting process?

b. Where there any negative components of helping with the drafting process?

8) How effective do you feel the 2010 plan is?

a. Do you think the 2010 plan is an improvement from the 2003 plan?

b. Is there anything missing from the plan?

c. Where there any things included in the plan that you felt should not have been?.

d. How necessary do you feel the written plan is for the watershed? 90 e. Does the document need to be altered to be more meaningful? f. Overall what are your thoughts and feelings about the 2010 plan?

APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM

Ohio University Consent Form

Title of Research: Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Management: A Case Study of Sunday Creek Watershed Management Plans, Southeastern Ohio.

Researchers: Melissa Menerey

You are being asked to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks. It also explains how your personal information will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to sign it. This will allow your participation in this study. You should receive a copy of this document to take with you.

EXPLANATION OF STUDY

The purpose of this research is to investigate the process of updating a watershed management plan by analyzing the involvement and opinions of stakeholders regarding the Sunday Creek Watershed Management Plan of 2010, using the seven years of experience with the 2003 plan as the basis for comparison and discussion. This research will compare the levels of involvement in, satisfaction with, and opinions of different stakeholders regarding the two drafting processes in order to offer recommendations for effective incorporation of multiple stakeholder groups into the watershed management planning process to maximize continued stakeholder support and ensure the well-being of the watershed. Risks and Discomforts

No risks or discomforts are anticipated. Benefits

The research will offer an understanding of drafting a second watershed management plan. This research will also determine changes and modifications that may be necessary in authoring a watershed management plan in the future. And finally the research hopes to shed light on different ways to make the watershed management plan more accessible and meaningful to stakeholders of the watershed.

Confidentiality and Records

For anyone who wishes, I will provide a pseudonym instead of using actual names. Any information that you may wish to keep confidential will not be made public. While I will NOT release this information to anybody else, it is important for you to know that my advisor will also have access to this data. Any notes and audiotapes will be secured in my residence.

Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with: * Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research; * Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees the research at OU;

Contact Information

If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact Melissa Menerey (517) 231-8708 or [email protected].

You may also contact my thesis advisor Dr. Dorothy Sack at (740) 593-1149 or [email protected].

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Jo Ellen Sherow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664.

By signing below, you are agreeing that:  you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions  known risks to you have been explained to your satisfaction.  you understand Ohio University has no policy or plan to pay for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this research protocol  you are 18 years of age or older  your participation in this research is given voluntarily  you may change your mind and stop participation at any time without penalty or loss of any benefits to which you may otherwise be entitled.

Signature Date

Printed Name