USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY TO BUILD AGRICULTURAL ST AKEHOLDER COLLABORATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING: A C ASE STUDY By Michaele Nye A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Stu dies - Master of Science 2013 ABSTRACT USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY TO BUILD AGRICULTURAL ST AKEHOLDER COLLABORATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING: A C ASE STUDY By Michaele Nye Watershed management aims to address nonpoint sourc e pollution, which results from a variety of land management practices. Currently, agricultu re is cited as one major source of nonpoint source pollution. We need a better understanding o f how to collaborate with stakeholders when their involvement is important, such as the case in watershed management. We used a case study in the Red Cedar River Watershed to attempt and eva luate one method of building collaboration among agricultural stakeholders in the watershed ma nagement planning process. Watershed management and public participation literature info rmed the selection of the Appreciative Inquiry Model to frame meetings with agricultural s takeholders designed to build collaboration. An analytical framework was used to guide the collection and analysis of evidence to determine whether or not desired projec t outcomes were met using Appreciative Inquiry and whether or not the application of Appre ciative Inquiry could be considered an egalitarian deliberation form of public participati on. The study found the Appreciative Inquiry Model can be applied in scenarios where the egalita rian deliberation perspective is most beneficial for stakeholder involvement. The study also found that using the Appreciative Inquiry Model allowed for achieving some of the desired pro cess and substantive outcomes of the Watershed Management Planning Project. The use of Appreciative Inquiry did not achieve the desired stakeholder attendance. All outcomes resul ting from this approach for building stakeholder collaboration cannot be measured at thi s time. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my graduate committee, Dr. Patricia No rris (chair), Dr. John Kerr, and Dr. Jennifer Rivera for you time, support, teachings, and guidan ce through this learning process. Thank you to Ruth Kline-Robach for procuring the fu nding and allowing me the opportunity to work on, research, and learn from the Red Cedar Riv er Watershed Management Planning Project. This research was approved by the Michigan State Un iversity Institutional Review Board, IRB# x12-1273e, under an Exempt #2 category. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS !"#$%&'%$()!*#%++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%,-% !"#$%&'%'"./0*#%+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%,--% 1*2%$&%#23)&!#%&0%())0*4"($"&5#%+++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%,---% 67(8$*0%9%"5$0&:/6$"&5%++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%9% Watershed Management .............................. ............................................................................ 1 Collaboration ..................................... ........................................................................................ 4 Frameworks, Theories, and Models for Watershed Mana gement Planning ...................... 7 Research Problem .................................. ................................................................................... 7 Case Study ........................................ ......................................................................................... 8 67(8$*0%;%$7*&0*$"6(!%'0(3*<&01++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%9=% Challenges: Is Collaboration the Appropriate Manage ment Method? ............................. 11 Lessons Learned and Shared about Collaborative Wate rshed Management ................... 13 Characteristics of Successful Collaboration ....... .................................................................. 13 Frameworks, Theories, and Models .................. .................................................................... 18 Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management ........ ....................................................... 19 Matching Context and Process....................... ....................................................................... 21 Types of Public Participation Processes ........... .................................................................... 23 Public Participation Theory ....................... ........................................................................... 24 Models of Collaboration ........................... ............................................................................ 29 67(8$*0%>%(5(!2$"6(!%'0(3*<&01%(5:%3*$7&:#%++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%>?% Context: Red Cedar Watershed Management Background Information ......................... 34 Analytical Framework .............................. .............................................................................. 38 Agricultural Stakeholder Meetings ................. ...................................................................... 52 Meeting Format .................................... ................................................................................. 54 First Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting ............ .................................................................... 56 Second Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting ........... ................................................................. 57 Evidence Collection and Organization............... ................................................................... 59 Analysis .......................................... .......................................................................................... 60 67(8$*0%?%0*#/!$#%(5:%6&56!/#"&5#%+++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%@9% Egalitarian Deliberation Category of Public Partici pation ............................................ .... 61 Substantive Outcome: The achieved outcomes met the egalitarian deliberation perspective of public participation ........................... ................................................................................ 62 Legitimacy of Process ............................. ................................................................................ 64 Substantive Outcome: Legitimacy ................... ..................................................................... 64 Watershed Project Goals ........................... ............................................................................. 66 Process Outcome: Stakeholders attend meetings ..... ............................................................. 66 Process and Substantive Outcome: Stakeholders parti cipate at meetings ............................ 68 Substantive Outcome: Progress is made toward identi fying BMPs most applicable to the Red Cedar River Watershed ......................... ......................................................................... 75 v Substantive Outcome: Participants Engage in and Sup port the Program Coordination ....... 78 Substantive Outcome: Agricultural landowners implem ent BMPs ...................................... 88 Substantive Outcome: Watershed water quality is imp roved ............................................. .. 88 Summary of Process and Substantive Outcomes ....... .......................................................... 90 Appreciative InquiryÕs Application of Egalitarian D eliberation ....................................... ... 94 Legitimacy ........................................ .................................................................................... 94 Watershed Management Planning Project Outcomes .... ....................................................... 94 Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations ........ ................................................................. 95 (88*5:"6*#AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+ +9=>% APPENDIX A Meeting Email InvitationsÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉ...104 APPENDIX B Meeting #1 Agenda and Discussion GuideÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.110 APPENDIX C Meeting #1 Post Meeting Survey Questions ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ...113 APPENDIX D Meeting #2 Agenda and Discussion GuideÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.115 APPENDIX E Meeting #2 Post Meeting Survey Questions ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ...118 APPENDIX F Meeting #1 Discussion ResultsÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ...120 APPENDIX G Meeting #1 Post Meeting Survey Responses ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.128 APPENDIX H Meeting #1 Researcher ObservationsÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.131 APPENDIX I Meeting #2 Discussion ResultsÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ136 APPENDIX J Meeting #2 Post Meeting Survey Responses ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ...143 APPENDIX K Meeting #2 Researcher ObservationsÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.147 0*'*0*56*#%++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%9BB% vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Select Lessons Learned about Variables Related to the Watershed Management Planning Process ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ...ÉÉÉÉ.14 Table 2. Analytical Framework ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ....ÉÉ41 Table 3. Achieved Outcomes ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉ90 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Relationship between Frameworks, Theories, and Mod els (adapted from Ostrom, 2007). ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ................19 Figure 2 : Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation (adapted from Webler & Tuler, 2002)ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.É...É.....ÉÉÉÉ........ .........26 Figure 3. Case Study Specific Framework, Theory, and Model D iagram (adapted from Ostrom, 2007)ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ..ÉÉÉÉ...ÉÉ.É....33 Figure 4. Red Cedar River Watershed Locator Map. For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referr ed to the electronic version of this thesisÉ ÉÉ35 Figure 5: Phases of the Appreciative Inquiry Model (adapted from Cooperrider et al., 2008)É 55 viii KEY TO SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS BMP Best Management Practice DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DECISIONS Community Decision Support for Integrated on the ground nutrient strategies E. coli Escherichia coli EPA Environmental Protection Agency MAEAP Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program MSU Michigan State University NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USGS United States Geological Survey 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There is a need to manage water quality. Water qua lity is of interest because of the value of water to humans, organisms, and the environment. W ater is a shared common resource that every human and animal needs for life. Water bodies in nature provide aesthetic and ecosystem services as well. The water quality of a surface w ater body is affected by how the nearby land and water are managed and can be degraded from poin t sources and nonpoint sources of pollution. Point sources of pollution are direct d ischarges of pollution to a body of water often through a pipe, for example an industrial or munici pal wastewater discharge. Nonpoint source pollution is a result of a multitude of indirect so urces of varying types of pollutants carried from the land to a water body, often through rainwater o r snow runoff (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2012b). Watershed Management In the United States, water quality is regulated by the federal government as a common resource owned and used by everyone (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 2002). With so many users and because of the importance of water as a resourc e, the EPA in cooperation with individual state health and/or environmental agencies manages, evaluates, and regulates the surface waters of the United States to ensure the health of the su rface waters is acceptable. Through the Clean Water Act, water quality standards were established for waters of the United States to maintain healthy clean waters. The water quality standards include a list of designated uses that must be 2 met for each water body, including uses such as par tial and total body contact, industrial water supply, warm or cold water fishery, and other indig enous aquatic life. Numerical concentrations and narrative targets are set by the regulating age ncies for certain pollutants, establishing allowable levels of pollution that correspond to ea ch designated use and determine a waterwayÕs capacity for a designated use. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), or a maximum quantity or concentration of specific pollutants allowed to be discharged into a specific watershedÕs waterways, are also set for some pollutants to achi eve and protect designated uses. In addition, the water quality standards require that waterways be managed so that their health and conditions do not degrade from their current state (EPA, 2009) . These regulations are warranted as the EPA reports that of the 16% of the 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the nation assessed by the in dividual states, 44% were reported as impaired or not clean enough to support their designated use s. ÒPathogens, habitat alterations, and organic enrichment/oxygen depletion were cited as the leadi ng causes of impairment in rivers and streams, and top sources of impairment included agr icultural activities, hydrologic modifications (such as water diversions and channelization), and unknown/unspecified sourcesÓ (EPA, p. 1, 2009). The majority of lakes and reservoirs are al so reported as impaired, with agriculture as a leading source of contaminants. Though this number is somewhat skewed since often the waters assessed are those suspected to be impaired, it sti ll shows that a large portion of our waterways are not meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act (EPA, 2009). 3 Changes in behavior are necessary to prevent pollut ion and promote acceptable water quality. Changes can either be compelled through regulation or undertaken voluntarily . Point sources of pollution are regulated under federal law, often en forced by state environmental agencies (EPA 2009b). Because of the success of these programs, point source pollution is no longer the biggest threat to waterways. Nonpoint source pollution is now the biggest contri butor to surface water pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is managed on a watershed scale th rough watershed management planning. A watershed is an area of land where all precipitatio n that lands in the area and groundwater held in some formations beneath the land drains to a common waterbody (EPA 2012a). In watershed management, land use is important as it affects wat er quality through precipitation runoff carrying pollutants from the land, such as excess f ertilizers, oil drippings, sediment from erosion, bacteria from leaky septic systems, pet waste, and livestock manure, to name a few sources (EPA, 2012b). The collective contributions of thes e contaminants can result in a large negative impact to the waterways. Thus, land use management is important to protect water quality. Land is owned privately and management and use of p rivately owned land are subject to limited regulations, which can vary widely between jurisdic tions and land-use types. Because of physical characteristics of nonpoint discharges and the challenges with regulating the sources, most nonpoint source programs encourage and rely on voluntary efforts of land-owners to minimize discharges. Watershed boundaries are drawn by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and can be broken down into portions of rivers, or entire rive r or lake basins. Watershed planning and 4 management is the process of collecting information and data about a watershed and developing and working with community stakeholders towards a d etailed proposal for reducing nonpoint source pollution and improving water quality. Wate rshed management plans can be voluntarily developed or they can be required if a TMDL for a p ollutant is exceeded in a water body. In either situation, watershed planning and management requires the broad participation of landowners and citizens who all live or have a stak e in the land and water within the watershed. Collaboration Collaboration is key to coordinating the participat ion of various landowners and citizens in watershed planning. However, collaboration in a co mmunity with varying interests can come with inherent challenges that do not suit themselve s to a formulaic method of problem solving. Working with stakeholders within a hydrologically d efined watershed often equates to working in an area that spans traditional political jurisdi ctions. This makes coordination between political jurisdictions necessary if consistent local policie s are to be adopted throughout the watershed. No one method of collaboration fits every scenario so it is helpful to identify processes for bringing a community together with the intention of collectively improving the nearby surface water quality. Due to this geographic and regulatory complexity of the scope of work, more than just scientific evaluations of water quality and watershed characte ristics are required to develop a watershed management plan. Stakeholder involvement processes are commonly used as a means of including the public in the watershed management pl anning and implementation process to 5 solicit their support of and compliance with the pl an and to ultimately achieve water quality improvements (EPA, 2008). Frequently, stakeholders with varying interests, including residents, landowners, businesses, local governments, and stat e agencies, collaborate to develop a shared vision for managing their lands in a way that minim izes the impacts to the shared waterways, while following any existing regulatory limitations . The social component is critical in implementing changes suggested as necessary based o n scientific information (Flitcroft, Dedrick, Smith, Thieman & Bolte, 2010). Of particular importance are the agricultural stake holders, as agriculture is cited as a major source of nonpoint source pollution impairment acro ss the nationÕs rivers and streams (EPA, 2009a). Collaboration with agricultural stakeholde rs can at times struggle with conflicting interests between the producers and the watershed m anagement group, in that, unlike homeowners, the financial prosperity of farmers is dependent upon their land. Often, the agricultural producersÕ management of their land to meet production goals conflicts with water quality goals in a watershed plan that may be sugge sting capital investments or the removal of riparian land from production. In watershed manage ment, stakeholders with varying and conflicting interests must collectively determine t heir common goals and the land management methods necessary to reach those goals. Thus, we m ust understand how to foster collaboration among stakeholders with conflicting interests. The collective behaviors of the community members are critical to the success of watershed ma nagement and, ultimately, to water quality. Not surprisingly, case studies of collaborative res ource management projects show there have been a number of challenges in effectively building collaboration around watershed management 6 (Bonnell & Koontz 2007; Borisova, Racevskis & Kipp, 2012; Flitcroft, et al., 2010; Smolko, Huberd & Tam-Davis, 2002; Spellecacy, 2009). More specifically, watershed organizations and managers are still currently experiencing challenge s with establishing adequate balanced stakeholder involvement (Borisova et al, 2012), eff ective partnerships (Bidwell & Ryan, 2006), and successful adoption of practices to reduce nonp oint source pollution, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs), within the agricultura l community (Lamba, Filson & Adekunle, 2009). Landowners have a diverse set of preference s and motivations for their land management (Rosenberg & Margerumb, 2008), and within agricultu re, specifically, a variety of different factors influence landowners in their adoption of B MPs (Habron, 2004; Lamba et al., 2009; Lubell & Fulton, 2008; Napier & Tucker, 2001; Welch & Marc-Aurele, 2001). The EPA and researchers acknowledge that there is n o one exact method for effectively building collaboration among stakeholders (McGinnis, Woolley , & Gamman, 1999; Sabatier et al., 2005; Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000; Tuler & Webler, 2010). Furthermore, both the EPA and the related literature make recommendations and give varying ad vice on successful characteristics of collaborative stakeholder involvement (Benthrup, 20 01; Borisova, 2012; EPA, 2008; Flitcroft, Dedrick, Smith, Thieman, & Bolte, 2009; Floress, Pr okopy & Ayers, 2011; Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000). A review of case studies doesnÕt offer a co nsistent rule of collaboration; different rules apply in different scenarios. Partnerships are com plex and seemingly simple parts of the collaboration process may dissuade key stakeholders from participating cooperatively if implemented improperly (Smolko et al., 2002). 7 Frameworks, Theories, and Models for W atershed Management Planning The research described in this thesis benefited fro m previous researchersÕ development of frameworks, theories, and models that can be used t o evaluate collaboration approaches. Lubell, Sabatier, Vedlitz, Focht, Trachtenberg & Matlock (2 005) describe the Dynamic Framework of Watershed Management that outlines factors that aff ect collaborative watershed management. The Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participati on by Webler and Tuler (2002) refines the relationships of some of the factors, the context, process, and outcomes, within the Dynamic Framework of Watershed Management. Further researc h by Tuler and Webler (2010) describes a public participation process that emphasizes empo wering the stakeholders, described as an egalitarian deliberation perspective of stakeholder involvement. One model for applying this type of public participation process is the Appreci ative Inquiry Model, an organizational change model with an emphasis on opportunities rather than constraints (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2008). This frame work, theory, and model were applied in this thesis and are described in more detail in Cha pter 2. Research Problem We used a case study in the Red Cedar River Watersh ed to apply and evaluate one method of building collaboration among agricultural stakehold ers in the watershed management planning process aimed to address nonpoint source pollution. This case study was conducted to assess whether use of the Appreciative Inquiry Model could effectively build collaboration among agricultural stakeholders to make the planning and implementation processes effective. This study was not intended to supply specific compariso ns of multiple participatory methods 8 conducted through an active watershed management pl anning process. Despite this, results of this study can be applicable to collaborative appro aches in other active watershed management planning practices. The purpose of this research i s to address two research questions: 1.) Does use of the Appreciative Inquiry Model in a collaborative watershed planning process achieve outcomes desired from the egalitari an deliberation perspective of public participation? 2.) Does applying the Appreciative Inquiry Model build collaboration among agricultural stakeholders to achieve the desired process and sub stantive outcomes of the Watershed Management Planning Project? Case Study The Red Cedar River Watershed in mid-Michigan has a confirmed bacterial surface water quality problem, and a watershed management plannin g process is underway in the community to address non-point source pollution. Bacterial w ater quality impairment is indicative of pollution from human and animal fecal waste and is measured by the indicator bacteria, Escherichia coli ( E. coli ). To address this and other confirmed water quali ty problems, a watershed management team, with input from partners from the affected area, interested communities and community organizations, is develop ing a watershed management plan. Though human and agricultural non-point sources of E. coli are of key interest in this stakeholder planning process, this research is limited to under standing collaboration building among agricultural stakeholders. Land use in the study a rea is largely agriculture, and agricultural 9 service organizations that have generally worked wi th the farms on conservation and water quality protection are increasingly resource-constr ained. The agricultural community is a critical stakeholder in the Red Cedar River watershed manage ment planning process and is therefore the focus of intensive collaboration efforts and is the subject of this research. The watershed management planning process in the Re d Cedar River Watershed is currently being funded in part through a grant from the Michi gan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to address an E. coli TMDL. The funding and planning process began in J une 2012 and will continue for two years. Over this period, the EPAÕs nine-element process for watershed management and planning will be followed to produce an implementable Watershed Management Plan. This research focuses on a portio n of the watershed management planning stakeholder collaboration process in the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan development. To study this process, relevant water shed management, public participation, and organizational change literature were used to ident ify an appropriate model for building collaboration and developing an analytical framewor k to assess its effectiveness. 10 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Watershed planning and management is the process of collecting information and outlining steps for improving water quality in a specific geographi c area that drains into a common waterway. Typically, it is a process undertaken when a requir ed TMDL for a pollutant is being exceeded in a water body as determined by a state health depart ment or the EPA. However, it may also be a voluntary process undertaken by a grass-roots organ ization concerned about water quality. In either case, successful watershed planning and mana gement is dependent upon the behaviors of various landowners and citizens who live or have a vested interest in the land and water within the watershed. The EPA is the key funder and regulatory authority of watershed management. They require stakeholder involvement in watershed management (EP A, 2008). Many others agree that stakeholder participation is important to watershed management (Flitcroft et. al., 2009; McGinnis et al., 1999; Said, Sehlke, Stevens, Glover, Sorens en, Walker & Hardy, 2006). Stakeholder involvement in watershed management emphasizes coll aborative discourse. Though many public participation and stakeholder involvement in itiatives are not collaborative, in this project, public participation and collaboration are used syn onymously as the stakeholder participation is meant to be a collaborative experience. By collabo rating, community stakeholders coordinate their actions in order to reduce nonpoint source po llution and improve surface water quality. Collaboration can be defined in a variety of ways, as it is complex, dynamic, and different depending upon the situation. Imperial defines col laboration as Òa particular type of network relationshipÓ (p. 287, 2005). Collaboration happen s between two or more organizations or 11 individuals, and key collaborative characteristics include how the entities interact and make decisions together (Imperial, 2005). In collaborat ive relationships, decisions are made collectively through negotiation and rely less on h ierarchical power relationships (Imperial, 2005). Sabatier et al. refers to collaborative ins titutions as a type of democratic governance with Ògroups of people coming together to make collectiv e decisions about solutions to common problems, then adhering to the behavioral prescript ions that emerge from the processÓ (p. 19, 2005). Challenges: Is Collaboration the Appropriate Manage ment Method? Though collaboration is emphasized, the use of coll aboration alone does not guarantee success in watershed management and planning. Collaboration i s a comparatively complex, advanced governance tool, and there are many challenges in a ll phases from initiation to completion of collaborative projects (Imperial, 2005). The chall enge starts at the very beginning of the process, in selecting the appropriate method of governance, as collaboration is unlikely to be the appropriate strategy for solving all governance pro blems (Imperial, 2005). Alternative tools include Òunilateral action, litigation, legislative intervention, markets, and hierarchical controlÓ (Imperial, p. 311, 2005). Smutko et al. suggest an alyzing the presence and degree of certain issues, Òthe level of uncertaintyÉbalance of inform ationÉperceived risksÉtime horizon of effectsÉurgency of decisionÉdistribution of effectÉ clarity of problemÓ (p. 1003, 2002) and their estimated effect on the need for collaboratio n and willingness to engage before pursuing collaboration. Lubell et al. (2005) recommend the collaborative method for solving problems 12 under Òhigh stakes, high social distrust, high gove rnment distrust, and high knowledge uncertaintyÓ (p. 290). The process of collaboration requires resources and professional skills and can fail without them (Imperial, 2005). An organizer must determine the level of effort to place into organizational collaboration planning as compared to watershed pla nning (Bonnell & Koontz, 2007). Successful implementation requires compromise, and while full agreement does not have to be reached in the collaborative process, it is an appr opriate method when win-win situations or win- no-loss situations can be negotiated (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000 as cited by Imperial, 2005). Some suggest that collaboration is not a blanket so lution critical to environmental success and caution to use the tool only when it is environment ally beneficial and not problematic (Imperial, 2005; Koontz & Thomas, 2006; Mandarano & Paulsen, 2 011; Smutko, Klimek, Perrin & Danielson, 2002). ÒWhen used correctly, collaborat ion is an effective governance strategy. When used inappropriately, it can create more probl ems than it solvesÓ (Imperial, p. 312, 2005). There are many ways to manage processes of collabor ation, and research shows there are many factors important for successful collaboration. With both challenges and opportunities at hand, bef ore undertaking a collaborative process within watershed management, it is important to und erstand what has been learned from past collaborative experiences. We need to better under stand when collaboration should be used, characteristics of successful collaboration, and th e process that is followed to encourage successful collaboration. 13 In the case of the Red Cedar River Watershed, colla boration is an integral part of the development of a Watershed Management Plan. The fu nding agency supporting the project requires stakeholder involvement, and collaboration was selected as the approach in order to find a win-win or win-no-lose solution with the agricult ural community. There is not an existing watershed group in this watershed, nor is there kno wn funding beyond the watershed planning grant for a watershed organization to be able to le ad the efforts. Thus building collaboration is needed to gain supporters and increase chances of c ontinual implementation of the project. Other governance approaches, such as a hierarchical structure, were not allowable due to the funding agency requirements. In addition, collabor ation is needed in the Red Cedar Watershed in part to address a regulatory TMDL; to reduce inf ormation asymmetries about the watershed and its water quality; to develop shared formal goa ls and policies, joint work plans, and informal norms; and to form relationships. Lessons Learned and Shared about Collaborative Wate rshed Management Collaboration can be difficult as it lacks a hierar chical organizational structure and can be particularly complex when participantsÕ values conf lict. Yet, viewing collaboration as a tool that is simply required in watershed management is less compelling than viewing it as an opportunity to foster a fair process and build social capital ( Leahy & Anderson, 2010). Characteristics of Successful Collaboration There are a multitude of case studies and studies s ummarizing groups of cases about collaboration that share lessons learned, including advice about characteristics of successful 14 collaboration and advice on the collaboration proce ss. In Table 1, some of the lessons learned for watershed management planning, the process of w atershed management planning, collaboration in watershed management planning, and landowner decision-making are summarized. Table 1. Select Lessons Learned about Variables Related to t he Watershed Management Planning Process Finding !Context !Source !Watershed Planning Process !Structural and procedural characteristics affect the outcomes: stakeholder involvement on the executive committee, decision- making procedures, information sharing, and time, funding, and personnel !!Mandatory TMDL implementation in Florida !Borisova, Racevskis & Kipp, 2012!Organization type and funding source affect the type of work, categorized as assess, plan, or act, that will be undertaken by an organization !!Watershed planning !Bidwell & Ryan, 2006 !Six distinct criteria are indicators of success: stakeholder perceptions about the effects of their work on the watershed, perceived effect on human and social capital, level of agreement met, restoration projects completed, education and outreach completed !!Watershed management !Leach, Pelkey & Sabatier, 2002 !ParticipantsÕ values in the consensus building process need clarification Watershed planning, Australia Baldwin & Ross, 2012 Scientific consensus is important, but it is more important to involve and build community around shared values and agreements Watershed planning McGinnins, Woolley & Gamman, 1999 15 Table 1 (contÕd) Finding Context Source Watershed Planning Process (contÕd) Decisions about the amount of energy spent on organizational development as compared to direct water resource projects requires balancing !!Watershed organization Bonnell & Koontz, 2007 Collaboration !!!Collaboration should be based on an understanding of how the environmental resource will be affected !!Collaborative management outcomes on environment !Koontz & Thomas, 2006 !Various types of Multiple Criteria Analysis are frequently being used for water resource planning !!Water resource planning !Hajkowicz & Collins, 2007 !Specific issue attributes affect the need for collaboration and the willingness of stakeholders to participate in collaboration in a specific case study !!Watershed planning stakeholder involvement !Smutko, Klimek, Perrin & Danielson, 2002 !Clarification of roles and decision- making responsibilities of participants, volunteers, paid personnel, and agency personnel helps to improve collaborative group dynamics !Watershed management !Floress, Prokopy & Ayers, 2011 !Collaboration strategy use may not necessarily improve the BMP adoption rate ! Agricultural BMP adoption rates in watershed groups Campbell, Koontz, & Bonnell, 2011 Geographic scale of the watershed work affects the collaborative process and stakeholder interaction Select Oregon watersheds Cheng & Daniels, 2005 16 Table 1 (contÕd) Finding Context Source Collaboration (contÕd) !A majority of surveyed stakeholders believe democratic characteristics of the collaborative process are occurring in the watershed partnerships Watershed partnerships in Washington and California Leach, 2006 Decision-making tools, used appropriately, improved the collaborative planning process in a specific case study !!Watershed planning process !Smolko, Huberd &Tam-Davis, 2002!A model evaluated and modified for collaborative environmental planning suggests key stakeholder involvement factors, including organizational structure, and inclusion of stakeholders in data collection !Select watershed groups in the Intermountain West !Benthrup, 2001 !Collaboration and social capital have a complex relationship, and group characteristics affect social capital. In particular, perceived successful outcomes of collaboration positively affect social capital !Community based collaborative natural resource management in Northwest Colorado !Wagner & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2009!The incorporation of social capital is beneficial to a watershed group and community ! Agency lead watershed management Leahy & Anderson, 2010 Landowner Decisions !FarmersÔ decisions on which conservation practices to adopt are affected by many variables; thus it is difficult to predict farmersÕ conservation adoption patterns !!Midwestern farming conservation practices !Napier & Tucker, 2001 !FarmersÕ rationales for conservation practice adoption are difficult to predict as they are not one homogenous group !Select Oregon watersheds !Habron, 2004 !17 Table 1 (contÕd) Finding Context Source Landowner Decisions (contÕd) LandownersÕ conservation practice adoption and preferences vary based on socio-economic, cultural, and land use conditions Selected Oregon watersheds Rosenberg & Margerumb, 2008 Characteristics of active participants in watershed organizations vary by group type. Active participants are more likely to be politically active and have previous watershed knowledge. Soft skills, such as open communication, practiced by a watershed organizer can also increase participant activity !!Selected collaborative watershed groups in Ohio !Koehler & Koontz, 2008 !Farmers connected with a policy network have higher rates of BMP implementation !!BMP adoption in agricultural watersheds !Lubell & Fulton, 2008 !Regulatory push influences the first BMP adopters and community pull influences the late BMP adopters !BMP adoption behaviors of farmers as it affects nonpoint source pollution !Welch & Marc-Aurele, 2001 ! Despite extensive research, some collaborative wate rshed management processes still experience problems in implementation. The case studies sugge st an array of characteristics needed for successful collaboration, and incorporating all of these lessons into a single collaborative process would not be feasible, as all of the findings do no t apply to each case. Understanding how and when to incorporate these characteristics and how t hey are related to one another strengthens understanding of how to implement effective collabo rations. The findings need to be organized and appropriately applied. Some suggest that the c ollaboration process must be matched with its context while others try to understand the patterns of the studies to date and call for expanding on developing the patterns. 18 To understand this large-scale analysis of a decisi on-making process, three different levels of analysis describe different degrees of detail. The frameworks, theories, and models can help organize what is known about collaboration through public participation in different scenarios (Imperial, 2005; Ostrom, 2007; Webler & Tuler, 2002 ). Frameworks, Theories, and Models Because collaboration cannot be described as one sp ecific process, it can be understood more broadly as following a generic set of rules. Human norms or social rules are institutions, and in helping to understand institutions, Ostrom (2007) d escribes three different levels of analytical specificity: frameworks, theories, and models. Wit h different degrees of detail, frameworks, theories, and models relate how one specific set of social rules and conditions affect actions taken by people and the ultimate outcomes (Ostrom, 2007). A framework identifies universal elements and relationships between elements used in institutional analysis (Ostrom, 2007). Frameworks Òprovide the most general list of variab les that should be used to analyze all types of institutional arrangementsÓ and Òattempt to identif y the universal elements that any theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena would need t o includeÓ (Ostrom, p. 25, 2007). A theory focuses on details within a framework and makes spe cific assumptions that relate a phenomenon to certain processes and predicted outcomes (Ostrom , 2007). Many theories may be applicable to one framework. A model is even more specific an d Òmakes precise assumptions about a limited set of parameters and variablesÓ (Ostrom, p . 26, 2007) within a theory. Many models may be applicable to one theory. In the case of wa tershed management, models can relate how individuals collectively make decisions about the m anagement of their land, which is affected by 19 private landownership rules, to a watershed managem ent plan, and ultimately the watershed outcomes that occur. A visual aide is presented in Figure 1 to describe this hierarchy. Figure 1. Relationship between Frameworks, Theories, and Mod els (adapted from Ostrom, 2007). For this research, the Dynamic Framework for Waters hed Management (Lubell et al., 2005), the Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation ( Webler & Tuler, 2002), and the Appreciative Inquiry Model are applied to organize the informati on available about successful collaborations and describe a process for collaboration. Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management The Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management is a normative and positive framework based upon numerous studies of collaborative waters hed management, the implications of the Framework Theory Model Framework 20 findings, and further developed recommendations (Lu bell et al., 2005), where normative statements describe how things ought to be and posi tive statements describe what currently exists. The Dynamic Watershed Framework encompasses six maj or groups of factors that affect collaborative watershed management: ! Process , which includes institutions for collaborative man agement; ! Context , which incorporates the socio-economic conditions, the civic community conditions, the ecological conditions, and the gove rnment institutions; ! Legitimacy , which is related to many of the variables ! Civic Community , which incorporates trust, political efficacy, col lective action beliefs, human capital, and social capital; ! Policy Output , which includes plans and projects; and ! Watershed Outcomes , which includes perceived and actual ecological an d socioeconomic changes (Lubell et al., 2005). In each new scenario, the factors vary, and some bu t not all of the relationships between the factors of the framework have been tested (Sabatier , et al., 2005). Most importantly, the proposers of this framework, Òspeculate that variat ion in collaboration institutions is mainly due to the relationships between the contexts in which the institutions operate (what Ostrom calls the action-decision arena) and the type of institutiona l structure that best fits a particular contextÓ (Lubell et al., p. 264, 2005) as successful institu tions adapt to their context. 21 The Dynamic Framework of Watershed Management (Lube ll et al. 2005) was developed based on what was observed in collaborative watershed man agement cases and proposes what ought to be considered in such cases (Lubell et al., 2005). Lubell et al. (2005) suggest success is more likely in collaborative watershed management if the se factors are attended to, but the framework is too general to fully understand the relationship s among context, process, and outcomes. It is applicable to use in framing and evaluating the Red Cedar collaborative watershed management. For this research the Dynamic Framework of Watershe d Management is used as a starting point for evaluating the key factors it incorporates. Matching Context and Process Though this is not expected to be formulaic, many s ay that collaboration and stakeholder involvement processes need to align with their cont exts (Bonnell & Koontz, 2007; Campbell, Koontz & Bonnell, 2011; Smutko, et al., 2002). Pro cess and context are two key elements of the Dynamic Framework of Watershed Management (Lubell, et al., 2005). Campbell et al. (2011) compare the success of grass roots watershed manage ment to traditional agency-led watershed management and find both methods prove successful d epending upon their context. Bidwell and Ryan (2006) show that different organizational stru ctures choose to take on different types of work through interviews with a variety of watershed partnerships. Tuler and Webler (2010) attempted to determine whet her a meaningful relationship could be identified between the process and context and foun d that preferences for process were also associated with experiences, motives, and group ide ntity. ÒPeoplesÕ satisfaction with the process 22 will be determined, in part, by its performance on outcome criteria. Different people will evaluate the same process differently because it is seen as likely to produce different kinds of outcomesÓ (Tuler & Webler, p. 262, 2010). A list of practitionersÕ shared that experiences on ways to involve the public and experiences about what constitutes a good process includes a va riety of important characteristics. Webler and Tuler (2001) define a good stakeholder involvem ent process generically as being: ! Credible and legitimate, ! Competent and information driven, ! Fostering fair and democratic deliberation, and ! Emphasizing constructive dialogue and education. Imperial suggests a process that avoids magnifying negative experiences as he found: negative experiences had much stronger effects on t heir willingness to participate in collaborative activities than did positive ones. A ccordingly, public managers are advised to avoid situations that have a high risk of failure, particularly when the participants have a limited base of collaborative experience. Instead, they should be strategic, focus on problems that are manageable, look for opportunities where t here is strong political support, and focus their efforts where the likelihood of success is hi gh. This provides public managers with the requisite time needed to build relationships and tr ust while they learn how to work together. (Imperial, p. 310-311, 2005) 23 Advice about the collaborative process is widesprea d, and the literature suggests that there is no one right process that satisfies all situations. Types of Public Participation Processes Observations from practitioners and stakeholders in volved in natural resource management relate perceived context and preferred outcomes to the var iables of the process of public participation (Tuler & Webler, 2010). Through an adaptive planni ng process and systemic evaluation, the context can be understood and a process selected (T uler & Webler, 2010). Four different perspectives on public participation processes were identified based on the varied roles of science and management structure in each, including : ! Science-centered, ! Informed democratic deliberation, ! Agency-centered, and ! Egalitarian deliberation (Tuler & Webler, 2010). Characteristics of each perspective were summarized based on participantsÕ preferences for outcomes (Tuler & Webler, 2010). Where science is to play a supporting role and where the management is deliberative and democratic, the egal itarian deliberation type of public participation process is preferred (Tuler & Webler, 2010). The process hypothesized to best fit the context an d desired outcomes of the Red Cedar River Watershed, described later in Chapter 3, is the ega litarian deliberation process. The process emphasizes improving participantsÕ: Òskills to take part effectivelyÉ understandings of the 24 issuesÉunderstandings of othersÕ beliefs, values, a nd perspectivesÉability to work together better, and confidence and self-esteemÓ (Tuler & We bler, p. 259, 2010). It deemphasizes having an agency dominate the process. It also consequent ly emphasizes preferred outcomes of social capacity over substantive policy and deliberation i nstead of analysis (Tuler & Webler, 2010). A few elements of the egalitarian deliberation proc ess apply specifically to the case. In the Red Cedar River watershed where there is no longstandin g watershed organization, it is important to empower citizens and other organizations to partici pate. ÒTo be empowered requires a firm understanding of the issues and what others want an d think. This is especially important in contexts where there is a high degree of cultural d iversity among the regional communitiesÓ (Tuler & Webler, p. 263, 2010). In addition, the p rocess and the sources and causes of the problem are to be defined through the watershed man agement planning process through stakeholder involvement and scientific data collect ion and can be done using the egalitarian deliberation process; Òegalitarian deliberation was associated with the belief that there is not much clarity about the mandate for the process or t hat the ÒrightÓ problem is well understoodÉa good process in this context requires that people b e empowered to participate effectivelyÓ (Tuler & Webler, p. 262, 2010). The egalitarian deliberat ion process is emphasized in this study. Public Participation Theory The Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participati on proposed by Webler and Tuler (2002) can be used to better connect the context, process, and other variables in the Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management. In particular, this theory connects four of the factors of 25 the Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management: con text, process, policy output, and civic community outcomes. The Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participati on was proposed by Webler and Tuler (2002) to fill the gap left by a lack of proposed a nd tested public participation theories. The theory was intended to benefit public participation practitioners and help Ògeneralize knowledge beyond each practitionerÕs experienceÉhighlight pre conditions that can influence the processÉfocus attention on intermediate indicators of desired outcomesÉhelp match method with purposeÉhelp predict outcomes of interventionÓ (Webler & Tuler, p. 181, 2002). The theory proposes that fairness and competence are ce ntral and important for successful public participation (Webler & Tuler, 2002). This theory describes the variables in a participat ory process as the context, process, and outcome variables (see Figure 2). The context is v iewed as an input affecting the process, which in turn affects the capacity building and policy re lated outcomes. Both types of outcomes then complete the cycle and affect the initial condition s, changing the landscape (context) for the next process. In public participation cases, to connect the context with the desired outcomes, the appropriate process should be matched to the scenar io and outcome preference (Webler & Tuler, 2002). The case-specific variables of the context and the desired results should be used to help select the process. 26 Figure 2 : Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation (adapted from Webler & Tuler, 2002). The context includes the initial social and politic al conditions and variables that may be changed through the public participation process and affect the process itself (Webler & Tuler, 2002). Some of these context variables that are specifical ly applicable in our case study include: ! Existing state of polarization, ! Legacy of trust or distrust, ! Other ongoing projects, and ! Qualities of social networks (Webler & Tuler, 2002) . Process ¥Designed fairness variables ¥Designed competence variables Outcome ¥Policy-related variables ¥Capacity- building variables Context ¥Initial Condition variables ¥Variables throughout the process 27 The Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participati on focuses on ensuring that fairness and competence are characteristics of the public partic ipation process. Fairness includes allowing the participants to attend, contribute to the conversat ion, and help make decisions. Competence refers to an adequate ability for knowledge to be c onstructed through participantsÕ access to information and an established process for decision -making (Webler & Tuler, 2002). Characteristics of fairness and competence are emph asized in the egalitarian deliberation perspective of stakeholder involvement, including i mproving participants skills to take part in the process and understanding others perspectives (Tule r & Webler, 2010). Characteristics of fairness are also included in the legitimacy factor of the Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management (Lubell et al., 2005). Lastly, the process variables affect the outcomes. A variety of outcomes are possible, and the outcomes of this process are categorized as affecti ng either the policy or the capacity of the community affected and include: ! Policy Outcomes: ! Collective satisfaction, ! Reduction in risk, ! Completed management plan, ! Goals, tasks, timetable, and ! Clear mandate. 28 ! Capacity Related Outcomes: ! Civic competence, ! Degree of conflict, ! Degree of trust, ! Degree of empathy, ! Level of knowledge, ! Public participation organization skills, ! Self-confidence, and ! Tolerance for othersÕ views (Webler & Tuler, 2002). The policy and capacity related outcomes described by Tuler and Webler (2002) relate to public participation generally. Both process and environme ntal outcomes are components of the Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management (Lubell et al., 2005). However, successful collaboration is not, in itself, a final goal in wa tershed management planning. The ultimate goal is for Òimproved environmental outcomesÓ (Koontz & Thomas, p. 111, 2006). It is good practice to know what processes will result in the best envi ronmental and social outcomes (Koontz & Thomas, 2006). This theory is appropriate to apply to the case of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Planning project since we have an understanding of the context we are working under and the 29 known desired outcomes, and we are looking to selec t an appropriate stakeholder involvement process. In summary, specific to the case study, w e know the context variables: ! A watershed management plan is in progress to satis fy an existing TMDL, ! The existing political conditions, and ! The existing social conditions of the watershed. We also know the desired outcome is to have: ! Stakeholder collaboration since there is no continu ous established watershed entity, ! Surface water of a quality that is no longer regula ted by a TMDL, and ! Surface water of a quality that meets the designate d and desired uses of the watershed. Models of Collaboration Finding a particular process model will help us to better understand the methods to use in building stakeholder collaboration. The literature about watershed management is rich with case studies, but very little is written about collabora tive process models. General guidance and requirements detailing methods of the watershed man agement planning process can be found in watershed planning handbooks, such as the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (EPA, 2008). Some h ave used known participatory tools such as affinity diagrams, flip charts, and the understandi ng of TuckmanÕs Cycle of Group Development: the stages of form, storm, norm, perform, and adjou rn (Smolko et al., 2002). Others have made up their own processes; different models have been used in guiding collaborative watershed 30 management planning work (Spellecacy, 2009). One s cientific model, Community Decision Support for Integrated, On-the-ground Nutrient Stra tegies (DECISIONS), involves soliciting and ranking stakeholder preferences by acting as an aid e for stakeholders when choosing nutrient planning strategies. Participants believed the mod el helped to improve communication, but they criticized it for not incorporating enough collabor ative discussion time and being too focused on the scientific model results (Bosch, Pease, Wolfe, Zobel, Osorio, Cobb, Evanylo, 2012). Benthrup (2001) proposes a model for collaborative environmental planning that connects the steps associated with each part of the collaborativ e planning process, from planning to implementation, including the antecedents, problem setting, direction setting, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation and is based on a cat alyst starting the chain of events for collaboration. Another model is the Model of Appreciative Inquiry, which avoids emphasizing problems and focuses on existing strengths. Appreciative Inquir y is an organizational change model that holds the assumption that Òan organization is a mystery t o be embracedÓ and not Ò a problem to be solvedÓ (Hammond, p. 24, 1998). It outlines a proc ess applicable in watershed management collaboration. It is a process of asking questions of an organization through four stages of exploration: ! Discovery- ÒWhat is,Ó ! Dream- ÒWhat might be,Ó ! Design- ÒWhat should be,Ó and ! Destiny- ÒWhat will be,Ó (Cooperrider et al., 2008) . 31 The questions asked through these stages are phrase d so that they facilitate the organization membersÕ sharing of their opinions and ideas in a f orward thinking and positive manner to promote change in that direction. The process is set up to support the following prin ciples: ! Positive Principle- positive change can be created by asking positive questions, ! Wholeness Principle- when organizations act collect ively, strengths and creativity are fostered, ! Enactment Principle- for change to happen we must b e what we desire, ! Free choice Principle- when people are given their own freedoms to choose, better outcomes result, ! Constructivist Principle- meaning is created throug h social discussions, ! Simultaneity Principle- change is created through i nquiry, ! Poetic Principle- people can choose what they study and organizations are opportunities for study, and ! Anticipatory Principle- organizations move in the d irection of their choice of study (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider et al., 2 008). In trying to achieve the results of these principle s, the Appreciative Inquiry Model assumes that the following are true: ! ÒIn every society, organization or group, something works.Ó 32 ! ÒWhat we focus on becomes our reality.Ó ! ÒReality is created in the moment, and there are mu ltiple realities.Ó ! ÒThe act of asking questions of an organization or group influences the group in some way.Ó ! ÒPeople have more confidence and comfort to journey to the future (the unknown) when they carry parts of the past (the known).Ó ! ÒIf we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past.Ó ! ÒIt is important to value differences.Ó ! ÒThe language we use creates our realityÓ (Hammond, p. 20-21, 1998). The Model of Appreciative Inquiry is hypothesized t o fit the context found in the Red Cedar River Watershed Planning Project that is described in more detail in Chapter Three. It also fits the characteristics of an egalitarian deliberation process. The model empowers the participants and encourages collaboration (Cooperrider & Whitney , 2005; Cooperrider et al., 2008), and the focus on positive exploration may diffuse polarizat ion and distrust. In some uses of Appreciative Inquiry, the process b egins with, a ÒdefinitionÓ stage, selecting an affirmative topic to focus on throughout the proces s (Cooperrider et al., 2008). The topic for this use of Appreciative Inquiry was established through the grant funded project goal that was set before the selection of the use of Appreciative Inq uiry: improving water quality in the Red Cedar River Watershed. 33 We apply the Dynamic Watershed Management Framework , the Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation, and the Appreciative Inquiry Model to the case study of collaboration with the agricultural stakeholders in the Watershed Mana gement Planning Process of the Red Cedar River Watershed (see Figure 3). By following the p rocess of Appreciative Inquiry and asking positively framed questions about an organization, through four stages, an organization should begin to move towards changing to reflect its new v isions (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider et al., 2008). Success of the applicat ion of this process is measured with an analytical framework described in the next chapter. Figure 3. Case Study Specific Framework, Theory, and Model D iagram (adapted from Ostrom, 2007). Theory of Fair and Competent Public Appreciative Inquiry Model Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management 34 CHAPTER 3 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODS We use a case study in the Red Cedar River Watershe d to implement and evaluate the Appreciative Inquiry Model as a tool to build colla boration among agricultural stakeholders for a plan to manage nonpoint source pollution in the wat ershed. Involving stakeholders is a requirement of the watershed management planning pr ocess. Relevant watershed management and stakeholder involvement theory described in Cha pter Two were used to develop a specific stakeholder involvement process. Context: Red Cedar Watershed Management Background Information The Red Cedar River watershed is approximately 461 square miles, and land use is comprised of 59% agriculture or bare; 14 % residential, commerci al, or industrial; 13% forest or range; 14% wetland or water (Kline-Robach, 2012). After leavi ng the watershed, the water discharges into the Grand River, travels through the Middle and Low er Grand River Watersheds, and ultimately discharges into Lake Michigan. The location of the watershed is shown on Figure 4. Figure 4. Red Cedar River Watershed Locator Map. in this and all other figures, the reader is referr ed A TMDL for E. coli was administered by the Michigan because designated partial and full body contact uses of th e river (Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] for portions of the watershed to address low dissol ved oxygen levels, caused mostly f sedimentation and siltation that are negatively affecting the designated warm w ate the watershed (DEQ , 2013). As a result of the curr 35 Red Cedar River Watershed Locator Map. For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referr ed to the electronic version of this was administered by the Michigan DEQ for portions of the watershed designated partial and full body contact uses of th e river were not being met Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] , 2012). Recently, another draft TMDL was issued for portions of the watershed to address low dissol ved oxygen levels, caused mostly f that are negatively affecting the designated warm w ate , 2013). As a result of the curr ent E. coli TMDL, grant funding from the For interpretation of the references to color to the electronic version of this thesis. for portions of the watershed were not being met TMDL was issued for portions of the watershed to address low dissol ved oxygen levels, caused mostly f rom that are negatively affecting the designated warm w ate r fishery use of TMDL, grant funding from the 36 Michigan DEQ was awarded to Michigan State Universi ty (MSU) for the development of a Watershed Management Plan for portions of the Red C edar River Watershed. The grant includes planning for prioritized portions of the watershed in order to prepare a reasonable scale of work. ÒThe project goal is to create a plan to restore wa ter quality in the Red Cedar River to support the designated uses of total/partial body contact recre ation and WWF [Warm Water Fishery]Ó (Kline-Robach, p. 2, 2012). Through the planning p rocess, pollutants and their causes and sources are identified, and the work is meant to co mplement (Kline-Robach, 2012) an existing watershed management plan that was developed for th e urbanized area of the watershed to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatio n System (NPDES) requirements (TetraTech, 2006). The watershed management project planning team cons ists of the project manager at MSU, two subcontracted team members, including a private con sultant with experience in watershed planning and an environmental planner, and me, an M SU graduate research assistant. To be eligible for the grant, MSU procured pledges from s ome watershed stakeholders, mostly employees of local jurisdictions, for grant matchin g resources in the form of project support, participation, and shared data. The ultimate goal of the watershed project is for r estored water quality achieved through the watershed management planning and implementation pr ocess (Kline-Robach, 2012). Typical to the process, a watershed management plan is drafted by the watershed management team with stakeholder input, approved by the Michigan DEQ, an d, once approved, eligible for further grant funds for implementation of proposed action items. MSU as the grantee has intentions of 37 developing the watershed management plan with actio n items intended to improve water quality specific enough for implementation by MSU and by ot her organizations. MSU does not intend to lead a long-term watershed management organizati on, though it may be involved in some implementation of the plan. Because MSU will not p lay a continual leading management role through implementation, partnersÕ approval and owne rship of the plan is particularly important as they are the likely parties to implement the act ion items in the plan. A number of local jurisdictions, including the heal th departments and jurisdictions with drinking water utilities, wastewater treatment plants, and M unicipal Separated Storm Sewer Systems Permits agreed to support the watershed management planning process. In total, sixteen organizations or individuals wrote letters pledging financial support, often through their time, for the project. A majority of the partnerships involv e paid local government employees, working mostly in the urban areas, performing the partnersh ip duties during their workday. However, the E. coli impacts extend beyond just the urban areas, and, w hile the Michigan DEQ acknowledges the active urban watershed group, they report, Òthe re is a need to coordinate planning efforts between the urban and rural areasÓ (MDEQ, p. 39, 20 12). A major gap in existing plans and partnerships is in the rural areas, comprised mostl y of agriculture in this watershed. The watershed management planning team viewed collabora tion among agricultural stakeholders as a critical component of the watershed management plan ning process. Given this context, the question became how to invo lve agricultural stakeholders in the watershed management planning process. The Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management, the Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participati on, and other relevant literature were used to 38 help frame a process for gaining stakeholder involv ement. The Appreciative Inquiry Model was selected as the specific model for building stakeho lder collaboration. Using the watershed management planning projectÕs desired outcomes, an analytical framework was designed to assess whether the Appreciative Inquiry Model helpe d attain the watershed management teamÕs desired outcomes. Additionally, the analytical fram ework provides a structure with which to evaluate whether the Appreciative Inquiry Model ach ieves the outcomes desired from an egalitarian deliberation perspective of public part icipation (Tuler & Webler, 2010) and whether the legitimacy component of the Dynamic Framework f or Watershed Management, not explicitly accounted for in the Appreciative Inquiry Model, is an outcome of this process. Analytical Framework Through collaboration with agricultural stakeholder s in this project, we try to better understand methods of collaboration in watershed management as related to current frameworks, theories, and models of watershed management and stakeholder participation. The stakeholder involvement process was designed and analyzed using a framework developed specifically for this research based upon the predetermined project needs and relevant watershed and public stakeholder participation literature. As described in Chapter Two, the Appreciative Inquiry Model, selected to guide the process of building co llaboration among the agricultural stakeholders in this project, is an asset-based mod el used to promote positive organizational change. While the literature on frameworks, theori es, and models provides general characteristics of effective stakeholder participat ion processes in watershed management, the specific characteristics can vary greatly case by c ase. This case study and analysis can add to the 39 understanding of how the Appreciative Inquiry Model can be applied based on the theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation and the Dynamic Framework for Watershed Management. The analytical framework of this research was devel oped to address the following research questions: !" Does the use of the Appreciative Inquiry Model in a collaborative watershed planning process achieve outcomes desired from the egalitari an deliberation perspective of public participation? #" Does applying the Appreciative Inquiry Model facili tate collaboration among agricultural stakeholders to achieve the desired process and sub stantive outcomes of the Watershed Management Planning Project? In this case study, a group of stakeholders was inv ited to participate in the watershed management planning process. Their insights about existing and preferred agricultural practices and programs in the watershed were sought to inform the process. Several specific process and substantive outcomes desired from the stakeholder p articipation were identified for this study, related to the literature and the watershed managem ent planning project. Given philosophical similarities between the egalitarian deliberation p erspective of public participation and the Appreciative Inquiry Model, the first substantive o utcome sought from the collaboration building process using Appreciative Inquiry was to achieve o utcomes desired in the egalitarian deliberation perspective of public participation. The second substantive outcome sought was legitimacy as described in the Dynamic Framework fo r Watershed Management, as this is not 40 explicitly accounted for in Appreciative Inquiry. In addition, specific outcomes desired to meet the needs of the watershed management planning proj ect were sought including: Process Outcomes: ! Participants attended meetings, and ! Participants participated at meetings. Substantive Outcomes: ! Participants substantively participated at meetings , ! Progress was made toward identifying BMPs most appl icable for the Red Cedar River Watershed, ! Agricultural landowners implemented BMPs, ! Participants engaged in and support the program coo rdination, and ! Improved water quality (see Table 2). 41 Table 2. Analytical Framework Process Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants attend meetings People come to one or more meetings Meeting Attendance Meeting Attendance Participants participate at meetings Participants identify other service providers who should be involved in the watershed management planning process Meeting Question What farmers or other agricultural service provider s do you know who are supporters of BMPs and who have positive relationships in the community? Participants answer questions and share relevant information when asked Researcher Observation Review if information was collected that will contr ibute to the watershed management plan General overview of information collected at the meetings Evaluate number of responses received Evaluate tone of responses received Participants agree to sit on an agricultural committee for the watershed Meeting Question Are you willing to be a part of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? Participants feel comfortable to participate with honesty Post Meeting Evaluation Questions Did you feel comfortable participating fully and honestly through this process? Did you feel this stakeholder participation process was a positive experience? How would you have improved i t? 42 Table 2. (cont'd) Substantive Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool The egalitarian deliberation perspective of the public participation process is followed The process improves the participants confidence in their abilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively Post Meeting Evaluation Question Did this process improve your skills to take part i n the watershed management planning process effectively? What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in thi s watershed? The process improve the participants' understanding of others beliefs, values, and perspectives Post Meeting Evaluation Question Did the process improve your understanding of other participant's beliefs, values, and perspectives? The process improves the ability of participants to work together better Post Meeting Evaluation Question Did the process improve your ability to work with o ther participants on items related to water quality? What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in thi s watershed? The process improves the participantsÕ confidence and self- esteem. Future Evaluation 43 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool The process is legitimate The participants believe the planning process was fair Post Meeting Evaluation Question Did you feel comfortable participating fully and honestly through this process? Did you feel freedom with how and what you chose to contribute? Do you feel you are working collectively with other participants towards similar goals? The participants believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli water concentrations Post Meeting Evaluation Question Do you believe that work completed as a result of t his process will reduce the levels of E. coli in the watershed? Long term changes to watershed socioeconomic and environmental outcomes Future Evaluation Participants participate at meetings Participants identify Òearly-adopterÓ producers in the watershed to include in the watershed management planning process Meeting Question What farmers or other agricultural service provider s do you know who are supporters of BMPs and who have positive relationships in the community? 44 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants participate at meetings (cont'd) Participants share a summary of their programs as they relate to water quality Meeting Question What are some of the most effective methods you use to work with the agricultural community to promote relationship building, changing conservation behavi ors, BMP adoption, and helping to find funding for conservation practices? Meeting Attendance Participants answer questions and share relevant information when asked Researcher Observation Review if information was collected that will contr ibute to the watershed management plan General overview of information collected at the meetings Evaluate number of responses received Evaluate tone of responses received Participants agree to sit on an agricultural committee for the watershed Meeting Question Are you willing to be a part of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? ParticipantsÕ level of knowledge of the watershed management planning process increases Post Meeting Evaluation Question Did this process improve your skills to take part i n the watershed management planning process effectively 45 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Progress is made toward identifying BMPs most applicable for the Cedar River Watershed Participants identify where BMPs formerly existed and help figure out why they were removed or discontinued Meeting Question **How can we ensure our BMPs remain in use or not removed through the end of their useful life? Participants identify and prioritize appropriate BMPs for priority subwatersheds Meeting Question Researcher Observation at Meeting What are some of the most effective or accepted BMP s being used in this watershed? Where are they most successful? Reviewing the notes from the meetings, review if we have content that can contribute to the watershed management plan Evaluate gaps that the management team will have to supplement with additional information 46 Table 2. (contÕd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants engage in and support the program coordination Participants identify program gaps that the watershed management team might address with an implementation proposal Meeting Question, Researcher Observation What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in thi s watershed? What can we do to best utilize our existing strengt hs and make the BMP programs easier for producers to learn about, access, and adopt? **What is a new approach we could try to improve water quality in this watershed? What is the smallest step we could take individuall y or together as a new group to have the largest impact? What would you like to add to what we came up with at our first meeting? Do you have different or additi onal visions and goals for the future? Review the notes from the meetings, review if we ha ve content that can contribute to the watershed management team regarding program ideas to fill in for existing gaps 47 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants engage in and support the program coordination (cont'd) Participants help the watershed management team better understand constraints under which participants operate and propose appropriate programming incentives Meeting Question What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in thi s watershed? **In the ideal world, what resources would you have available to you to optimize water quality, working relationships, and agricultural producer success? **What would the most ideal agricultural outreach experience for your organization look like? What can we do to best utilize our existing strengt hs and make the BMP programs easier for producers to learn about, access, and adopt? What characteristics would an ideal landscape and f arm have in the Red Cedar River Watershed to optimize water quality and agricultural producer succe ss? What would you like to add to what we came up with at our first meeting? Do you have different or additi onal visions and goals for the future? Participants help us decipher available funding sources and eligibility criteria Meeting Question What are the most useful and accepted funding and program resources available for conservation practi ces and who do they most cater to? What can we do to best utilize our existing strengt hs and make the BMP programs easier for producers to learn about, access, and adopt? 48 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants engage in and support the program coordination (cont'd) Participants help to develop a plan to work closely with landowners in critical areas to identify BMPs or link them with existing programs Meeting Question Researcher Observation What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in thi s watershed? Review of all meeting discussion notes Common goals are developed among participants Meeting Question Researcher Observation Report of watershed management plan status **Thinking about the future, how could the watershe d planning process create a useful and effective plan for watershed residents for improving water quality? What characteristics would an ideal landscape and f arm have in the Red Cedar River Watershed to optimize water quality and agricultural producer success? What are your ideal visions and/or goals for the Re d Cedar River Watershed as they pertain to water qual ity and agriculture? What would you like to add to what we came up with at our first meeting? Do you have different or additional visions and goa ls for the future? Tone of the meetings Review of researcher observation notes recorded aft er the meeting Report of watershed management plan status 49 Table 2 . (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants engage in and support the program coordination (cont'd) Participants contribute ideas for actionable items for the watershed management plan Meeting Question, Researcher Observation What is the smallest step we could take individuall y or together as a new group to have the largest impact? **What is a new approach we could try to improve water quality in this watershed? Report notes from the meetings on what may be included in the watershed management plan There is a high level of agreement among participants Researcher Observation at Meeting Post Meeting evaluation Question Disagreements noted Review of researcher observation notes about the meeting Did you feel this stakeholder participation process was a positive experience? How would you have improved i t? There is collective satisfaction Post Meeting Evaluation Question Do you feel like you are working collectively with other participants towards similar goals? Participants agree to and actually emphasize our priority 12-digit watersheds in their programming Post Meeting Evaluation Question, Future Evaluation Do you anticipate you and your organization will participate actively in implementing the final wate rshed management plan programming in the prioritized subwatersheds? 50 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Participants engage in and support the program coordination (cont'd) Partner organizations utilize their newsletters and websites to disseminate information about the watershed Post Meeting Evaluation Question, Future Evaluation Do you expect your organization to be able to help disseminate watershed planning information through your website and/or newsletter? Do you expect you or your organization to be able t o help disseminate watershed planning information through your (circle one or more if applicable): w ebsite, newsletter, or word of mouth? Relationships within the watershed are improved Post Meeting Evaluation Question Researcher Observation Did you feel your working relationships with other participants improved through this process? Did the process improve your ability to work with o ther participants on items related to water quality? The partnership is continued over time Future Evaluation There is improved organizational capacity Future Evaluation Agricultural landowners implement BMPs Agricultural landowners implement BMPs Future Evaluation Watershed water quality is improved There is an approved watershed management plan developed through this process Future Evaluation A monitoring component is developed for the future Future Evaluation 51 Table 2. (cont'd) Desired Outcomes Indicators Measurement Approach Measurement Tool Watershed water quality is improved (cont'd) The participants believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli water concentrations Post Meeting Evaluation Question Do you believe that work completed as a result of t his process will reduce the levels of E. coli in the watershed? The watershed becomes eligible for future funding Future Evaluation Partner organizations complete watershed management plan action Items Future Evaluation Post Meeting Evaluation Question Do you anticipate you and your organization will participate actively in implementing the final wate rshed management plan programming in the prioritized subwatersheds? E. coli concentrations in the watershed are measurably reduced Future Evaluation The watershed's is no longer regulated with a TMDL Future Evaluation ** - Meeting question was not asked, or was combine d with another question due to time constraints 52 Indicators were developed to assess whether the des ired outcomes were achieved. The indicators were measured using various approaches, including q uestions asked at meetings, post-meeting survey questions, specific researcher observations at meetings, researcher observations post- meetings, and a review of meeting attendance. Quest ions used to elicit information at the meetings were phrased and organized according to th e principles of the Appreciative Inquiry Model. The analytical framework used to evaluate t he outcomes of the application of the Appreciative Inquiry Model is shown in Table 2. T he first set of rows in the table shows the process outcomes and the second section shows the s ubstantive outcomes. In the first column, the desired outcomes are listed. The indicators us ed to evaluate whether or not the desired outcomes were achieved are listed in the second col umn. The approaches used to apply the indicators are listed in the third column. The spe cific measurement tools and/or questions used to apply each of the indicators are listed in the f ourth column. Due to the timing of this research within the larger watershed management planning pro ject, not all outcomes and their indicators could be fully addressed in this research. Future a ctivities of the planning team and implementation of the plan are expected to contribu te to some of the outcomes identified as important accomplishments from stakeholder collabor ation. Agricultural Stakeholder Meetings To partner with the agricultural landowners in rura l areas, the watershed management team first turned for support to organizations that provide se rvices to the agricultural community, referred to as agricultural service providers for purposes o f this thesis. Three organizations had already provided commitments to support the watershed manag ement planning process, but many other 53 organizations had not been reached. A number of th ese organizations have been working with reduced resources compared to their past and to sim ilar organizations in other regions. Many of these agricultural service provider organizations a re regional satellites of state or federal organizations or agencies. As the watershed spans jurisdictional boundaries, in more than one instance two or more different service providers fr om the same type of organization provide service coverage of the watershed. Second, the watershed management team worked to inv olve agricultural producers farming in the watershed who were already known to be supporte rs of environmental conservation practices. As this involvement was done as a part of the planning stage and not the plan implementation, the goal of their involvement was t o learn about their opinions of BMPs and preferred methods of outreach and education. Educa ting producers about environmental conservation practices was not the intent of the co llaboration being sought. Incorporating the stakeholdersÕ input can be helpful in creating stro nger new programs (Forester, 1999). In addition, the watershed management team wanted to g et the Òearly-adoptersÓ and leaders involved in the watershed planning efforts, as thei r support can help to influence others in the community to adopt BMPs (Lamba et al., 2009; Rosenb erg & Margerum, 2008; Welch & Marc- Aurele, 2001). For these reasons, only producers k nown to be proactive environmentally were invited to participate in this part of the collabor ative process. Together the agricultural service providers and the proactive agricultural producers comprised a stakeholder group with whom the watershed management team could build collaboration for the development of the watershed management plan. The watershed management plan wil l include plans to reach other agricultural 54 stakeholders, including other farmers who were not included among the stakeholders in this phase. Meeting Format Two two-hour stakeholder meetings were held over a period of about two months. Agricultural service providers were invited to the first meeting with the watershed management team. Agricultural producers and agricultural service pro viders were invited to the second meeting with the watershed management team. A copy of the email ed invitation to these meetings is included in Appendix A. The intent of the meetings was to c ollect information needed for the watershed management planning as determined by the watershed management team, such as information about agricultural service provider programs as the y relate to water quality and the identification of program gaps that we might address in the waters hed management plan, and to build support for the watershed management planning project. The list of desired information was categorized into desired outcomes. The information was solicit ed by asking questions of the participants at the meetings, described in more detail below. The meetings began with participant introductions a nd a presentation of project background information applying from the beginning the princip les of Appreciative Inquiry: the tone of the opening part of the meeting was set to be very posi tive, appreciative, relaxed, and open, with an emphasis on wanting to learn from participants and expand the programs and practices in the watershed that were already protecting and improvin g the water quality. The lead project manager introduced the meetingÕs purpose, more spec ific details about the project and watershed, including the TMDL and results of E. coli sampling that had been done previously. 55 As a part of my research protocol, I explained that , with the participantsÕ approval, research would be conducted on the process and outcomes of t he meeting within the watershed management planning project. I also briefly review ed the meeting agenda and the four phases of Appreciative Inquiry that were to be followed in th e meeting, using the diagram in Figure 5. However, principles of and assumptions about the Ap preciative Inquiry Model were not emphasized. Figure 5: Phases of the Appreciative Inquiry Model (adapted from Cooperrider et al., 2008). Following the Appreciative Inquiry Model, the meeti ng agendas were designed around four phases of questions: Òwhat isÓ, Òwhat might beÓ, Òw hat could beÓ, and Òwhat will beÓ (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider et al., 2 008). The agendas and the questions, ÒÒWWhhaatt iissÓÓ ÒÒWWhhaatt wwiillll bbeeÓÓ ÒÒWWhhaatt mmiigghhtt bbeeÓÓ ÒÒWWhhaatt sshhoouulldd bbeeÓÓ 56 written to apply the Appreciative Inquiry Model, fo r the two meetings are in Appendices B and D. Questions were written on large flip-charts, an d the attendeesÕ attention was directed to the different questions as the meeting progressed. The attendees were asked to read each question, as a way of keeping the setting informal, and the f ull or a paraphrased question was read aloud. At times, the meeting conversation moved to answer questions on the agenda without prompting or to related topics that were not on the agenda an d these additions were recorded as best possible. Further specifics of each meeting are de tailed below. First Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Agricultural service providers who work in the wate rshed were invited to the initial meeting. Thirteen people from nine organizations, including county government, federal government, state government, MSU Extension, and non-profit org anizations were invited by email to participate. These stakeholders work with the agri cultural industry; some have farms, but that is not their main source of income. In addition, the watershed management leadership team of four people was invited to attend the meeting. Ten peop le attended the first meeting in total. All phases of the Appreciative Inquiry Model were explo red during this meeting through different agenda items and subsequent Appreciative Inquiry qu estions, though the focus of the first meeting with the agricultural service providers was the Òwhat isÓ and Òwhat might beÓ phases of the Appreciative Inquiry Model. Appreciative Inqui ry phases and their respective agenda items are below: ! ÒWhat is?Ó - Share with us: What is the current sta tus of your organizationÕs work in the Red Cedar River Watershed? 57 ! ÒWhat might be?Ó- Share with us: What are your visi ons and goals for the future of the Red Cedar River Watershed? ! ÒWhat could be?Ó- Share with us: What would you lik e to include in the Red Cedar River Watershed Plan? ! ÒWhat will be?Ó -Share with us: What actions might you take in the watershed planning process? Second Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting The group invited to the second meeting included ag ricultural producers and some of the agricultural service providers invited to the first meeting. The agricultural producers who were invited were suggested by those attending the first meeting or by agricultural service providers who were invited but did not attend the first meeti ng. Five agricultural producers were contacted by phone and invited to a meeting to participate in the watershed management planning and research processes; four producers attended. Eleve n people in total attended the second meeting: four agricultural producers, three agriculture serv ice providers who attended the first meeting, and all four watershed management team members. The agricultural producers invitee list is likely n ot a comprehensive list of all agricultural producers in the watershed who support and practice BMPs. A variety of opinions were desired, but this need was balanced with meeting dynamics. The watershed management team feared that 58 the attendance of too many participants might hinde r full participation or would increase the chances of controversy. Controversy could possibly lead to disrupted relationships or chances of not collecting the desired information. In additio n, the discussion was not to be about whether we should make plans for improving water quality bu t how to do so. Producers at the meeting indicated little familiari ty with watersheds, watershed planning, and TMDLs, and thus the introduction of this background information, review of some of the information collected at the first meeting, and the research project, took approximately one hour. After the project, watershed, and research introduc tion, the Appreciative Inquiry and content of the meeting began. All phases of the Appreciative Inquiry Model were explored during this meeting through different agenda items and subseque nt Appreciative Inquiry questions, though the focus of the second meeting with the producers and agricultural service providers was the Òwhat could beÓ and Òwhat will beÓ phases of the Ap preciative Inquiry Model. The Appreciative Inquiry phases and their respective agenda items ar e below: ! ÒWhat is?Ó - Past Meeting Review: What is our curre nt status? What are our visions and goals for the future? ! ÒWhat might be?Ó- Share with us: Additions or edit s to our visions and goals for the future? ! ÒWhat could be?Ó- Share with us: What would you lik e to include in the Red Cedar River Watershed Plan? 59 ! ÒWhat will be?Ó- Share with us: What actions might you take in the watershed planning process? Evidence Collection and Organization Evidence was collected in a variety of ways through out and after the meetings: ! Meeting attendance; ! Responses during the meetings summarized and record ed on the flip charts throughout the meetings; ! Researcher observations collected during the meetin gs, including records of the number of different attendees participating in the respons es to each of the questions, the tone of each response recorded as positive, neutral, or neg ative, and any disagreements; ! Research observations collected after the meetings summarizing information and conversations that took place as an aside to the fo rmal part of the process or comments that particularly diverted the meeting from the pla nned agenda; and ! A post-meeting survey questionnaire. The post-meeting survey questionnaire was emailed t o the attendees of the first meeting soliciting feedback about the process. A post meet ing survey questionnaire was handed out at the end of the second meeting soliciting feedback a bout the process. Six out of ten participants responded to the survey after the first meeting. T en out of eleven participants responded to the 60 survey after the second meeting; I, the researcher, was the only person who did not respond to the survey. Analysis Answers to questions elicited during the meetings, post-meeting survey responses, researcher observations, and attendance information from the m eetings were summarized. The post meeting survey questions are included in Appendices C and E. The meeting discussion evidence included in Appendices F and I. The responses to t he post meeting survey questions are included in Appendices G and J. The recorded researcher obs ervations are included in Appendices H and K. A qualitative case study analysis was conducted using collected evidence and the analytical framework following modified methods described in G illham (2010). Analysis of indicators was undertaken to determine whether process and substan tive outcomes were met and ultimately, to respond to the research questions. Results of this analysis are presented in chapter four. 61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS This research applied the Appreciative Inquiry Mode l to a process of building collaboration for the watershed management planning project in the Re d Cedar River Watershed. Data were collected through stakeholder meetings and analyzed according to the framework presented in Chapter 3. Two research questions were posed: !" Does the use of the Appreciative Inquiry Model in a collaborative watershed planning process achieve outcomes desired from the egalitari an deliberation perspective of public participation? #" Does applying the Appreciative Inquiry Model facili tate collaboration among agricultural stakeholders to achieve the desired process and sub stantive outcomes of the Watershed Management Planning Project? Three sets of outcomes were sought as evidence for the research questions. These outcomes included substantive evidence that egalitarian deli beration and legitimacy were achieved and both process and substantive outcomes related to wa tershed project goals. Egalitarian Deliberation Category of Public Partici pation A substantive outcome sought from the collaborative process was to successfully follow an egalitarian deliberation public participation proce ss. 62 Substantive Outcome: The achieved outcomes met the egalitarian deliberation perspective of public participation An evaluation of the indicators assessed in this ca se study of stakeholder collaboration supports the presence of characteristics of the egalitarian deliberation perspective of public participation. To explore whether the use of the Appreciative Inqu iry Model in our collaborative watershed planning process achieved egalitarian deliberation in public participation (Tuler & Webler, 2010), four different indicators were proposed in t he analytical framework. Three indicators were measured through post meeting evaluation quest ions. One indicator, whether the process improves the participantsÕ confidence and self-este em, could be measured in the future. Indicator: The process improves the participantsÕ c onfidence in their abilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively Of 16 total responses collected after both meetings , the majority of stakeholders, 13, agreed that the process improves their confidence in their abil ities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively. One stakeholder repo rted they already had the confidence, another reported that they learned from the process, while another reported that they were not sure yet if the process improved their confidence. 63 Indicator: The process improves the participantsÕ u nderstanding of others' beliefs, values, and perspectives Of 16 total responses collected after both meetings , the majority of stakeholders, 14, said the process improved their understanding of othersÕ bel iefs, values, and perspectives. One stakeholder indicated they already understood other Õs perspectives while one stakeholder responded it only improved their understanding some . Indicator: The process improves the ability of peop le to work together better Similarly, of the 16 total responses collected afte r both meetings, the majority of stakeholders, 13, agreed that the process improves their ability to work together better on items related to water quality. One stakeholder reported they alrea dy had the ability, another stakeholder was not sure yet, and another did not respond. Support also was shown for the process in a comment made during the first meeting when a participant noted that the group could meet more fr equently to optimize working relationships with producers in the watershed. These results indicate that this planning process a chieved outcomes desired for egalitarian deliberation in public participation (Tuler & Weble r, 2010), empowering the participants in the process. Indicator: The process improves the participantsÕ c onfidence and self-esteem This indicator can be evaluated in the future. 64 Legitimacy of Process A substantive outcome sought from the collaborative process was to achieve legitimacy, a component of the Dynamic Watershed Management Frame work that is not explicitly accounted for in the Appreciative Inquiry Model. Substantive Outcome: Legitimacy From the indicators measured, the process is consid ered fair, but it is too early to tell if this process will produce legitimate beneficial environm ental outcomes. In the Dynamic Watershed Management Framework, legitimacy is connected to al l of the factors within the framework. Indicator: The participants believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli water concentrations One way legitimacy was measured was by asking stake holders after the second meeting if they believed outcomes of the watershed management plan would reduce bacteria levels. This was used to evaluate whether stakeholders believed thei r work would make a difference. There was no consensus in responses from the stakeholders. F our of nine responses were that stakeholders did not know; three of nine responses were that is would reduce bacteria levels; and two of nine responses were that is might reduce bacteria levels . 65 Indicator: The participants believe the process was fair In addition, legitimacy was measured by asking stak eholders if they felt the process was fair. Responses following both meetings all indicate part icipants felt comfortable participating fully and honestly through the process. In addition, res ponses following both meetings all indicate participants felt freedom with how and what they ch ose to contribute. Procedural fairness in this evaluation is considered to include whether partici pants felt their contribution was heard. Lubell et al. found that Òwhile not all attempts at inclus iveness succeedÉ..[there is] some evidence that involvement in collaborative institutions does sati sfy many of the participantsÕ own concerns regarding procedural fairnessÓ (p. 281, 2005). Tho ugh participants were not asked directly if they felt their contributions were heard and going to be incorporated, we can deduce this from the post-meeting surveys. The majority of particip ants, 13 out of 16, responded that they felt they were working collectively with other participa nts towards similar goals. Two participants responded that they somewhat were working collectiv ely with other participants towards similar goals, and only one participant responded that they did not think they were working with other participants towards similar goals yet. Deducing f rom this response, the process is considered fair. Indicator: Long term evaluation of outcome changes to watershed socioeconomic and environmental conditions This indicator cannot be measured until implementat ion of the watershed management project is underway. The analytical framework proposes a long -term evaluation of watershed socioeconomic and environmental outcomes as a measu re of legitimacy in the future (Lubell et al., 2005). 66 Watershed Project Goals The process and substantive outcomes sought from th e collaborative process related to the watershed management planning project goals were: Process Outcomes: ! Participants attend meetings, ! Participants participate at meetings Substantive Outcomes: ! Participants substantively participate at meetings, ! Progress is made toward identifying BMPs most appli cable for the Red Cedar River Watershed, ! Participants engage in and support the program coor dination, ! Agricultural landowners implement BMPs, and ! Watershed water quality is improved. The outcomes also reflect the policy-related and ca pacity-building outcome variables proposed in the Fair and Competent Public Participation Theo ry (Webler & Tuler, 2002). Process Outcome: Stakeholders attend meetings Indicator: People come to one or more meetings Based on the evidence used to measure this indicato r, the stakeholdersÕ meeting attendance outcome was only partially achieved. One purpose o f the meeting was to collect information 67 from the agricultural stakeholders for the watershe d planning project. Without stakeholder attendance at the meetings, the information cannot be collected. Stakeholders' continued participation throughout the different meetings is supportive of the watershed management teamÕs needs of involving stakeholders, building pa rtnerships, and acquiring stakeholdersÕ support for their ultimate participation in the wat ershed plan implementation. In the first meeting, outside of the watershed mana gement team, 13 people were invited to participate from nine different organizations. Out side of the management team, six people attended from five organizations. This attendance represents about half of the people and organizations invited. For the second meeting, outside of the watershed ma nagement team, nine agricultural service providers were invited from eight organizations. T hree agricultural service providers attended from two different organizations. There was a decl ine in agricultural service provider participation from the first meeting to the second meeting. Five agricultural producers were invited to the meeting, and four producers attended the meeting. One producer agreed to attend the meeting, but did not show up. Nevertheless, ba sed on the goals of the management team, there was adequate attendance from the agricultural producers at the second meeting. The watershed management team goal was to have stra tegic attendance and participation from the appropriate stakeholders. Though many organiza tions and producers attended the meetings, the process did not have attendance from all key st akeholders. Although there was adequate participation from the agricultural producers, half of the invited agricultural service providers in 68 the watershed did not attend any meetings, and ther e was a decline in participation from the first meeting to the second meeting. Although it is unkn own why some agricultural service providers did not attend, we can hypothesize that the lack of attendance could be due to time and resource shortages or a lack of interest. This outcome was only partially achieved. Process and Substantive Outcome: Stakeholders parti cipate at meetings The evidence indicates that stakeholders participat ed in the process and substantively contributed to the meetings. The watershed management team det ermined it needed specific information from the stakeholders for the planning process, and , without stakeholder participation, the information desired for the watershed management pl an could not be collected. Stakeholder participation at the different meetings is also hel pful for the watershed management teamÕs needs of involving stakeholders, building partnerships, a nd acquiring stakeholdersÕ ultimate participation in the watershed plan implementation. Stakeholder participation was measured at the meetings by evaluating the information contribu ted in the meetings, stakeholdersÕ responses to questions asked of them after the meetings, and a general evaluation of the amount of responses solicited. Participation is both a process and substantive out come. The stakeholders participated in the process and achieved both the process and the subst antive outcomes. The process outcome is evaluated by reviewing stakeholdersÕ reported comfo rt in the process, their willingness to continue to participate, the amount and adequacy of the information collected, and the number of stakeholders providing responses. The substantive outcome is evaluated by reviewing stakeholdersÕ willingness to continue to participat e, the amount and adequacy of the information 69 collected, and their evaluation of whether or not t he process improved their skills to take part in the process effectively. Process Indicator: Stakeholders feel comfortable pa rticipating fully and honestly One indicator used to measure stakeholdersÕ partici pation at meetings required asking about their own comfort in participating in the process. All r espondents after both meetings indicated that they felt comfortable participating fully and hones tly through the process, validating that their level of participation in the process was honest. This response indicates adequate stakeholder participation. Most participants, 13 out of 16, who responded indi cated they felt the process was a positive experience, though many offered suggestions for imp rovement. Suggestions for improvement include opinions on which stakeholders to include o r not include in the process, a request for the questions to be provided ahead of time, and setting a mechanism for follow-up. One person reported the process Òwas well done because I feel both sides learned thingsÓ. Two stakeholders did not directly answer whether they thought the pr ocess was a positive experience but did include a suggestion to focus on sources outside of agriculture. One stakeholder, however, felt uncomfortable at the beginning of the second meetin g, reporting the experience was positive Òfor the most part. There was a level of miscommunicati on and blaming ag at the beginning. I did feel slightly uncomfortableÓ. 70 Process and Substantive Indicator: Participants agr ee to sit on an agricultural committee for the watershed To assess both process and substantive outcomes, st akeholdersÕ continued participation was also evaluated as an indicator of participation in the w atershed management planning process as a member of an agricultural subcommittee. An adequat e number of stakeholders are expected to be on an agricultural committee for the watershed. The watershed management project manager indicated the most desirable subcommittee would inc lude at least one small scale and one large scale farmer and one agricultural service provider. When asked about willingness to sit on an Agricultural Subcommittee for the watershed, two pr oducers responded that they would be willing, depending on their schedules. Three agric ultural service providers continued to participate in the second meeting, though they did not commit to sitting on the subcommittee. The agricultural service providers were not formall y asked to sit on the Agricultural Subcommittee, but two agricultural service provider s have continued to work and share information with us through the planning process in dicating their continued support. The inclusion of small farmers as well as larger farmer s was a suggestion made at the second meeting, and, though names of small farmers who pra ctice proactive conservation behaviors have been collected, no small farmer meeting has be en held yet to solicit a small farmer subcommittee member. The small farmer stakeholder meeting is expected to happen during the project implementation. As a subcommittee is not i ntended to include all of the stakeholders, this response from participating stakeholders is ev aluated as adequate. 71 Process and Substantive Indicator: Participants ide ntify other service providers who should be involved in the watershed management planning proce ss and participants identify Òearly- adopterÓ producers in the watershed to include in t he watershed management planning process Stakeholders shared helpful information when asked, indicating substantive participation. The willingness of stakeholders to offer suggestions of other possible participants, other agricultural service providers or farmers with positive communit y relationships and BMP supporters was an indicator of participation. Twelve additional orga nizations and five farmers were listed through this inquiry at the first meeting. Two responses t o this inquiry were about problems in the watershed. After the meeting, additional informati on and names were shared. After the second meeting, six additional farmer nam es were shared with the watershed management team. This response was adequate, provi ded the watershed management team with a list of other potential supporters or partners to contact, and showed support of the watershed management teamÕs efforts by the stakeholders invol ved. More than that, we invited producers whose names were shared at the first meeting to att end the second meeting and most of the producers attended, evidencing the information shar ed at the meetings contributed to gaining further stakeholder involvement, a desired outcome of the stakeholder involvement process. Substantive Indicator: Participants share a summary of their programs as they relate to water quality The stakeholdersÕ willingness to share helpful info rmation about their existing programs for increasing conservation practices to improve water quality indicates substantive participation. Stakeholder responses to a question about their eff ective methods of promoting water quality 72 programs elicited descriptions of four methods curr ently used to promote relationship building and conservation behaviors, one method under consid eration for use, three suggestions of new ideas that could be used to promote conservation be havior, and three additional pieces of relevant information. It is difficult to measure a dequacy of substantive participation from these responses. A small number of responses about exist ing activities could be indicative of a lack of outreach taking place with the agricultural produce rs, evidence of a few proven effective methods or programs in use, a lack of proven effect ive methods of reaching the agricultural community, or a lack of participation in responding to the question. This response could also reflect poor meeting attendance by the agricultural service providers since half of the service providers invited were not in attendance. Most of those who did attend said they felt comfortable participating fully and honestly in thi s meeting process, and considering all stakeholders participated at some point during the meeting at which this was asked, it is not interpreted as a lack of participation and the qual ity of the responses is considered adequate. A shortage of outreach identified with this questio n may reveal a watershed need. A mix of responses was contributed about current and possibl e methods of reaching the target audience and improving conservation practices, and some of t he suggestions will likely go into the watershed management plan. The stakeholdersÕ willi ngness to share helpful information on their existing programs indicates adequate substantive pa rticipation. 73 Process and Substantive Indictor: Participants answ er questions and share relevant information when asked Process and substantive participation is also measu red by evaluating the contributions to the watershed management plan and planning process elic ited from the meetings. Much of the information collected during the meetings can contr ibute to the watershed management plan for approval by the MDEQ and for ultimate eligibility f or funding to support implementation in the watershed to help improve water quality. Many sugg estions listed in the meetings are typically listed in watershed management plans for waters wit h elevated bacteria levels, such as recommending manure storage, cover crops, and filte r and buffer strips. Other more area- specific information was shared that can be helpful in developing the watershed management plan, such as learning that, in the area, producers commonly perceive that free cattle access to streams is acceptable. However, fencing cattle fro m streams is an important BMP. A variety of information was shared that is applica ble to many different parts of the watershed management plan, including suggestions for financia l resources, target audience populations to reach through outreach and education, information a nd education methods, potential partners, existing watershed activities, and some specific BM Ps to apply in the area including manure storage management and excluding cattle from stream s. Though it requires supplementing to meet all regulatory requirements, the information c ollected was adequate for inclusion in the watershed management plan. 74 In addition, at the first and second meeting, on av erage, approximately six participants contributed responses to each question asked. Thou gh some participants responded more than others, every person contributed at least one respo nse at each meeting (see footnote 4 in the Appendix K about responses from meeting 2). The to ne of the majority of the responses was neutral or positive, and few responses had a negati ve tone. A positive or neutral tone is interpreted here as supportive participation from t he participants. In addition, researcher observations recorded after the meeting indicated that discussion throughout both meetings ensued with little need fo r facilitation, indicating stakeholders were participating in the process. However, not all res ponses followed the process format. Researcher observations upon completion of the meet ings indicate that during the second meeting the discussion did not always answer the sp ecific questions at hand. Often, agricultural service providers asked additional questions of the producers about the service providers' specific programs and ways to improve them. Some d efensive answers or blaming responses were also recorded. Though the discussions did not always directly answer the question at hand, the meeting provided a place for discussion between service providers and producers, which are the two primary parties involved in the implementat ion of agricultural watershed management improvements. Therefore, despite going off topic d uring the meeting, the information collected was perceived as beneficial to the watershed manage ment planning process, indicating that stakeholders substantively participated at the meet ings. 75 Substantive Indicator: ParticipantsÕ level of knowl edge of the watershed management planning process improves Another indicator of substantive participation is i mproved abilities of stakeholders to participate effectively in the watershed management planning pr ocess. StakeholdersÕ responses after both meetings indicated that 13 of the 16 respondents fe lt their participation in the meetings improved their skills to take part in the watershed planning process. One person replied they already had the appropriate skills, another replied maybe, and another replied that they learned from the meeting discussion. Most responding participants r eported that they felt the process improved their ability to participate in the watershed manag ement planning process; thus, substantial participation in the meetings was evident. Stakeho lders were engaged enough to not only feel comfortable participating, but also to learn from t he process. Substantive Outcome: Progress is made toward identi fying BMPs most applicable to the Red Cedar River Watershed An evaluation of the indicators used to measure thi s outcome supports that this outcome was partially met, only some BMPs were discussed and ad ditional BMP selection will need to be done in the future, but other important information regarding program implementation was shared. The watershed management team is seeking, through the watershed management planning process, a suite of BMPs that provides agr icultural landowners a variety of options for implementation. 76 Indicator: Participants help us identify and priori tize appropriate BMPs for targeted sub- watersheds One need of the management team was to hear from th e local agricultural stakeholders which BMPs they believe are most applicable for this wate rshed. One indicator used to measure this outcome was responses from stakeholders about speci fic BMPs that are the most effective or accepted in the watershed and where they are most s uccessful. Programs or BMPs were listed by the stakeholders: Michigan Agriculture Environmenta l Assurance Program (MAEAP), sediment loading reduction, manure storage, drain commission er credit programs, filter and buffer strips, no-till, tile maintenance, conservation plantings, and wetland restorations. However, discussions noted that no-till has only a small presence in the watershed. Two types of educational support were listed. Specifics on where to apply each of t hese programs were not reviewed by stakeholders. Researcher observations after the meeting noted tha t many responses to the questions asked during the meeting addressed communication and educ ation, resources, and programs, not the specific technical information such as which BMPs w ork the best. The agricultural producers frequently said that there were many ways to farm a nd that everyone does things differently depending on what they can get to work for them for their income needs and with the equipment they have. The questions asked for this indicator elicited a v ariety of responses that, while not directed specifically toward the question, are nevertheless applicable to many other parts of the watershed management plan, including suggestions for financia l resources, target audience populations, 77 information and education methods, potential partne rs, existing watershed activities, and action item recommendations for agricultural service provi ders. This type of information is helpful in informing the planning and implementation process. For example, it was shared that, in this area, farmers typically find it acceptable to allow cattle free access to streams instead of considering it an unacceptable practice that contri butes to pollution of the water. Also, assistance is needed by some producers to repair or upgrade BMPs that are not functioning properly. Responses also noted other watershed spec ific information perceived about agricultural service provider programs, barriers, and working re lationships with agricultural producers. Additionally, some shared that the technical inform ation is the important resource they rely on. These types of responses, though they did not provi de lists of specific BMPs, can be valuable as they ultimately help to increase the likelihood of providing the services that producers find helpful and more successful program implementation when applied to the programs and services. Therefore, additional work by the watershed managem ent team will be required to adequately address specific BMP selection in the watershed man agement plan. However, the suggestions discussed that improve successful implementation ar e important since a plan is only as good as its implementation and outcomes. Substantive Indicator: Participants identify where BMPs formerly existed and help figure out why they were removed or discontinued Another question used to measure this indicator and assess the outcome was asked but was not answered by the group due to a lack of time. Overa ll, the information collected was helpful, but much more work needs to be completed by the watersh ed management team to adequately complete the watershed management plan for this top ic. 78 Substantive Outcome: Participants Engage in and Sup port the Program Coordination An evaluation of the indicators used to evaluate st akeholdersÕ engagement in and support for the program coordination finds that overall participant s did engage in and support the program coordination by offering helpful information about current standard practices and guidance for the planning and implementation processes. Though participant support was evidenced, some additional information needs to be collected and ev aluated to complete the watershed management plan. A number of indicators are propos ed for evaluating this and are summarized below. A full measurement of these indicators cann ot be completed until the watershed management planning project is further underway and even into the implementation or monitoring phases. Indicator: Participants identify program gaps that the watershed management team might address with an implementation proposal Data for this indicator suggest the outcome was met ; the suggestions elicited here dealt with working relationships, staffing, and implementation rather than specifics of any one program or BMP, and provided very helpful information. Stakeh oldersÕ identification of program gaps that could be addressed in an implementation proposal is one indicator of stakeholdersÕ engagement and support of program coordination. This indicato r was measured by asking questions in the meetings and by evaluating all meeting content coll ected. Three questions were combined into two questions at the first meeting due to time cons traints and used to measure this indicator. In response to these two questions asked about optimiz ing relationships with farmers and about making small changes to have a large impact, the st akeholders provided three ideas to improve 79 the program coordination, one barrier that stakehol ders face, and three different educational ideas to include in our plan to close program gaps. One suggestion in particular that will likely be included in the plan for implementation was to crea te a more holistic picture of what services each agricultural service provider offers since eac h provider does not currently understand what others provide. During the second meeting, other g aps and deficits were identified when stakeholders were asked how they could best use exi sting strengths to make it easier for producers to access, adopt and learn about BMP adop tion. The discussion noted stakeholders missing from the conversation, including small farm ers, horse owners, and landowners with septic systems and gaps in various program communic ation methods with producers, such as programs providing conflicting information, not eno ugh support, or not enough communication of different types. Problems were also discussed a t the second meeting that help the management team understand programming gaps, includ ing problems with past working relationships, frustration with understaffing, turn over, communication from the service provider at inopportune times, and frustration when installe d BMPs do not function properly. Again, the suggestions elicited here dealt more with program g aps that were related to working relationships, staffing, and implementation than sp ecific technicalities of any one program or BMP, but still they provide very helpful informatio n about existing conditions in the watershed programs now and what types of help are desired. T he suggestions are considered helpful for understanding the program gaps in the watershed for the watershed management planning process. 80 Indicator: Participants help us better understand c onstraints under which they operate and propose appropriate programming incentives The information from the meetings helped the waters hed management planning team understand constraints of the stakeholdersÕ operations and is indicative of participant engagement and support. Two questions selected for measuring this indicator were not asked due to time constraints. As described above in the program gap s section, one question designed to evaluate this was asked: What, if anything, would optimize w orking relationships with farmers that you know or don't yet know in this watershed? In respo nse to this question, three improvements were suggested, including meeting more frequently, using mass mailings that municipalities send out, and having a more holistic picture of what eac h resource does. One problem was noted: turnover of agricultural service provider employees . Many of the program gaps described above are also considered to be constraints, such as prog rams providing conflicting information, not enough support, or not enough different types of co mmunication. In addition, understaffing at agricultural service providers, staff turnover, com munication from the service provider at inopportune times, and frustration when installed B MPs do not function properly were mentioned in the meetings and are considered to be constraints. Producers also reported some programs were a hassle, and they had difficulty und erstanding and reasonably being able to apply the programs. Throughout the meetings, many program constraints were reviewed. The helpful programming incentive mentioned most freque ntly was technical assistance. Some ideas on how to reach producers were also reviewed. 81 Indicator: Participants help us decipher available funding sources and eligibility criteria The evidence collected did not provide sufficient i nformation to use this indicator to assess whether the desired outcome was achieved; however t he lack of sufficient information is likely not a result of the lack of participant engagement and support. The watershed management team was seeking information from stakeholders at the fi rst meeting about funding sources that producers can access to support their adoption of B MPs and related eligibility criteria for the funding sources. Not much of the information share d by the stakeholders was fund specific. Two local programs were suggested, three bigger pic ture ideas to consider were suggested, such as funding that doesnÕt come from the government an d examples of other programs to consider. Two unrelated pieces of information about building producer relationships were shared, and one common practice that is destructive to water qualit y was noted. The lack of responses about funding in particular could speak to the lack of st akeholder knowledge or support of the programs, the lack of the number of available fundi ng sources, the lack of sufficient stakeholder participation, or the difficulty in deciphering fun ding sources that may be shared by all. It also may be that this question should have been asked at the second meeting instead of the first meeting. Deducing from one producerÕs comments at the second meeting about installing BMPs without additional funding or the difficulty in par ticipating in certain programs, the lack of response to this inquiry at the first meeting may h ave been indicative that the biggest challenges come with receiving the funding. Researcher observ ations also noted that there was not producer interest in NRCS programs; they wanted to do the wo rk themselves but they were interested in receiving the technical information resources. Con versations in the room seemed to imply there was not interest in the cost-sharing programs and t heir requirements. The watershed 82 management team will need to seek additional inform ation on funding sources for inclusion in the watershed management plan. Indicator: Participants help to develop a plan to w ork closely with landowners in critical areas to identify BMPs or link them with existing program s A review of the measures for this indicator suggest s the desired outcome was achieved. Similar to the results found in reviewing other indicators, much of the meeting discussion helpful for this indicator was about implementation and how to reach landowners through different venues. Though specific BMPs, program information, or ways to work more closely with landowners were not made explicit, helpful information was sti ll collected, indicating support from and engagement of stakeholders. When stakeholders in the first meeting were asked w hat would optimize relationships with landowners, three improvements were suggested and o ne barrier was highlighted. However, none of these responses focused precisely on relati onships with landowners referred to in this question asked for this indicator. Nevertheless, o ther responses throughout the first meeting did address strategies that could optimize landowner re lationships, such as paying attention to your attire and working through high visibility farmers. Discussions in the second meeting also included a number of suggestions from participants on how to reach landowners, including the desire for programs to be offered through the Conse rvation District, paying attention to the timing of agricultural service provider contact wit h landowners, ideas on how to reach the producer audience by presenting at other meetings a ttended by producers in the area, and using multiple sources of information dispersal. Some su ggestions were made about which types of 83 landowners needed to be reached, including those wi th septic systems and those operating small or hobby farms. Again, much of the discussion in t he meeting related to this indicator was about how to reach landowners through different venues. The specific BMP or program information as applied to specific areas was not reviewed. Work w ill need to be done on matching the programs to the landowners, and this is a reasonable task fo r the watershed management planning team to do using the information collected in this meeting. Indicator: Common goals developed The measures assessed indicate that common goals am ong stakeholders were developed through this process. To determine whether common goals we re developed, four questions were proposed for analysis, although one question was no t asked due to time constraints. In response to the question asking the agricultural service pro viders what their ideal goals were for the watershed as related to water quality and agricultu re, eight social and technical solutions were offered. All of the goals were in support of the w atershed management teams goals, including lower bacteria levels, no bare soil in the winter, and overall education and awareness. When agricultural service providers and producers were a sked what an ideal landscape would look like to optimize agricultural producer success and water quality, an array of technical solutions, problems, questions, and information was provided. None quite answered the question asked, but discussion helped create a picture of the curre nt landscape and some of the problems to overcome. Ideas supportive of the watershed manage ment plan and how to overcome problems were offered, including providing technical informa tion, rebuilding relationships, and using other organizationsÕ meetings as opportunities for produc er education about conservation practices. When the producers were asked to add their goals an d visions to the list generated at the first 84 meeting, problems instead of goals were described. This list of problems was helpful as it represents barriers they face in implementing conse rvation practices. This implies that the group was supportive of making changes to improve conserv ation programs, but it also might be a sign that the group felt the need to deflect perceived b lame despite the fact that the discussion questions were designed to have a positive focus to implement Appreciative Inquiry, or that the introduction portion of the meeting was not well re ceived by the participants. Researcher observations recorded after the meeting note that d uring the responses to this question, one participant responded by asking if the perception w as that the TMDL was agricultureÕs fault. Also, participant discussion at the end of the meet ing recorded in the researcher observations suggested that producers may have been afraid that they were there because they were going to have another program pushed on them. As the meetin g progressed, it appeared the group was truly focusing together on how to enhance conservat ion programs within the agricultural sector of the watershed. In addition, few disagreements we re noted. The positive cooperative tone likely encouraged cooperation and common goal setti ng, focused on enhancing program support rather than placing blame. Indicator: Participants contribute actionable items for the Watershed Management Plan Though additional work will be required by the wate rshed management team, the questions for this indicator elicited a number of actionable item s for the watershed management plan, indicating participantsÕ support of the program. T wo questions proposed for this indicator were not asked due to time constraints. One question us ed to measure this indicator elicited three educational methods that are currently used or coul d be used. These responses did not adequately answer this question. At the time of th is research, the watershed management plan 85 was still being drafted, so a report of what was in cluded in the plan cannot be included here; rather the research includes an evaluation of the i nformation collected and what is expected to be contributed to the watershed management plan. Info rmation elicited from stakeholders throughout both meetings contributed to a list of a ctionable items that are expected to be included in the watershed management plan. Many of the actionable items for inclusion in the watershed management plan include suggestions relat ed to the required information and education component of the plan, such as the creati on of an agricultural informational brochure with information on all of the agricultural service s and programs in the watershed, or provision of program resources for BMPs that are not working properly. Another suggestion was to develop a subcommittee of smaller producers to supp ort the program. One emphasized action item was to provide adequate technical resources. Manure storage programs, MAEAP, exclusion of cattle from streams, and filter and bu ffer strip programs with maintenance were some of the structural and management BMPs discusse d in the meetings. Indicator: There is a high level of agreement betwe en participants Participant engagement and support for this program is evidenced through observation of a high level of agreement between participants. To measur e the level of agreement between participants throughout the meetings, disagreements during meeting discussions were noted on a rubric included in Appendices H and K. Only two di sagreements were noted in the first meeting. Disagreements were not noted in the second meeting, though the researcher observation notes a producer asking if we were suggesting agriculture w as to blame for the E. coli water quality problem. In addition, a participant indicated in a post-meeting survey response that the process was positive ÒFor the most part. There was a level of miscommunication and blaming ag at the 86 beginning. I did feel slightly uncomfortable.Ó In addition, the majority of responses through both of the meetings had a neutral or positive tone . Though some responses received had a negative tone, few resulted in disagreements betwee n participants, indicating participant engagement and support in the program. Indicator: There is collective satisfaction A review of the associated evidence indicates there was participant engagement and program support, as measured through confirmed collective s atisfaction among stakeholders. The majority of stakeholder responses, 13 out of 16 res ponses, indicated that they felt they were working collectively with other participants toward s similar goals. Three responses were that they only somewhat or did not yet feel they were wo rking collectively with other participants towards similar goals. Indicator: Participants agree to and actually empha size our priority 12-digit watersheds in their programming A review of this measure finds that most participan ts anticipate supporting the program, indicating achievement of the outcome. Of the ten responses from stakeholders elicited after the second meeting, nine out of ten said they would act ively participate in implementing the final watershed management plan programming in the priori tized subwatersheds. 87 Indicator: Partner organizations use their newslett ers and websites to disseminate information about the watershed Though this indicator cannot fully be evaluated unt il a future date when actual participation in support of the program is observed, stakeholder sup port in communication about the watershed is expected. Another indication of program support us ed in this evaluation is participantsÕ help in sharing information. When asked, the majority of s takeholders, 13 out of 16 responses, after both meetings, indicated they expected that they or their organizations would be able to help disseminate watershed planning information. Only t hree responses were no or a non-response. This result indicates that most stakeholders suppor t the program enough that they plan to engage in the program coordination. Indicator: Relationships within the watershed are i mproved Most stakeholders reported feeling their working re lationships with other stakeholders improved. The majority of stakeholder responses received afte r both meetings, 13 out of 16, indicated they felt the process improved their ability to work wit h participants on items related to water quality. Others responded that they already had that ability or that they didnÕt know yet. All ten responding stakeholders after the second meeting fe lt their working relationships with other stakeholders improved through the process. In addi tion, at the end of each meeting, conversations among stakeholders continued, and the y scheduled additional meetings on their own initiative. 88 Indicators: There is improved organizational capaci ty and the partnership is continued over time These indicators can be evaluated in the future by watching for improved organizational capacity and partnerships continued over time. Substantive Outcome: Agricultural landowners implem ent BMPs It is too soon to measure if agricultural landowner s have implemented BMPs. Indicator: Agricultural landowners implement BMPs This indicator cannot be measured until the watersh ed management plan has been developed and approved and the program moves into the implementat ion stage. Substantive Outcome: Watershed water quality is imp roved It is too soon to measure whether watershed water q uality is improved through this process since the meetings were to support planning and not imple mentation. While the evidence collected suggests the agricultural stakeholders included so far are supportive of the program, views are mixed as to whether the work completed as a result of this process will reduce E. coli levels. Only two indicators of water quality improvement co uld be measured during the time of this study: whether participating stakeholders anticipat e participating in the implementation of the watershed management plan in prioritized areas and whether stakeholders believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli concentrations. 89 Indicator: Partner organizations complete watershed management plan action items Assessing stakeholdersÕ plans for participation wil l not guarantee improved water quality, but it will be an indication of participantsÕ willingness to help implement watershed improvement projects which, it is hoped, will result in improve d water quality. Nine of ten questionnaires completed indicate that the stakeholders anticipate participating in the implementation of the watershed management plan; one stakeholder did not respond. Indicator: The participants believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli water concentrations When asked if stakeholders believed that work compl eted as a result of the process would reduce E. coli water levels, ten varied responses were received. Four stakeholders reported they did not know, three reported they thought work completed wo uld reduce E. coli levels, two participants said it might reduce E. coli levels, and one participant did not think the work would reduce E. coli levels. This indicator measures participant perce ptions and not actual watershed outcomes. This indicator has been used as one of six criteria for measuring watershed management success by Leach, Pelky, and Sabatier (2002) since water qu ality data before and after the completion of watershed work often is not available. Aside from these two indicators, measuring watershe d water quality improvement will largely be accomplished by future observations including: ! An approved watershed management plan developed thr ough this process, ! A monitoring component is developed and implemented , ! The watershed becomes eligible for future funding, 90 ! Partner organizations complete Watershed Management Plan action items, ! E. coli concentrations in the watershed are measurably red uced, and ! The watershed is no longer regulated with a TMDL. Though the improved water quality outcome cannot fu lly be measured within the time frame of this case study, the evidence evaluated for this ou tcome at this point in time suggests participants will help implement the watershed management plan b ut they do not believe the process will help achieve the desired outcome of improved water quality. Summary of Process and Substantive Outcomes The meeting outcomes evaluated above are summarized in the last column of Table 3. Table 3. Achieved Outcomes Process Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Achieved Outcomes Participants attend meetings People come to one or more meetings Partially Participants participate at meetings Participants identify other service providers who should be involved in the watershed management planning process Yes Participants answer questions and share relevant information when asked Participants agree to sit on an agricultural committee for the watershed Participants feel comfortable to participate with honesty 91 Table 3 . (contÕd) Substantive Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Achieved Outcomes The egalitarian deliberation process is followed The process improves the participants confidence in their abilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively Yes The process improve the participants' understanding of others beliefs, values, and perspectives The process improves the ability of participants to work together better The process improves the participants confidence and self-esteem The process is legitimate The participants believe the planning process was fair The process is considered fair but it is too soon to determine whether or not it is considered legitimate The participants believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli water concentrations Long term changes to watershed socioeconomic and environmental outcomes Participants participate at meetings Participants identify "early- adopter" producers in the watershed to work with in the watershed management planning process Achieved outcome Participants share a summary of their programs as they relate to water quality Participants answer questions and share relevant information when asked Participants agree to sit on an agricultural committee for the watershed Participants' level of knowledge of the watershed management planning process increases 92 Table 3 . (contÕd) Substantive Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Achieved Outcomes Progress is made toward identifying BMPs most applicable for the Red Cedar River Watershed Participants identify where BMPs used to exist and help figure out why they were removed or discontinued Only some BMPs were discussed, but important information regarding program implementation was shared Participants identify and prioritize appropriate BMPs for priority subwatersheds Participants engage in and support the program coordination Participants identify program gaps that the watershed management team might address with an implementation proposal Overall participants did engage in and support the program coordination by offering helpful guidance for the planning process, though some more information needs to be evaluated and collected for the watershed management plan Participants help the watershed management team better understand constraints under which participants operate and propose appropriate programming incentives Participants help us decipher available funding sources and eligibility criteria Participants help to develop a plan to work closely with landowners in critical areas to identify BMPs or link them with existing programs Common goals are developed among participants Participants contribute ideas for actionable items for the watershed management plan 93 Table 3 . (contÕd) Substantive Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Achieved Outcomes Participants engage in and support the program coordination (contÕd) There is a high level of agreement among participants There is collective satisfaction Participants agree to and actually emphasize our priority 12-digit watersheds in their programming Partner organizations utilize their newsletters and websites to disseminate information about the watershed Relationships within the watershed are improved The partnership is continued over time There is improved organizational capacity Agricultural landowners implement BMPs Agricultural landowners implement BMPs Future Eval uation Watershed water quality is improved There is an approved watershed management plan developed through this process This outcome cannot be measured at this time. Stakeholders anticipate supporting the process, but were mixed on their responses to whether or not the work completed as a result of this process would reduce E. coli levels A monitoring component is developed for the future The participants believe the outcomes of the watershed management plan will reduce E. coli water concentrations The watershed becomes eligible for future funding Partner organizations complete watershed management plan action Items 94 Table 3 . (contÕd) Substantive Outcomes Desired Outcomes Indicators Achieved Outcomes Watershed water quality is improved (contÕd) E. coli concentrations in the watershed are measurably reduced The watershed's is no longer regulated with a TMDL Appreciative InquiryÕs Application of Egalitarian D eliberation Use of the Appreciative Inquiry Model achieves outc omes that characterize the egalitarian deliberation perspective of public participation (T uler & Webler, 2010). All indicators were met supporting the achievement of this outcome. Legitimacy The legitimacy outcome, which is a component of the Dynamic Watershed Management Framework, is not fully measureable at this point i n the project. While the process is considered to be fair by participants, responses are mixed on whether participants anticipate E. coli reduction as a result of this process. The long ter m effects of the process on water quality cannot be measured at this time. Watershed Management Planning Project Outcomes The desired process outcomes of the watershed manag ement planning project were met in part. The desired meeting attendance outcome was not met. Historical factors or the way the participants were invited likely influenced the lac k of meeting attendance. Cooperrider et al. 95 (2008) recommend introducing Appreciative Inquiry e arly by modeling the way it will be carried out during the participant invitation portion of th e process. However little detail about how to do this is provided. Carrying out the participant inv itation process differently could have affected the meeting attendance. The substantive outcomes were achieved fully or in part based on some indicators, but most indicators could not be measured at this time. Par ticipants substantively participated at meetings, some progress was made in identifying BMPs most app licable for the Red Cedar River Watershed, and participants engaged in and supporte d the program coordination. Where the substantive outcomes were achieved only in part, in cluding the identification of BMPs for the watershed, unanticipated outcomes were achieved tha t nevertheless often provided helpful information. Some desired outcomes, including impr oved water quality, cannot be assessed for this study as the indicators can only be measured i n the future. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations Based on the outcomes, this study found: 1.) The Appreciative Inquiry Model can be applied effec tively in scenarios where the egalitarian deliberation process is most beneficial for stakeholder involvement. The majority of participants felt the process impro ved their skills to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively, improved t heir understanding of other participantsÕ 96 beliefs values and perspectives, and improved their ability to work with other participants on items related to water quality. One participant ev en reported wanting to meet more frequently. This evidence supports the conclusion that the proc ess helped to empower participants, a main characteristic of the egalitarian deliberation publ ic participation perspective. 2.) Using the Appreciative Inquiry Model to frame the f acilitation of collaborative agricultural stakeholder meetingsÕ achieved some of the desired process and substantive outcomes of the Watershed Management Planning proje ct. Using Appreciative Inquiry, information was success fully collected for the watershed management plan and stakeholders successfully colla borated with each other and the watershed management planning team. However, the extent to w hich collaboration will continue and the impact of the process on the watershedÕs water qual ity cannot fully be measured at this time. Program ideas were contributed that are expected to be used in the watershed management planning process; participants showed support of th e process and worked towards developing common goals; and stakeholders helped the watershed management team understand the program gaps, including gaps in working relationshi ps and desires for technical information. Neutral or positive tones were dominant in the disc ussions, and some participants continue working with the watershed management team, volunte ered to continue contributing, or were meeting with other participants on items related to water quality. The use of the Dynamic Watershed Management Framewo rk, the Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation, and the Appreciative Inquiry Model in framing the facilitation of 97 collaborative agricultural stakeholder meetings can yield desirable watershed management planning outcomes. Understanding this can help inf orm other collaborative watershed management planning processes. Stakeholder attendance was lacking, and likely this is a shortfall in matching the context to the process. Though Appreciative Inquiry principals ar e to be followed during the participant invitation portion of the process, less direction i s provided by the model for this, and carrying out the invitation step differently may affect the outc ome (Cooperrider et al., 2008). As the Dynamic Watershed Framework (Sabatier et al., 2005) and the Theory of Fair and Competent Public Participation (Webler & Tuler, 2002) explain, the e xisting context is an important input into deciding what process should be used. In this part icular context, where there is a gap in plans and partnerships in the rural area and service prov iders are working with fewer resources, the way the meeting invitations were extended may have been a shortcoming of the way the model was implemented or the minimal direction the model provided during this phase of the process. Though some agricultural service providers attended and some new connections between providers were made, half of the agricultural servi ce providers who were invited did not attend. The positive framing of the meeting, based on the A ppreciative Inquiry Model, likely helped with the success of the meetings, and the success o f the second meeting in particular. One agricultural service provider noted after the meeti ng that the producers were afraid they were going to have another program pushed on them and im plied they were relieved when this was not the case. Even with the attempt at a positive tone , one producer indicated that he felt agriculture was being accused of being the cause of the TMDL pr oblem. Another reported in the post- 98 meeting survey that though the process was, for the most part, a positive experience, they felt uncomfortable at the beginning of the second meetin g when there was a level of miscommunication and blaming of agriculture. Witho ut emphasis on this positive tone, it is likely that more blame might have been felt by the producers. Likely, with more blame felt by producers, chances of them being willing to work co llectively on the watershed management plan would have decreased. This stakeholder involvement process resulted in un anticipated discussions that often provided information other than or in addition to the inform ation that was expected or being sought. This shows that indeed the stakeholders added value to t he process. For example, the producers suggested holding a separate meeting with small far mers about the watershed management plan. This suggestion will be included as a recommended i mplementation item in the watershed management plan. This additional contribution of i nformation may have resulted from the open ended nature of the questions or from the meeting e nvironment. Using the egalitarian deliberation perspective of s takeholder involvement did not elicit adequate responses to the technical questions asked during t he process. While another method of stakeholder involvement may have elicited the techn ical responses desired, as described, the egalitarian deliberation stakeholder involvement pr ocess was deemed more appropriate for this context. The Appreciative Inquiry Model was tested as a way to achieve egalitarian deliberation in stakeholder involvement. A different perspective discussed by Tuler and Webler (2010) is a 99 science-centered perspective, in which scientific d ata is emphasized over stakeholder empowerment. In some cases, a science-centered per spective might have resulted in obtaining more complete responses to some of the questions. For example, one desired outcome of the process was for progress to be made in identifying BMPs most applicable to the Red Cedar River Watershed. This outcome was only partially met; so me BMPs were discussed, but not in relationship to their needed locations. In additio n, two indicators used to measure participant engagement and support of the program coordination were only partially supportive of the outcome, in particular because more technical infor mation was needed. While some scientific data were presented to the participants to review i n the meetings, the data were not emphasized nor used in the questions asked. This lack of disc ussion of very technical information in the responses should be anticipated when technical info rmation is not emphasized in the meeting agendas. With our process, instead of exchanging t echnical information through the meetings, other important information regarding how the progr am could be introduced to producers was elicited, in addition to stakeholdersÕ preferred ty pes of resource support and technical resources. In summary, the watershed management team was able to collect useful information from participants through this process. The stakeholder s collaborated together through the meetings; they worked together to contribute suggestions, mad e additional plans to meet outside of the meetings, and most agreed to support the programs o f the watershed management plan in the future. In addition the watershed management team had a chance to reach a set of stakeholders who were mostly not in attendance at other stakehol der meetings, and agricultural producers and service providers were provided with a platform for communication. Most left feeling they were collectively working together through this process. The results of these meetings achieved many 100 of the outcomes the team sought out to achieve, tho ugh the impact on water quality is yet to be measured. The Appreciative Inquiry process was a l argely successful method of building initial collaboration among the stakeholders. A meeting of a different format, for example a meeting with excessive technical information, might not hav e been successful without first having included stakeholders in these meetings to build a sense of empowerment among participants. Future recommendations for this watershed managemen t planning process include: ! Holding a meeting for the small farmers using the s ame Appreciative Inquiry Model meeting format, and ! Holding a meeting with a science-centered or an inf ormed-democratic format (Tuler & Webler, 2010) with all of the stakeholders to colle ct the more specific technical information needed for the project. This study evidenced some limitations, as a case st udy, it is an example of the Appreciative Inquiry Model applied in only one watershed with on e set of stakeholders. Different outcomes may result in other applications of this model or w ith different stakeholders present. The meetings agendas were designed to follow the Ap preciative Inquiry Model; however, at times the meetings deviated from the agenda and mod el. Some of the questions could not be asked due to a shortage of time. A fewer number of questions were asked in the second meeting in particular, likely due to a larger number of par ticipants in the room and more time used in the meeting for explaining the watershed management pla nning process. In addition, the responses 101 to the questions did not always directly answer the questions, and additional unplanned questions were often asked by the agricultural service provid ers seeking information from producers about the service providersÕ specific programs and ways t o improve them. Despite this, the discussions that were off-track were mostly applicable and help ful for the watershed management planning process. Because of these diversions, it is diffic ult to tell whether the Appreciative Inquiry Model was indeed critical to the success in meeting desired outcomes or whether simply having the meeting platform for the parties to communicate was enough. Other formats for running the meeting might also have been successful. There wer e signs that the Appreciative Inquiry Model phases were experienced, at least during the first meeting. One phase of the model is the ÒdreamÓ phase where ideas of Òwhat might beÓ are ex plored. Even though none the phases of the model were overly emphasized nor the word dream used in describing the model to the stakeholders, one stakeholder at the first meeting offered a suggestion they would implement if we were Òreally dreamingÓ. Another suggestion incl uded the phrase Òpie in the skyÓ. Responses with these phrases are indicative of the stakeholde rs experiencing the dream phase of the Appreciative Inquiry Model. It is also likely that the Appreciative Inquiry Model likely helped contribute to the common goals developed through th e process. At least one participant reported feeling a sense of blame at some points during the process, and likely without such a positive approach to the meeting, more participants might ha ve felt blame. A higher number of participants feeling blame might have diminished th e successful outcomes of the process. Many of the outcomes cannot be measured at this tim e. The achievement of the actual outcomes measured in the future may substantially impact the watershed management planning projectÕs measures of success. To gain a fuller understandin g of the outcomes of this stakeholder 102 involvement process, the indicators that are labele d for future measurement should be measured and their implications for the outcomes analyzed. Applying this model in more and different contexts would provide more information on the contexts in which it is most successful and could h elp to validate the success of this model in more than just this case. The successful use of th e Appreciative Inquiry Model in this case study does not mean that other frameworks, theories, or m odels might not also have been successful in this context. Comparative studies across other col laborative models in similar contexts would also provide information beneficial to the watershe d management planning process literature and theory. 103 APPENDICES 104 APPENDIX A Meeting Email Invitations Invitations and Reminder Emails for the First Meeti ng November 27, 2013 Dear Red Cedar River Watershed Agricultural Service Provider, As you may be aware, the MSU Institute of Water Res earch is leading the development of a Watershed Management Plan for portions of the Red C edar River Watershed to improve water quality by addressing the Total Maximum Daily Load for E. coli as well as other pollutants of concern. The project is being funded through a gran t from the DEQ Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. As part of the watershed management planning proces s we are collaborating with numerous community partners, identifying sources and causes of water quality impairments, and crafting solutions to improve water quality. Since much of the watershed consists of agricultural land, we want to be sure to include agricultural stakehol ders in this planning process. We understand your job duties include working with agr icultural producers in the watershed and we would value your insight and contributions to the p rocess. We are inviting you to attend a meeting to share in formation about your work and your organization's current activities in the watershed. We are also interested in hearing your vision and goals for the watershed, and will begin to disc uss the details of the watershed plan. This 105 initial meeting will be scheduled for a two-hour ti meframe. An additional meeting may be scheduled in the future to continue the discussion. A meeting agenda is attached. As part of this process, information will be collec ted for a research project that is being completed for a Master's Thesis pertaining to the b ody of literature on the watershed management planning and stakeholder involvement pro cess. Your participation in the research is completely voluntary, and we will share addition al information about the research project at the meeting. With your participation we hope to produce a more c omprehensive and useful watershed management plan. Thank you and we look forward to m eeting with you in January December 18, 2012 I would like to confirm our meeting to gather and d iscuss engaging agriculture in the Red Cedar River watershed planning process. We will meet on: Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Time: 9:00 am Ð 11:00 am Location: Lansing, MI If you are unable to attend the meeting, but are wi lling to provide input into the watershed 106 planning process, please let me know. Thanks Ð we are looking forward to your comments an d suggestions! Invitations and Meeting Reminders for the Second Me eting January 25, 2013 Thank you again for participating in our meeting la st week regarding agriculture as it pertains to the Red Cedar River Watershed Management planning p rocess. It was really helpful to hear from you all about the details of your work and pro grams, and to begin to develop some ideas on how we can together work to i mprove the watershed's water quality. We want to continue developing ideas and plans to c ontribute to the watershed management planning process and improved water quality in the Red Cedar. We are scheduling a follow up meeting with you in combination with the farmers in the watershed who practice conservation measures and who have positive relationships in the community. Please use this link and mark on the calendar your availability to attend a meeting at the end of February or beginning of March: [link]. This will be a lunch meeting with lunch pr ovided. 107 Also, if you havenÕt had a chance to fill out the f ollow up survey for my research, it is attached again. I would really appreciate your help in this! You can email it back to me or [name]. Again, as a part of this next meeting, information will be collected for a research project pertaining to the stakeholder involvement process of watershed ma nagement. Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and additional inf ormation will be shared at the meeting. Thank you, February 5, 2013 Our follow up meeting to discuss agriculture in the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Planning Process together and with producers in the watershed will be held MONDAY FEBRUARY 25 FROM 12:00-2:00 PM. Lunch will be prov ided. We will meet again at the [LANSING, MICHIGAN]. We want to continue an open discussion following th e same format as our last meeting, a draft agenda is attached. If you agree, I will con tinue my research about the process and outcomes of this type of stakeholder involvement pr ocess. Please let me know if you are able to attend or hav e any questions. 108 February 18, 2013 Hello everyone, I am emailing to remind you of the follow-up meetin g to discuss agriculture in the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Planning Process on Mond ay February 25 from 12:00 to 2:00 pm at the [Lansing Michigan, 48911]. Lunch will be pr ovided. I think we had a really productive meeting last tim e, and I am looking forward to this meeting with some of the watershed's agricultural producers joining us on Monday as well. If you have not yet responded to me, please let me know if you plan to attend so I can plan lunches accordingly. Thanks for your participation! February 24, 2013 I will see you all at the meeting on Monday for the Red Cedar Watershed. Last time we had a great discussion with much focus on what was going on the in watershed currently. We will continue our discussion from last time, but this ti me with watershed farmers. Our focus will be on looking forward more and developing what we want to include in the watershed management plan. 109 Sample Reminder Email to Agricultural Producers: Sent approximately February 22, 2013 This is a reminder email about the meeting to discu ss plans for improving water quality through the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Planning P rocess. The meeting will be held at [Lansing 48911] from 12 :00 to 2:00 pm on Monday February 25. Lunch will be provided. I look forward to meeting you, and thank you in adv ance for your time and insight. 110 APPENDIX B Meeting #1 Agenda and Discussion Guide Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agricultural Service Providers Meeting January 15, 2013 Agenda I. Introductions II. Red Cedar Watershed Management Plan background, cur rent status, direction, and research overview III. Share with us: What is the current status of your o rganizationÕs work in the Red Cedar River Watershed? IV. Share with us: What are your visions and goals for the future of the Red Cedar River Watershed? V. Share with us: What would you like to include in th e Red Cedar River Watershed Plan? VI. Share with us: What actions might you take in the w atershed planning process? VII. Forming an Agriculture Subcommittee to develop plan s for the Red Cedar Watershed Management Plan VIII. Next Meeting 111 Meeting 1 Discussion Question Guide !Agenda Item III. ! What do you think are the greatest attributes and c haracteristics of the Red Cedar River Watershed farmers? ! What are some of the most effective or accepted BMP s being used in this watershed? Where are they most successful? ! What are some of the most effective methods you use to work with the agricultural community to promote relationship building, changin g conservation behaviors, BMP adoption, and helping to find funding for conservat ion practices? !What farmers or other agricultural service provider s do you know who are supporters of BMPs and who have positive relationships in the community? ! What are the most useful and accepted funding and p rogram resources available for conservation practices and who do they most cater t o? 112 Agenda Item IV. What are your ideal visions and/or goals for the Re d Cedar River Watershed as they pertain to water quality and agriculture? What would the most ideal agricultural outreach exp erience for your organization look like? ! Agenda Item V. ! What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in this watershed? !Agenda Item VI. ! What is the smallest step we could take individuall y or together as a new group to have the largest impact? ! What is a new approach we could try to improve wate r quality of this watershed? ! Agenda Item VII. Are you willing to be a part of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? 113 APPENDIX C Meeting #1 Post Meeting Survey Question s Post Meeting 01/15/2012 Survey Questions Did you feel comfortable participating fully and ho nestly through this process? Did you feel this stakeholder participation process was a positive experience? How would you have improved it? Did you feel freedom with how and what you chose to contribute in this process? Do you feel you are working collectively with other participants towards similar goals? Did this process improve your confidence in your ab ilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively? Did the process improve your understanding of other participantsÕ beliefs, values, and perspectives? Did the process improve your ability to work with o ther participants on items related to water quality? 114 Do you expect your organization to be able to help disseminate watershed planning information through your website and/or newsletter? 115 APPENDIX D Meeting #2 Agenda and Discussion Guide Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Meeting with Agricultural Service Providers and Pro ducers February 25, 2013 Agenda I. Introductions II. Red Cedar Watershed Management Plan Background, Cur rent Status, and Direction III. Past Meeting Review: What is our current status? W hat are our visions and goals for the future? IV. Share with us: Additions or edits to our visions a nd goals for the future? V. Share with us: What would you like to include in th e Red Cedar River Watershed Plan? VI. Share with us: What actions might you take in the w atershed planning process? VII. Forming an Agriculture Subcommittee to develop plan s for the Red Cedar Watershed Management Plan 116 Meeting #2 Discussion Question Guide Agenda Item III. ! A summary of some points discussed during the first meeting were written out on paper and reviewed with the stakeholders. These were poi nts raised by agriculture service providers that helped us gain an understanding of t heir perspectives on how environmental conservation practices are working or could work in this watershed. ! Agenda Item IV. ! What would you like to add to what we came up with at our first meeting? Do you have different or additional visions and goals for the future? ! Agenda Item V. ! Thinking about the future, how could the watershed planning process create a useful and effective plan for watershed residents for impr oving water quality? ! What characteristics would an ideal landscape and f arm have in the Red Cedar River Watershed to optimize water quality and agricultura l producer success? !In the ideal world, what resources would you have a vailable to you to optimize water 117 In the ideal world, what resources would you have a vailable to you to optimize water quality, working relationships, and agricultural pr oducer success? Agenda Item VI. !What can we do to best utilize our existing strengt hs and make the BMP programs easier for producers to learn about, access, and adopt? How can we ensure our BMPs remain in use or not rem oved through the end of their useful life? What is the smallest step or a new approach we coul d take together as a new group to have the largest impact? Agenda Item VII. Are you willing to continue working with us as a pa rt of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? 118 APPENDIX E Meeting #2 Post Meeting Survey Question s Post Meeting Survey Questions 02/25/2013 Did you feel comfortable participating fully and ho nestly through this process? Did you feel this stakeholder participation process was a positive experience? How would you have improved it? Did you feel freedom with how and what you chose to contribute in this process? Did you feel you are working collectively with othe r participants towards similar goals? Did this process improve your confidence in your ab ilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively? Did the process improve your understanding of other participantsÕ beliefs, values, and perspectives? Did the process improve your ability to work with o ther participants on items related to water quality? 119 Do you expect you or your organization to be able t o help disseminate watershed planning information through your (circle one or more if app licable): website, newsletter, or word of mouth? Did you feel your working relationships with other participants improved through this process? Do you anticipate you and your organization will pa rticipate actively in implementing the final watershed management plan programming in the priori tized subwatersheds? Do you believe that work completed as a result of t his process will reduce the levels of E. coli in the watershed? 120 APPENDIX F Meeting #1 Discussion Results Meeting 1 Discussion Question Summary 1!What Agenda Item III. !What do you think are the greatest attributes and c haracteristics of the Red Cedar River Watershed farmers? ! [a local agricultural service provider organization ] [progressive conservation management] !! Community Interest groups- number of groups & coope ration among them !! Farmers want to do the right thing but donÕt always know what is right/wrong because water quality perspective is different than [for] profit perspective and [farmers] donÕt always know the regulations !! [Red Cedar] goes through MSU !! Documented history and photos ! 1 Some of the recorded notes in this discussion guide summary are purposefully modified to protect the privacy of participants. S ome modifications are noted with [brackets] and other [brackets] are included to cla rify recorded notes to reflect what was understood to be said in the conversation. 121 What are some of the most effective or accepted BMP s being used in this watershed? Where are they most successful? ! Manure storage programs- NRCS ! Sediment loading- EQIP programs Ð NRCS ! MAEAP Ð 10% [of farms in both counties are MAEAP ce rtified]. Helps all farms but most helpful in incorporating small farms who werenÕt previously regulated. Some [farmers] come to program, some [ar e recruited] by mailings. [Some farmers come to program because of] TMDL fear - Lake Erie, Farm Bureau literature/ mailings [Story about western La ke ErieÕs watershed requirements and the discovery about the two differ ent types of phosphorous in the Lake. The P pollution may be from no-till prac tices, and tile maintenance might be necessary] ! Hobby farms are high risk for pollution contributio ns ! Some [farmers] buy in on filter/ buffer strips and some farm to the edge of the ditch. !! No-till is minority practice but increasing (equipm ent is cost prohibitive). !! Maybe tillage practices are not enough. What about tile maintenance? !! [One] Drain Commissioner gives credit for conservat ion practices !! Some education / [because] some donÕt want to use B MPs !! Conservation plantings !! Wetland restoration !! Conservation tours/ Field Tours !!122 What are some of the most effective methods you use to work with the agricultural community to promote relationship building, changin g conservation behaviors, BMP adoption, and helping to find funding for conservat ion practices? !! Find high visibility farms everyone knows and work with them and advertise [conservation] work !! Talk about free services, not about liability or wh at they are doing wrong. Use right delivery. !! TMDL carrot, if [farm is] MAEAP verified in TMDL wa tershed, that farm is exempt from other changes required through TMDL !! It would be useful to have TMDL education brochure from MSUE about what it means to live in watershed with TMDL !! MSUE [is] #1 trusted information source !! Conservation Districts #3 trusted information sourc e!! Friends and Neighbors are #2 trusted information so urce- demonstration days- (Found this in Clinton County) hard to get first pe rson on board !! NRCS [trusted source] #4 or 5 !! One agricultural service provider is considering BM P program !! Need holistic resource on all resources in county/w atershed in one spot !! [Drain Commissioner] assessment lowering with BMPs in place (put in brochure?) !! Need buffer strip program with maintenance !! [there are] a lot of tile blow outs !!123 ! [Drain Commissioner] [does farmer conservation] edu cation but not big on enforcement !What farmers or other agricultural service provider s do you know who are supporters of BMPs and who have positive relationships in the community? !! Pheasants Forever ! Turkey Federation !! Ducks Unlimited !! Trout Unlimited !! County Farm Bureau- MAEAP Supporter !! County Farm Bureau- (donÕt know them much)- have a good young farmer program. Farm Bureau conservation- support varies by county !! [Local Farmer] named with good [farm and conservati on] practices !! [Local Farmer] !! [Local Farmer] !! [Local Farmer] !! [problem] One Subwatershed has biosolids spreading too, horses, and 2 big cow dairies !! [problem] This watershed has active horse community we should consider. Many do not know water quality. Can have higher co ncentration of horses on land. No [waste] spreading, usually just stockpilin g.!! Michigan Milk Producers !!124 ! [problem] Ag service providers and inspectors donÕt even know all [conservation] programs like Drain Commissioner. G ive them a list of programs to share with landowners. !! Conservation District has a [conservation program] list on web !! Could use grain elevators to hold meeting with drai n commissioners !! Greenstone !! Waste effect on heard health and [include] veterina rians ! What are the most useful and accepted funding and p rogram resources available for conservation practices and who do they most cater t o?!! Need funding source that doesnÕt come from governme nt!! Drain Commissioner assessment reductions and advert ise them !! Pheasants Forever !! Nontraditional BMPs/ methods !! Relationships/dress !! Look for problem and look at relationship, donÕt ju st use a formula [when working with farmers] !! Look at W. Lake ErieÕs programs !! Problem: cattle in creek challenge. So many people do it. Hard to change perception and change behavior. ! 125 Agenda Item IV. !What are your ideal visions and/or goals for the Re d Cedar River Watershed as they pertain to water quality and agriculture? !! No bare soil in winter !! Overall education and awareness !! Lower bacteria levels !! Broadened agricultural community definition (includ e small farms) !! Collaborate instead of point finger !! Educational day to educate stakeholders (agribusine ss [including] fertilizer [companies]) !! An end to conflicting water quality / agriculture. AND not OR. They can work together !! Manure digesters + energy ! What would the most ideal agricultural outreach exp erience for your organization look like? !! Skipped question because of timing and it seemed we had already covered some of the question ! Agenda Item V. ! What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in this watershed? !126 ! Have a better holistic/ collaborative picture of wh at each resource does !! Meet more frequently- [utilize] teleconference !! Challenge [on two above points] is turnover [of emp loyees] !! Mass mailings- combine messages in mailings (Drain Commissioner, municipalitiesÕ tax billings, utilities) Agenda Item VI. ! What is the smallest step we could take individuall y or together as a new group to have the largest impact? !! [combined this question with the next question beca use of time] !! [example] Drain Commissioner elementary school does education on erosion, has water model on the stream table, could be used or modified to use for adults too. !! Conservation District Ð groundwater flow model !! YouTube NRCS video on tillage practices What is a new approach we could try to improve wate r quality of this watershed? !! [combined this question with the previous question because of time] 127 Agenda Item VII. ! Are you willing to be a part of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? !! [question asked, there was interest in the room, bu t we did not count who would or would not agree to be on the committee] ! 128 APPENDIX G Meeting #1 Post Meeting Survey Response s (6 Survey Responses) Did you feel comfortable participating fully and ho nestly through this process? Yes (5) Yes this informal process does facilitate a relaxed and open discussion. (1) Did you feel this stakeholder participation process was a positive experience? How would you have improved it? Yes (2) Yes. I thought the meeting was very successful. I f I had to make a suggestion for improvement I would like to see questions youÕve prepared for t he group ahead of time, giving us more time to brainstorm prior to the meeting. (1) It was positive. The only improvement I would make is to set up a mechanism for follow up. We had a lot of good ideas, need to be sure we foll ow up on them and take action. (1) It was a positive experience, which offered a lot o f insight into the topic (1) Yes Ð it was a great meeting (1) Did you feel freedom with how and what you chose to contribute in this process? Yes (4) Yes, and I think there was an opportunity for every one to take part in the discussion. (1) Yes all contributions were accepted and discussed, anything offered would have been considered in this setting. (1) 129 Do you feel you are working collectively with other participants towards similar goals? Yes (3) Yes, somewhat, there is a lot of overlap but we sti ll have specific agendas. (1) The whole group seems focused on related goals. (1) Not yet Ð but it was good to hear what others are d oing in the watershed. (1) Did this process improve your confidence in your ab ilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively? Yes (4) Yes I think it does offer confidence for all partie s involved (1) Maybe Ð not sure yet. (1) Did the process improve your understanding of other participantsÕ beliefs, values, and perspectives? Yes (4) Yes, these types of meetings are always helpful to see the perspective of groups or individuals whose goals overlap your own. (1) Yes the various perspectives offered by the involve d groups were made clear in the open format discussion (1) 130 Did the process improve your ability to work with o ther participants on items related to water quality? Yes (3) Yes by understanding their interest in the project it does make cooperation much easier. (1) I think so, had to tell at this point. (1) Yes, now I will be more comfortable calling those w ith whom I have not previously worked. (1) Do you expect your organization to be able to help disseminate watershed planning information through your website and/or newsletter? Yes (2) Yes! (1) Yes I think this is a possibility (1) Yes, as long as information about the planning proc ess is shared (1) No (1) 131 APPENDIX H Meeting #1 Researcher Observations ! During the meeting I allowed participants to read q uestions, while I just gave a summary. This may have been the reason why some questions di dnÕt always yield answers that were directly an answer to the question. Example Q uestion 1 answers are about good characteristics of the farmers and the watershed, n ot just the farmers. Information collected was still helpful. ! Discussion ensued with little need for me, the faci litator, to keep the conversation going. ! Participants shared stories throughout the meeting. For example, stories were shared about having a digester for energy with tours, a ma n who wears overalls and shorts overalls, and one of skepticism of the government. ! Participants discussed how to relate to farmers: dr ess appropriately, connect on where you live, connect on your pastimes. ! Participant used the word ÒdreamÓ during the proces s, Òif we are really dreamingÓ, and then they offered their suggestion. ! The phrase Òpie in the skyÓ was also used when offe ring an idea. ! Setting a comfortable relaxed tone of the room, a v ariable outside the designed questionnaire list, but a variable that likely matt ered. 132 Meeting Observation Tracking 01/15/2013 Meeting 1 Discussion Question Guide ! Agenda Item III. ! What do you think are the greatest attributes and c haracteristics of the Red Cedar River Watershed farmers? !Summary, 2 people spoke, 8 different comments, most ly positive tone. ! What are some of the most effective or accepted BMP s being used in this watershed? Where are they most successful? Summary, 6 people spoke, 15 different comments, mo stly with a neutral tone 2 !What are some of the most effective methods you use to work with the agricultural community to promote relationship building, changin g conservation behaviors, BMP adoption, and helping to find funding for conservat ion practices? !Summary, 6 people spoke, 13 different responses, mo stly positive tone. 2One participant arrived late to the meeting and con tributed to this response after this record was taken. 133 What farmers or other agricultural service provider s do you know who are supporters of BMPs and who have positive relationships in the community? !Summary, 6 people spoke, 17 different responses, mo stly positive tone ! What are the most useful and accepted funding and p rogram resources available and who do they most cater to? !Summary, 9 people spoke, 20 different responses, mo stly positive or neutral tone, there was one disagreement noted ! Agenda Item IV. !What are your ideal visions and/or goals for the Re d Cedar River Watershed as they pertain to water quality and agriculture? !Summary, 7 people spoke, 11 different comments, mos tly positive, and there was one disagreement. ! What would the most ideal agricultural outreach exp erience for your organization look like? !Skipped question because of time constraints ! 134 Agenda Item V. ! What, if anything, would optimize working relations hips with farmers that you know or don't yet know in this watershed? !Summary, 6 people spoke, 5 different comments were made, indicating there must have been a recording error, likely in recording the num ber of responses and tone. The tone was mostly positive. !!Agenda Item VI. ! What is the smallest step we could take individuall y or together as a new group to have the largest impact? !Summary, 4 people spoke, 5 different responses, all positive tones. ! What is a new approach we could try to improve wate r quality of this watershed? Combined this question with above question because of time constraints. ! What do you anticipate farmersÕ opinions will be ab out the watershed management plan and implementation? !This question was included on the agenda, but it wa s unlikely that we were going to ask the question in the meeting, and the question was n ot asked during the meeting. ! 135 Agenda Item VII. ! Are you willing to be a part of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? !Asked question, but didnÕt receive or record respon ses during meeting. ! 136 APPENDIX I Meeting #2 Discussion Results Meeting 2 Discussion Question Summary 3! Agenda Item IV. !What would you like to add to what we came up with at our first meeting? Do you have different or additional visions and goals for the future? ! ! Turnover in resource programs. Changing rules in p rograms are difficult to manage (program example) !! [example of] Installed BMPs not working and having to be changed [hassle] !! NRCS trying to figure out ways to deal with BMPs th at donÕt work. Understand [there is a ] turnover problem at NRCS w ith CNMP !! [there was a] Conservation District dysfunction in past. Programs need to come out of that office. (NRCS and others). [farmers] Want programs to come from there. !! [there is a problem of] understaffing at NRCS and o thers- it takes a long time to hear [back] from a program !!3Some of the recorded notes in this discussion guide summary are purposefully modified to protect the privacy of participants. S ome modifications are noted with [brackets] and other [brackets] are included to cla rify recorded notes to reflect the what was understood to be said in the conversation. 137 ! [In response to broadened agriculture definition of including small farms] that is not their full time job, they need same conservatio n practices. They may not know impact of programs ! Agenda Item V. ! Thinking about the future, how could the watershed planning process create a useful and effective plan for watershed residents for impr oving water quality? ! Question not asked due to time constraints What characteristics would an ideal landscape and f arm have in the Red Cedar River Watershed to optimize water quality and agricultura l producer success? ! ! Timing of program response working with landowners isnÕt always at the most opportune time [programs have a long lag time when they respond back with landowners, and the actual resource information oft en comes at the wrong time in the ag producersÕ work schedule] !! Are there too many programs of overwhelming informa tion? !! Number of problems at small farms exceeds the [prob lems at the] large farms !! Are there services districts could provide that NRC S isnÕt doing? !!!138 ! Conservation District predecessors spent time drivi ng farmers away. [there are] many years to overcome. Must separate yourself from NRCS and past Conservation District. !! MSUE, FSA piggy backs on other farm meetings to get 10 minutes to speak at them. Ex: Chemical Meetings, Mason Elevator Apprec iation, Seed, Extension Service !! Crop cover [cover crop] issues in magazines now. !! Do you prefer cost share or É.programs? !! Prefer Technical assistance programs !! Information is important part. ! In the ideal world, what resources would you have a vailable to you to optimize water quality, working relationships, and agricultural pr oducer success? ! Question not asked due to time constraints ! Agenda Item VI. !What can we do to best utilize our existing strengt hs and make the BMP programs easier for producers to learn about, access, and adopt? ! Conservation District helped get some involved. ! Connect with all organizations to learn about progr ams. [donÕt rely on getting a message out through one source]. 139 ! [there was an experience with receiving?] Discrepan cies from program resources. Checking with many programs is a hassle. ! List of providers that can provide resource informa tion, would that be helpful? ! [farmer] didnÕt use federal government [for impleme nting a certain BMP] ! How do you learn about benefits [of BMPs]? ! [participantÕs] Dad in the past ! Talk to other farmers who are using conservation pr actices ! Demo Day? Yes ! Fall tour at Conservation District? Do you want mo re of these? ! [It depends on] who do you want to reach? ! [In the past there was a] pasture walk in the eveni ng ! Evening meetings are better way to reach farmers wh o have other jobs. [but there is not consensus in this, because some have evening commit ments with kids or who do not want to go to a meeting in the evening]. [there wa s discussion about Saturdays but I did not hear a positive response to this. Lunch meetin gs were good and common with the large farmers]. ! Need multiple communication methods. Yes, the elec tronic method is effective [but not everyone has a computer]. ! [need] Different meetings for different types of si zes of farms ! [need] Different communication avenues ! Get the point across that farm size doesnÕt matter. They need to adopt [conservation] practices too ! Include horse farmers 140 ! Reach them through MSUE. MSUE has a list of names of people who have come through the MSUE office [in the past for other info rmation]. ! Worry of staff turnover. [MSUE retirements discuss ed and concern of who will be next.] some staff at MSUE have so much information sent ou t from them [which is] good. They like that information but do not know if small farmers like that information. How can we ensure our BMPs remain in use or not rem oved through the end of their useful life? ! Contract expiration What is the smallest step or a new approach we coul d take together as a new group to have the largest impact? ! What can we change in MAEAP Program? o Timing. Make connections all season through. ! Talk up liability reduction part of MAEAP Program ! Cover Crops ! Is it helpful for [conservation] districts to help on maintenance tips? yes ! Fuel Storage- make info more user friendly ! Would listserv be useful? ! Complicated fuels storage program- so farmer will d o on own. ! People need to know that MAEAP on farm site is conf idential. o Agreed ! Each person has their own way of doing work/farm ! Small operators donÕt have money to fix and need mo re money to help. 141 ! Large operators donÕt want to go out of business. ! MAEAP barriers- well location proximity to manure e tc. ! Regulators donÕt use common sense- go by rules only . ! Problem- Interpretation differences o Two people interpret differently. ! Grassed waterways and filter strips Ð best ! Require maintenance so donÕt eat at edges ! One Conservation District outside the watershed has loan program for no-till. Helpful? o No. Management more problem than equipment. ! Conservation District used to have voluntary no til lage in fall ! Not many no till in area. ! Many different reasons for doing what we do. ! No till farmers are usually willing to give up some money to be more committed to environmental sustainability. Less EQIP benefit. ! Is it helpful for districts to help on maintenance tips? o Yes ! Would farmers consulting service be helpful? o No ! Large to small farms ! Chisel plow vs. no till ! Risk with rental equipment from CD? o Yes ! Number of rural residents without proper septic sys tems? 142 ! Replaced well, some septics go to tile that go long distances ! Invite small farm representatives but watch for int imidation ! [Attendee] has numbers loss of how much money peopl e are losing to top soil ! Large equipment makes it hard to operate around win d breaks ! Insects are problems that come with grassed waterwa ys 143 APPENDIX J Meeting #2 Post Meeting Survey Response s (10 Survey Responses) Did you feel comfortable participating fully and ho nestly through this process? Yes (9) after we got into the meeting (1) Did you feel this stakeholder participation process was a positive experience? How would you have improved it? Yes (3) For the most part. There was a level of miscommuni cation and blaming ag at the beginning. I did feel slightly uncomfortable. (1) It was done well because I feel both sides learned things (1) yes, maybe less introduction, get to group discussi on earlier in the process (1) focus more on strategies to [canÕt read word] input s outside of ag. We focus on Ag for practices because we know we can fix them. We donÕt know how to fix [canÕt read word] problems i.e. septic (1) add smaller farm representation (1) yes. Remove government agencies will get farmers to open up more (1) yes. Maybe identify and invite in representation of small farms (1) Did you feel freedom with how and what you chose to contribute in this process? Yes (10) 144 Did you feel you are working collectively with othe r participants towards similar goals? Yes (8) for the most part (1) yes, knew all the farmer participants (1) Did this process improve your confidence in your ab ilities to take part in the watershed management planning process effectively? Yes (7) already had it (1) It made me more aware of issues to be mindful of t o improve process the next time (1) Sure (1) Did the process improve your understanding of other participantsÕ beliefs, values, and perspectives? Yes (6) already knew it (1) definitely (1) Yes! Very much so (1) Some (1) Did the process improve your ability to work with o ther participants on items related to water quality? Yes (7) 145 No answer (1) Yes, definitely (1) we worked together already (1) Do you expect you or your organization to be able t o help disseminate watershed planning information through your (circle one or more if app licable): website, newsletter, or word of mouth? Yes (2) Yes to all (1) Website (2) website, newsletter, word of mouth (1) website, newsletter, Yes, grower meetings/education events (1) somewhat- suggested several communication sources/p rocedures (1) No answer (1) No (1) Did you feel your working relationships with other participants improved through this process? Yes (9) we all felt at ease + willing to speak up (1) 146 Do you anticipate you and your organization will pa rticipate actively in implementing the final watershed management plan programming in the prioritized subwatersheds? Yes (7) Yes will participate (1) Yes? (1) No answer (1) Do you believe that work completed as a result of t his process will reduce the levels of E. coli in the watershed? Yes (2) it should (1) maybe (1) too soon to tell. A lot of unknown (1) ? Too early in process (1) IÕm sure it is possible (1) too early to say (1) ? (1) no (1) 147 APPENDIX K Meeting #2 Researcher Observations ! Introduction discussed looking at septics, wildlife , urban areas too. ! This whole introduction process took an hour. It w as a different introduction than the one presented at the first meeting. There was interest in the background information and a lot of information to cover since the audience wasnÕt f ully familiar with the watershed management planning process. No mention of DEQ gra nt. Included applause for the producers for being the people already practicing c onservation measures. ! After the introduction and after introducing discus sion results from the last meeting, a comment, Òso it is agÕs faultÓ was made. In respon se, we discussed again how there were many contributions to the bacteria problem and that agriculture was one of them, and that we were addressing the others separately; the healt h department meetings were given as an example. ! Little attention was paid to the questions being as ked through the process. Discussion ensued based on the introductory information shared . The agricultural service providers had a list of their own questions that they wanted to ask of the producers throughout the meeting about their specific programs and ways to i mprove them. It was almost as if there were two different agendas in the room with t he three different parties present (agricultural service providers, watershed manageme nt plan managers, and producers). I interpret this to mean it was useful to have a meet ing with the people in the same room, and that service providers have unanswered question s too. I did not stop their questions to redirect the room back to my questions because u ltimately the agricultural service providers are the people providing the services and they need information from this 148 process too. At least 3 people asked separate ques tions to the farmers aside from my questions. I couldnÕt get through all of the quest ions I had planned because there was so much discussion. Once I reported what we discussed at the last meeting, there was just a lot of information that the farmers wanted to add t oo. The discussion naturally progressed to answer some of the questions I had pr epared so I moved to those questions for the sake of time. ! Because of this progression through the discussion, and other questions being asked, I donÕt feel like we experienced all of the phases of the AI process in the second meeting as we didnÕt get to set the stage and ask all of th e questions. ! Two farmers followed up with emails that they would be involved in future watershed meetings. ! Many responses were in regards to communication, re sources, and programs, not really on the technical information. ! One farmer reported he did the conservation practic es because he understood the value of them. ! There was mention that people pick which BMPs they chose to implement and want information about the BMP but not always the extra hassle to participate in the [federal] program. ! There was a common response that small farmers are a different category than large farmers and they should be included in this project in their own separate meeting. There is intimidation between the two types of farmers. (It was implied that some participants felt almost as if the small farmersÕ contributions were worse than large farm contributions.) 149 ! Discussion likely led to answer many of the questio ns on my list, but not by me asking all of them. Because of this, the tally of the meeting observations (recorded by another person) doesnÕt always match how I was recording qu estion answers. I switched questions sometimes to match the topic without the observation tracking person knowing that. This could reflect my lack of experience in this type of situation. ! Many times one person reported an idea and others a ffirmed their idea, but idea was only recorded once. ! Many agreed that there are many ways to farm and ev eryone does things differently depending on what they can get to work for them for their profit and with the equipment they have. ! The question was posed about if farmers would use a piece of equipment if a Conservation District owned it and rented/loaned it to many people. There was some concern about disease from this option. I do not r ecall it to be a popular idea. ! No out loud affirmations of people wanting to parti cipate in future meetings. ! Reports at the end of the meeting from service prov iders suggested that producers were afraid they were there because they were going to h ave another program pushed on them (Òdown their throatsÓ). I interpret this response, with suggestion from the agricultural service provider, means that producers are so used to being blamed, they came in with the idea in their head they were just there to get blam ed for something else so their defenses were up. Positive tone is likely better to work wi th this history. ! After the meeting, most everyone lingered in the ro om. The meeting time was over but the conversation continued. ! One agricultural service provider scheduled 3 follo w up visits with farmers 150 ! Small farmer contact names were shared in person an d by email by one farmer and by one agricultural service provider. ! After the meeting, watershed team members reported how rare it was to have a meeting with stakeholders like this in the same room. I in terpret this as meaning, that getting everyone in the same room may have been equally or more important than the process. ! Hypothesis: Was it helpful to have a third party in the meeting to have discussions between farmers and agricultural service providers? One participant thought this was helpful based on other work they have been involved in. ! The Appreciative Inquiry Process wasnÕt emphasized, so it was hard to make sense of the information (the ÒWhat isÓ and ÒWhat might beÓ) fro m the first meeting to the second meeting, and fitting them into the Appreciative Inq uiry phases. Therefore, we didnÕt get totally relevant follow up information to this ques tion about what could be added to the summary of information reviewed from the first meet ing. Information provided in this transition was relevant to the watershed management planning process, but did not really pertain to the question asked. This was likely the case for the answers to many questions asked. ! There was discussion that even within the room they used differed BMPs. ! One participant reported concern that farmers didnÕ t open up all of the way because of the agricultural service providers present in the m eeting. ! There was no interest in NRCS programs; the produce rs could do the work on their own, but they do want the information. ! Some organizations in the watershed did not partici pate in this process at all. ! Farmers didnÕt all sit next to each other; they wer e spread around room. 151 ! There was small talk in the beginning and it was ve ry friendly ! There was a discussion about the CARRS Department n ame change and disappointment in the word agriculture being dropped from the new name prior to the start of the meeting. ! After the meeting one producer gave names of two sm all farmers for me to contact who use conservation practices. ! One agricultural service provider said she has sugg estions of small farmers who support conservation practices who we can contact. ! One agricultural service provider shared they have a brochure they use for education in this type of work. ! One agricultural service provider suggested looking into MAEAP farmers and the effect of TMDLs on them. 152 Meeting 2 Observation tracking 4 Agenda Item IV. ! What would you like to add to what we came up with at our first meeting? Do you have different or additional visions and goals for the f uture? !Summary, 8 people spoke, 24 different comments, mos tly positive though some neutral and negative tones were present. Agenda Item V. Thinking about the future, how could the watershed planning process create a useful and effective plan for watershed residents for improvin g water quality? !Summary, 7 people spoke, 11 different responses. ! 4During this meeting, though conversation diverged f rom the questions often, the recorder writing the discussion notes down tried to capture the discussion as best as possible, sometimes switching from question to question to record respo nses. The recorder capturing the information below was not always able to follow the quick chang es between questions and recorded the discussion as best possible. Disagreements in thi s meeting were not recorded. Though there may have been some, the researcher does not recall this to be a majority. The notes here reflect that two people did not part icipate in the meeting discussions. I recall these two people to be me facilitating the meeting, and the recorder taking these notes. Thus, the invited stakeholders likely all contributed to the meeting. 153 What characteristics would an ideal landscape and f arm have in the Red Cedar River Watershed to optimize water quality and agricultural producer success? Question not asked due to time constraints. !In the ideal world, what resources would you have a vailable to you to optimize water quality, working relationships, and agricultural producer su ccess? !Question not asked due to time constraints. ! Agenda Item VI. What can we do to best utilize our existing strengt hs and make the BMP programs easier for producers to learn about, access, and adopt? Summary, 6 people spoke, 11 different comments, mos tly positive tone. How can we ensure our BMPs remain in use or not rem oved through the end of their useful life? Summary, 7 people spoke, 14 different comments, mos tly positive tone. What is the smallest step or a new approach we coul d take together as a new group to have the largest impact? Summary, five people spoke, 16 different responses, mostly positive tone. 154 Agenda Item VII. Are you willing to continue working with us as a pa rt of the Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan Agriculture Subcommittee? Asked question, but didnÕt receive or record respon ses during meeting. 155 REFERENCES 156 Baldwin, C., & Ross, H. (2012). Bridging troubled waters: Applying consensus- building techniques to water planning. Society & Natural Resources , 25(3), 217Ð234. Bentrup, G. (2001). Evaluation of a collaborative m odel: A case study analysis of watershed planning in the intermountain west. Environmental Management , 27(5), 739Ð 748. Bidwell, R. D., & Ryan, C. M. (2006). Collaborative partnership design: The implications of organizational affiliation for wate rshed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources , 19(9), 827Ð843. Bonnell, J. E., & Koontz, T. M. (2007). Stumbling f orward: The organizational challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Society & Natural Resources, 20 (2), 153-167. Borisova, T., Racevskis, L., & Kipp, J. (2012). Sta keholder analysis of a collaborative watershed management process: A Florida case study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association , 48(2), 277Ð296. Bosch, D., Pease, J., Wolfe, M. L., Zobel, C., Osor io, J., Cobb, T. D., Evanylo, G. (2012). Community DECISIONS: Stakeholder focused watershed planning, Journal of Environmental Managemen t, 112 (15), 226-232. Campbell, J. T., Koontz, T. M., & Bonnell, J. E. (2 011). Does collaboration promote grass-roots behavior change? Farmer adoption of bes t management practices in two watersheds. Society and Natural Resources , 24(11), 1127Ð1141. Cheng, A. S., & Daniels, S. E. (2005). Getting to Ò WeÓ: examining the relationship between geographic scale and in group emergence in collaborative watershed planning. Human Ecology Review , 12(1), 30Ð43. Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change . San Francisco, CA, US: Berrett-Koehler Publishers , San Francisco, CA. Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. ( 2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change (2nd ed.). Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing , Inc. Flitcroft, R. L., Dedrick, D. C., Smith, C. L., Thi eman, C. A., & Bolte, J. P. (2009). Social infrastructure to integrate science and prac tice: The experience of the Long Tom Watershed Council. Ecology and Society, 14 (2), 36. Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art36/ Federal Water Pollution Control Act, ¤ 101, 33 U.S. C. ¤ 1251 (2002). 157 Flitcroft, R., Dedrick, D. C., Smith, C. L., Thiema n, C. A., & Bolte, J. P. (2010). Trust: The critical element for successful watershed manag ement. Ecology and Society, 15 (3), r3. Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.or g/vol15/iss3/resp3/ Floress, K., Prokopy, L. S., & Ayres, J. (2011). Wh oÕs in charge: Role clarity in a Midwestern watershed group. Environmental Management , 48(4), 825Ð34. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Particip atory Planning Processes . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods . London: Continuum. Habron, G. B. (2004). Adoption of conservation prac tices by agricultural landowners in three Oregon watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation , 59(3), 109Ð115. Hajkowicz, S & Collins, K. (2007). A review of mu ltiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resources Management , 21(9), 1553-1566. Hammond, S. A. (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry ( 2nd Ed.). Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing Company. Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a g overnance strategy. lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37 (3), 281-320. Kline-Robach, Ruth. (January 2012). Appendix A: R ed Cedar River Watershed planning project #2011-0014 project description. Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we k now and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative managem ent? Public Administration Review , 66(S1), 111-121. Koehler, B., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Citizen partic ipation in collaborative watershed partnerships. Environmental Management , 41(2), 143Ð154. Lamba, P., Filson, G., & Adekunle, B. (2009). Facto rs affecting the adoption of best management practices in southern Ontario. Environmentalist , 29(1), 64Ð77. Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W., & Sabatier, P. A. (200 2). Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria app lied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 21(4), 645Ð 670. Leach, W. D. (2006). Collaborative public managemen t and democracy: Evidence from Western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review , 66(S.1), 100-110. 158 Leahy, J. & Anderson, D. (2010). Cooperation gets it done: social capital in natural resources management along the Kaskaskia River. Society and Natural Resources , 23(3), 224-239. Lubell, M., Sabatier, P.A. ,Vedlitz, A., Focht, W., Trachtenberg, Z., & Matlock, M. (2005). Conclusions and Recommendations. In P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management (pp. 261-296). Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press. Lubell, M., & Fulton, A. (2008). Local policy netwo rks and agricultural watershed management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theor y, 18(4), 673Ð696. Mandarano, L., & Paulsen, K. (2011). Governance cap acity in collaborative watershed partnerships: Evidence from the Philadelphia region . Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54 (10), 1293-1313. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division (2013). Draft Total Maximum Daily Load for dissolved oxygen in the Grand River, Red Cedar River, and tributaries: Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties by K. Carpenter. Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environm ental Quality. Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-swas-tmdl -draft- grandredcedar_424646_7.pdf Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division. (2012, March). Water quality and pollution control in Michigan 201 2 Sections 303(d), 305(d), and 314 Integrated Report. (MI/DEQ/WRD-12/001). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division. (2012, July). Total Maximum Daily Load for E. coli in portions of the Red Cedar River and Grand River Watersheds; including Sycamore, Sullivan, Squ aw, and Doan Creeks: Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties by M. Rippke . Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-swas-tmdl -draft-redcedar- grand_391057_7.pdf McGinnis, M. V., Woolley, J., & Gamman, J. (1999). FORUM: Bioregional Conflict Resolution: Rebuilding community in watershed plann ing and organizing. Environmental Management , 24(1), 0001Ð0012. Napier, T. L., & Tucker, M. (2001). Use of soil and water protection practices among farmers in three Midwest watersheds. Environmental Management , 27(2), 269Ð279. Ostrom, Elinor. (2007). Institutional rational cho ice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Sabatier, P .A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process , (p. 21-64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 159 Rosenberg, S., and R. D. Margerum. (2008). Landown er Motivations for Watershed Restoration: Lessons from Five Watersheds. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51.4, 477-96. Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg , Z., Vedlitz, A., & Matlock, M. (2005). Collaborative approaches to watershed mana gement. In P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press. Said, A., Sehlke, G., Stevens, D. K., Glover, T., S orensen, D., Walker, W., & Hardy, T. (2006). Exploring an innovative watershed manageme nt approach: From feasibility to sustainability. Energy (Oxford) , 31(13), 2373Ð2386. Smolko, B. A., Huberd, R. R., & Tam-Davis, N. (2002 ). Creating meaningful stakeholder involvement in watershed planning in Pierce County, Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association , 38(4), 981Ð994. Smutko, L. S., Klimek, S. H., Perrin, C. A., & Dani elson, L. E. (2002). Involving watershed stakeholders: An issue attribute approach to determine willingness and need. Journal of the American Water Resources Association , 38(4), 995Ð1006. Spellecacy, R. (2009). RESEARCH ARTICLE: Water reso urce planning for the agricultural community in Washington State. Environmental Practice , 11(2), 95Ð104. Tetra Tech, Inc. (2000). Getting in step: Involving and engaging stakeholder s in your watershed (EPA 68-C-99-249). Terrene Institute. Tetra Tech (2006). The GLRC on Phase II nonpoint s ource pollution prevention: Red Cedar River watershed management plan. Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (2010). How preferences for public participation are linked to perceptions of the context, preferences for outcome s, and individual characteristics. Environmental Management , 46(2), 254Ð267. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (200 8). Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore and protect o ur waters (EPA 841-B-08-002). Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Washington D. C. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (200 9a, January) National water quality inventory: Report to congress 2004 reporting cycle (EPA 841-R-08-001). Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washin gton, D.C. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009 b, March 12). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System . Retrieved from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ 160 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (20 12a, March 6) What is a Watershed? Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds /whatis.cfm United States. Environmental Protection Agency. ( 2012b, August 27) What is Nonpoint Source Pollution? Retrieved from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps /whatis.cfm Wagner, C., Fernandez- Gimenez, M. (2009). Effect s of community-based collaborative group characteristics on social capital. Environmental Management, 44(4), 632-645. Webler, T. & Tuler, S. (1999). Integrating technica l analysis with deliberation in regional watershed management planning: Applying the Nationa l Research Council approach. Policy Studies Journal , 27(3), 530Ð543. Webler, T. & Tuler, S. (2001). Public participati on in watershed management planning: Views on process from people in the field. Human E cology Review, 8(2), 29-39. Webler, T. & Tuler, S. (2002). Unlocking the puzz le of public participation. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society , 22(3), 179-189. Welch, E. W., & Marc-Aurele, F. J. (2001). Determin ants of Farmer Behavior: Adoption of and Compliance with Best Management Practices fo r Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed. Lake and Reservoir Management , 17(3), 233Ð245. Wondolleck, J.M. & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons in innovation in natural resource management. Washington DC, Island.