Journal of the NACAA
ISSN 2158-9429
Volume 4, Issue 2 - November, 2011

Cows and Creeks Workshops Lead to Natural Resource Improvements Through Collaborative Extension Programming in Eastern Oregon

Introduction

The Oregon Legislature in 1993 charged the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) with enforcement responsibilities of nonpoint source pollution originating from agricultural sources. This legislation caused an evolution of agricultural water quality planning and enforcement that as of 2009 is in full force and effect.  This water quality legislation required all watersheds within the State of Oregon to write their own Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans and accompanying Rules (Oregon.gov, 2011).  These water quality regulations and rules have sparked interest among resource mangers as they relate to livestock production among producers, government and non-profit funding agencies and public land agencies.  As a result, Oregon State University Extension Service (OSUES) worked collaboratively with Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) to provide educational workshops entitled “Cows and Creeks” (CC) over a seven year period to improve collaboration among stakeholders (governmental agencies, non-profits and landowners) and reinforce science-based decision making to improve management and regulatory oversight of natural resources, and water quality.   

Thirteen workshops were held at six different locations in Central and Eastern Oregon.  Experts with backgrounds in University Extension and research, public land management, and private consulting were asked to share knowledge on various topics such as livestock grazing strategies, water quality regulation and monitoring, fish habitat, riparian function, confined animal feeding operations, cost share programs and livestock performance.  Local county government, OSUES, private business, SWCD and State and Federal agencies provided funding for these workshops.  During the 7 years, a total of 540 people participated in the workshops, many attending all or more than one. Evaluation of economic, social, and environmental impacts of Extension programs is important in understanding if program content is meeting clientele needs and addressing concerns. 

Materials and Methods

Research approval from Oregon State University Internal Review Board (IRB) for human subjects was attained prior to survey distribution.  The survey focused on five evaluation areas: description of the audience, demographics, economic impacts, social impacts, and environmental impacts.

Questions in the audience section were designed to identify the affiliation of the participant, motivation for attending CC, and specific programs attended by the participant.  All questions in this section were multiple choices allowing the respondent to “mark all that apply”.

Demographics evaluated if the respondent owned or managed property on a stream, river or creek.  If so, respondents were asked questions about the land use, miles of stream, river, or creek owned/managed, and if the waterways had anadromous or listed fish populations, and the 303(d) status (water quality concern).  All questions were multiple choice.  The land use questions were “mark all that apply” multiple choice.

Economic impact section asked if the respondent utilized cost-share programs, value of grant and personal cash and/or in-kind projects in which cost-share was utilized, and agency from which technical and/or financial assistance was used.  The section also asked if the projects resulted in a return on investment.  All questions were multiple choice.

In the social impact section, respondents were asked if relationships with land owners/managers, public agencies, and non-profit organization had improved, worsened or not changed.  Respondents were also asked how CC influenced their opinion of livestock and wildlife grazing, recreation, and farming/haying in riparian areas.  A list of 15 organizations was listed and respondents were asked to rank the top three organizations in which they would seek assistance in dealing with riparian management, water quality and other natural resource issues. Further questions asked multiple choice questions about the program timing, location, and pricing and if they would attend future sessions.

Environmental impact was evaluated by asking if the respondent adopted particular management techniques or natural resource improvements.  This section was a multiple choice question which allowed respondents to mark all that apply.

The survey was mailed to 151 past participants as documented by program signup sheets.  Self addressed, postmarked envelopes were provided for surveys to be returned.  Summary statistics were used to analyze the data.

Results and Discussion

Surveys were returned at a 33% return rate (50 surveys).  Of those responding, many participants attended more than one program over the seven years (2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009), totaling 76 participants in multiple programs.

Description of Audience

The respondents (n=50) include livestock owners/managers (44%) and land owners/managers (40%), Agency personnel from Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (30%) as well as nonprofit organizations such as Watershed Council, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Weed Advisory Boards (20%), and Other (20%).  The reason that percentages sum up to be greater than 100 % is some individuals described themselves with more than one affiliation, most commonly, livestock owner/manager was marked in conjunction with landowner/manager.

Of the 50 respondents, 28 (56%) managed or owned property along a stream, river or creek, representing up to one mile of water-frontage 8 (18%), 15 (30%) of respondents managed 1-10 miles of water frontage and 4 (8%) of the respondents managed water frontage greater than 10 miles.  Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the respondents owned or managed waterways that were listed as 303(d) water quality limited and 56% of the respondents owned/managed waterways that had listed and/or anadromous fish populations. 

Property owner or managers indicated that the primary use for the land was mostly livestock grazing (60%), followed by farming/haying (12%) and timber (8%).  Secondary use for the property included farming/haying (30%), livestock grazing (20%), timber (16%), and recreation (14%).  Some respondents indicated more than one primary and/or secondary use.

Economic Impact

A total of 21 (42%) respondents indicated that as a result of Cows and Creeks, they had utilized cost-share programs with the financial and/or technical aid from various agencies.  Sixty seven percent of these individuals indicated NRCS as a source of funding, followed by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) (52%), SWCD (43%), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODDFW) (33%), and Watershed Council (19%).  Although OSUES does not provide funding, (38%) of these respondents indicated they received technical aid from OSUES. 

Grant funding from all funding sources was estimated to be at least $420,000.  Landowners reported they contributed additional cash and/or in-kind investments similar to that obtained through grants.  Additional in-kind contributions were made by technical assistance providers including SWCD’s, OSUES and NRCS.  These estimates likely underestimate the value of both grant funds and in-kind/personal cash.  The survey required marking one of five categories (< $5,000; $5,000-$10,000; $10,000-$20,000; $20,000-$50,000; >$50,000).  The value of the grant and personal contribution was estimated by totaling the least value indicted, for example, if one marked $10,000-$20,000, the researchers valued the contribution at $10,000.  A total of nine respondents indicated grant or personal contribution was greater than $50,000, with the researchers only accounting for $50,000 for each of these respondents.

Seventy percent (70%) of the respondents that received funding believed the projects they completed resulted in a return on investment as indicated by improved livestock performance, recreational opportunities, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, water quality standards and/or farm/hay production.  Additionally, three individuals thought there was no return on investment even though they indicated livestock performance was improved.  Likewise, three other grant recipients were not sure if there was a return on investment.

Social Impact

As a result of Cows and Creeks, relationships between landowners, agencies and non-profit organizations were built and strengthened.  Respondents (affiliation not a variable) indicated that relations improved with government agencies (49%), landowners/livestock owners (45%), and non-profit organizations (38%).  Respondents also indicated a seven percent increase in willingness to partner and/or cooperate with other agencies, organizations, and/or landowners to deal with natural resource concerns. 

Respondents have many resources available to them for assistance with riparian management, water quality and natural resource issues.  Of 15 different organizations, respondents were asked to rank their top three organizations, Table 1 shows the responses for the top two reported.  If ranking was not considered, OSUES, SWCD, NRCS, and Watershed Councils were most likely to be utilized for information.  If the participants ranked their choices, OSUES was most likely to be asked for information first.  Likewise, the top four organizations as listed above remained ranked as one of the first three choices for information.   These results indicate the CC workshops were successful at identifying important resources for stakeholder education, technical and financial support from local, state and federal organizations.

As a result of CC, 72% of survey respondents said they formed an opinion that livestock grazing can occur in riparian areas without environmental damage, 6% disagreed, 12% did not comment and 10% were neutral (Table 2).  Most respondents believed farming/haying could also be accomplished without environmental damage (66%).  Fewer respondents believed that recreation (48%) and wildlife grazing (54%) could occur without environmental damage although workshop topics did not address these areas.

Environmental Impact

A total of 24 respondents (48%) reported they implemented at least one restoration project or changed management to improve riparian function (Table 3).  Livestock grazing management was changed by creating riparian pastures (6%) and fencing riparian areas (18%).  Implementation of rotational grazing was implemented by 26% of the respondents.  Respondents also reported constructing hardened crossings/water gaps (14%) and off-site watering structures (22%).  Bio-engineered projects included in-stream structures (jetties, water weirs, drop-step structures, etc.) (14%), stream bank stabilization structures (16%) and riparian plantings (14%).  Eight percent (8%) reported they began to use fish screens.

Cows and Creeks was successful at influencing management changes within riparian zones.  Improvements observed (frequency) by the respondents included cow/calf performance (24%), riparian vegetation (42%), fish habitat (20%), bank stabilization (36%), and stream flow (18%).  Although only 20% of the respondents indicated improvement in water quality, we speculate water quality has likely improved on all of the operations that reported improved stream flow, riparian vegetation and more stabile banks.

 

Table  1.  Survey Question:  If you need assistance in dealing with riparian management, water quality and other natural resource issues, you would contact the following organizations: (Please rank only the top 3 organizations.  1= will contact first, 2= will contact second).

Organization	Listed as one of three sources of information. (n=121)
		Ranked as 1st Choice. (n=121)	Ranked as 2nd Choice. (n=121)
OSUES	21 %	29%	26%
SWCD	20%	23%	13%
NRCS	18%	19%	19%
Watershed Council	10%	10%	16%
Livestock Owner/Manager	6%	6%	0%
Land Owner/Manager	5%	3%	6%
ODFW	5%	3%	3%
Forrest Service	2%	6%	3%
ODA	2%	0%	10%
Oregon Div. of State Lands	2%	0%	0%
Oregon Native Desert Assoc.	1%	0%	3%
BLM	0%	0%	0%
Sierra Club	0%	0%	0%
Nature Conservancy	0%	0%	0%
Other	1%	0%	0%
No Answer	7%

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Table  2.  Survey Question:  As a result of OSU Cows and Creeks, I have formed an opinion that livestock grazing, wildlife grazing, recreation and farming/haying in riparian areas can be accomplished without environmental damage. (n=50)

Activity	Strongly Agree (%)	Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree (%)	Strongly Disagree (%)	No Answer (%)
Livestock Grazing	34	38	10	6	0	12
Wildlife Grazing	20	34	18	14	0	14
Recreation	6	42	28	4	4	16
Farming/Haying	18	48	14	4	2	14

 

Table  3.  Survey Question: As a result of attending OSU Cows and Creeks I have implemented the following:

	Frequency	(n=50)
Fenced Riparian Areas	9	18%
Changed Season of Use	7	14%
Riparian Pastures	3	6%
Rotational Grazing	13	26%
Off-Site Watering	11	22%
Water Gap/Hardened Crossing	7	14%
Cost-Share Project for Rehabilitation of Riparian Area	6	12%
Routinely Monitor Vegetation and Water Quality	8	16%
In-Stream Structures	7	14%
Bank Stabilization	8	16%
Riparian Plantings	7	14%
Fish Screens	4	8%
Other	3	6%
No Answer	26	52%

 

Conclusion

The Cows and Creeks Program was successful at improving relationships among governmental agencies, landowners/livestock owners, and non-profit organizations.  This program secured funding of more than $1,000,000 of grant and personal and other contributions to make improvements or management changes to improve riparian function and water quality.  Collectively, these funds and  relationships changes resulted in new management strategies that improved both livestock production and natural resources and are likely contributing to improved water quality.  If more Cows and Creeks workshops were held in Oregon, 64% of the respondents would return, with 34% being unsure, indicating that they would consider attending future workshops depending on the content.