-o /
      Lessons and Ideas for Communicating
       in the Great Lakes' Areas of Concern
                 Noah Eiger
                Peter McAvoy
            The Center for the Great Lakes
                  for the
Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

            "...priority must be given to environmental education.

          In a democracy, discussion and consensus precedes action.

     We need a new advocacy that seeks to inform, to explain, to compare

risks, and explore costs. A more environmentally and scientifically literate

           public will be better able to ensure government gets

                    its priorities right on the big issues."

                      William K.  Reilly
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

             Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great
        Lakes National Program Office.
             The Center for the Great Lakes would like to extend its appreciation to those who participated
        in the research interviews and the meeting held in Chicago in February 1992. The Center would
        also thank those who took the time to review and comment on drafts of this report. The input of the
        reviewers and participants was essential to accurately capturing RAP public participation.
               A special thanks goes to Glenda Daniel, Lake Michigan Federation; Phil Dunne, Minkus &
        Dunne; Tim Brown, Clean Sites; Vicky Harris, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; and
        Ken Sherman, Friends of the Buffalo River.
               Finally, The Center would like to thank all those in the Great Lakes basin who help in
        "empowering the public" to create a better Great Lakes.

Quotation                                                                              i
Acknowledgements                                                                      ii
Table of Contents                                                                       iii

INTRODUCTION                                                                         1
  Summary of Findings                                                                  2
  Project Objectives                                                                     3
  Project Assumptions                                                                   3
  Research Methodology                                                                 4

  Defining the Public                                                                    5
  Elements for Success                                                                  7
  O Organizing                                                                         7
          Sidebar: Who's In Charge?
  @ Develop a plan                                                                      8
          Sidebar: Planning In Green Bay
          Sidebar: Interactive Programs Help Targeted Groups Connect
          Sidebar: Target Low-Income People
  © Media and communications strategy                                                  11
          Sidebar: How To Get On Television
  O Involve elected officials                                                             12
          Sidebar: A Regional Approach to Involving Elected Officials
  © Develop a funding plan for public outreach and participation                             13
          Sidebar: Okay, But How Do We Pay for This Long-term Investment?
          Sidebar: Carving Up the PIE
  © Feedback and monitoring                                                           15
          Sidebar: Suveys by Professionals
  Buffalo River, New York                                                              18
  Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Virginian & Pennsylvania                                    20
  Cuyahoga River, Ohio                                                                 22
  Green Bay/Lower Fox River, Wisconsin                                                  24
  Puget Sound, Washington                                                             26
  St. Clair River, Ontario & Michigan                                                     28

  The environmental quality of the Great Lakes
basin has significantly improved in the past two
decades. However, challenges remain, especially
in the 43 heavily polluted Areas of Concern (AOCs).
The region has responded to this challenge with
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs)—comprehensive
plans designed to restore the AOCs. Full recovery
of the AOCs in terms of human and ecological
health is a long-term proposition, but one impor-
tant to the region's future health, economic viabil-
ity, and quality of life. The success of the RAPs is
indispensable to efforts to market and promote
Great Lakes RAP communities as desirable places
to live, work, and raise a family. With nonpoint
source pollution such a significant challenge in
many AOCs, the RAPs cannot be completed with
traditional  regulatory approaches alone. Their
future and success depends on the public's willing-
ness to support them.

  Successful implementation of the RAPs  will
require both fundamental changes in the way the
people of the Great Lakes basin lead their lives and
a commitment of the region's dollars and resources
for years to come.  It  will require resources to
remove contaminated sediments and control point
sources with enforcement and pollution preven-
tion. Success will also require lifestyle changes to
control and prevent nonpoint sources of pollution.
This change and this long-term commitment can-
not be imposed on the people of the Great Lakes—
they will have to accept and actively support it.
Similarly, they will have to realize that the future
of their region depends on the success of the RAPs
and develop a sense of ownership  of both their
river, bay, sound, or lake and the RAP process.

  Getting the general public to "buy into" their
RAP and their AOC requires a  well-structured
program of public outreach and participation which
gives people authority and responsibility for their
local environment and generates wide-scale sup-
port. Programs will have to persuade the general
public to actually participate in the implementa-
tion of non-point source control and prevention by
changing their behavior. Generating such support
and sustaining it over a long period of time will
require a concerted effort  with  persuasive and
targeted messages that will reach large segments
of the population, moving them to actively support
the restoration of their AOC.

Summary of Findings
In the past, public participation efforts in the
AOCs have focused primarily on forming citizen
committees to comment on agency-produced RAP
documents. Public outreach efforts most often have
focused on holding hearings and meetings and
making draft documents more available. Efforts
such as these generally appeal to certain segments
of the community and not the general public. Some
RAPs, however, have made efforts to involve the
general public in hands-on activities such as river
cleanups, tours, regattas, or adopt-a-stream pro-
grams with local schools. These types of activities
need to be expanded and become the focus of RAP
outreach and participation efforts.

  The Center's research has found several "ele-
ments for  success"  that have worked well in four
case study AOCs and two areas outside of the
Great Lakes basin: the Chesapeake Bay and Puget
Sound. They include:

Organizing from the bottom up. Generally,
public outreach and participation have been devel-
oped and sustained from within the local commu-
nity, with organization and leadership also coming
at the local level. Such an effort needs a leader or
organizer whose primary responsibility is public
outreach and participation, including forming a
citizens committee representing a wide diversity
of community viewpoints. Give the committee re-
sponsibility for outreach and participation tasks
and the authority to complete  them. Use local
resources  and network with other organizations
working on similar projects. Finally, organizing
never stops. A continual effort is needed to sustain
present involvement levels, keep the "Converted
in the fold,"  and  maintain  the interest of the
citizens committee.

Developing a plan. Develop an inclusive plan
with clearly stated goals  and specific objectives.
Using short time horizons, the workplan should
describe the activities, assign responsibility for
those tasks, and identify sources of funding. The
plan should target "communities," such as labor,
children, or low-income families, within the gen-
eral public and tailor the message to that specific
audience.  Outreach activities, covering the RAP
process, the AOC's problems, and how individual
behavior affects the AOC should fit with participa-
tion activities, such as meetings, hearings, and
important hands-on events such as cleanup days,
citizen monitoring, and boat tours.

Getting the word out. Develop and implement a
media strategy that proactively seeks out mem-
bers of the media. Convince the media that the
RAP is important to the community. Position RAP
issues in reporters minds', inform them about the
RAP and  the AOC, and excite them about the
efforts to implement the RAP.

Putting the RAP on elected officials' agendas.
The support of elected officials, especially local
ones,  are  essential to the success of the  RAP.
However, they are deluged by important issues.
Target specific officials and use proactive tech-
niques to get the  RAP on their list of important
programs in their community.

Paying for these efforts. Outreach and partici-
pation efforts need not be expensive but they will
require some financial commitment. Develop and
implement a funding strategy that identifies costs
and potential sources of money and in-kind dona-
tions.  Go beyond complete reliance on state fund-
ing. Consider forming an independent non-profit
corporation to  leverage additional resources and
provide  greater flexibility in organizing  public
outreach and participation activities.

Monitoring feedback. Develop a feedback mecha-
nism  for monitoring success.  Use  professional-
quality public opinion surveys to check the public's
feelings. Focus groups can help direct the survey.
Debriefing after  a public  outreach activity can
improve subsequent activities.

Supporting Local Leaders and Initiatives.
Local  leadership  and citizen volunteers from the
RAP community are crucial to the overall success
of public outreach efforts and expanding public
"ownership" of AOC's restoration—but they can-
not do it alone. Government assistance at all levels
is a vital ingredient to making RAP implementa-
tion a reality. In particular, state  and federal
governments must be active  supporters.  They
should provide professional and financial assis-
tance  to these efforts and help facilitate networks
for local RAP participants to share information.

                                                                          Part One
 Part One
Project objectives
  Recognizing that most RAPs were advancing to
the key stage of implementing cleanups in the
AOCs and that  public support was essential to
maintaining momentum for these efforts, the Great
Lakes National  Program Office (GLNPO) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
supported this project to identify:

  ®  Successful  techniques for generating and
    sustaining a sense of ownership in and long-
    term public support for local RAP efforts.
  © The next steps to complement the current
    public outreach and participation efforts of
    local and state RAP coordinators.

Project assumptions
  Throughout the project, The Center staff oper-
ated under two assumptions about the RAPs and
public involvement in general.

Success requires sustained public support,
sound science, and effective management.
Successfully achieving the RAP's objectives—which
may take as long as 25 years—will require coordi-
nation of all three.

  Implementation will require changes in the way
people lead their everyday lives to prevent further
degradation of the AOC. Decisions about what
products consumers purchase, how they tend their
lawns, how they get to work, and the extent of their
involvement in governmental decision-making
processes, for example, may all have to change if
environmental quality in their respective AOC is
to improve. The diffuse nature of nonpoint source
pollution, a major pollutant source in many AOCs,
makes changes in behavior the only way much of
it will be prevented.

  Further, the cost of implementing the RAPs is
likely to extend well beyond its final stages. As the
burden of paying for improvements falls increas-
ingly on local communities, many locales have
used or will use long-term bonds to finance parts of
the cleanup. The general public will have to be
convinced that such a long-term  commitment de-
serves their support.

  However, public  outreach  and participation
alone will not complete a RAP. Sound program-
ming and solid science play essential roles as well.
To be successful, a RAP may need to call on a wide
variety of scientific disciplines to address issues
ranging from sediment  remediation  to habitat
restoration. At its base, a RAP needs good science
to help define problems, to plan and implement
remediation, and to assess the plan's effectiveness.

  Good management  of human, scientific, and
financial resources is needed to keep the program
on track. When resources are constrained or have
competing demands made on them, careful man-
agement takes on added importance.

Long-term support  comes with a sense  of
ownership. The general public is much more
likely to support RAPs if they feel that they have
a personal stake in the resource or that improving
it will benefit them or their children. Realizing
how individual actions affect local resources and
committing current and future dollars to correct-
ing often unseen environmental problems are dif-
ficult steps for most people. In fact, such support
will not come without a sense of public ownership
in both the AOC and the RAP process. Ownership,
in turn, will come only if the public is in some way
responsible for and benefits from the resource.

Research methodology
  For this report, Center researchers developed
case studies of four AOCs, selected largely for their
geographic diversity, and two out-of-basin sites.
Since the project was funded by the U.S. federal
government, all of  the AOCs are in the U.S.,
however, one is a binational effort.  The  RAPs
examined were: the Green Bay/Lower Fox River,
Wisconsin (Green Bay); the St. Clair  River, On-
tario and Michigan (St. Clair); the Cuyahoga River,
Ohio; and the Buffalo River, New York.  In addi-
tion, two areas with geographically focused water
quality problems outside the basin were assessed:
Puget Sound in Washington State and the Chesa-
peake Bay, where Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia are participating in cleanup efforts.

  To develop these case studies and formulate
initial findings  Center researchers interviewed
people involved in RAP development and imple-
mentation; reviewed existing activities in the se-
lected areas; met with consultants, activists, and
government officials; and reviewed current litera-
ture on pubic outreach and participation. Summa-
ries of the case studies for each area can be found
in Part Three.

                                                                              Part Two
Part Two
Defining the Public
  One of the important findings in this project was
that it is necessary to distinguish terms such as
"the public," "outreach," and "participation." The
distinctions below are offered to clarify the term's
usage in this report but are also useful in deter-
mining where or how a particular project or effort
might be designed and applied.

The Public. The public is not a homogeneous
group and cannot be treated as such in developing
and implementing RAPs. For the purposes of RAP
outreach and participation, there are at least three
types of "public." Each is an important part of the
constituency needed for RAP implementation.

Citizen  committee members. The public  most
often directly involved in the RAP are the citizen
committee members. In general, these volunteers
are already motivated about improving the quality
of the  AOC. Members of the committee may have
to be educated about specific environmental prob-
lems but usually have a good sense of what the
RAP is trying to achieve and why. They are typi-
cally well versed in the RAP's jargon and what has
gone into developing the plan. In many instances,
these "public" citizen committee members have
specific tasks related to developing or implement-
ing the plan. In some cases, they are responsible
for writing it entirely. These people may be repre-
sentatives of particular groups, such as the Sierra
Club, the local sewage treatment district, or the
local chamber of commerce. However, a member's
affiliation does not guarantee that group's support
or the commitment of the individual members.

The "Converted Public." A relatively small part
of the public will automatically support, or at least
show interest in, the RAP. These people are likely
to participate in various stages of the RAP process
or implementation. They may be committed envi-
ronmentalists or have a business potentially im-
pacted by the RAP. In general, they will be more
aware of the RAP process and the problems in the
AOC and how their actions affect the environ-
ment. They will attend hearings and meetings and
may offer public comment on draft RAP docu-
ments.  This group is relatively small and often
quickly become, as one RAP coordinator put it, "the
same old faces" at RAP events or activities.

  They are identified as the Converted public
because, as one person involved in public outreach
explained, telling them about the problems and
the need for change is "like preaching to  the

The general public. The general public includes
the remainder of the community. The Center's
interviews with people close to the RAP process
indicate that the majority of people who live in or
near the AOC do not know about the RAP. None-
theless, they may be aware of particular environ-
mental problems in their community. The general
public is a patchwork of different, overlapping
"communities" of individuals who may be mem-
bers of local government, business and industry,
the media, labor and environmental groups, and
sporting organizations. However, many people do
not fall into one  of these  groups. Further,  the
"general public" with which the RAP must concern
itself also resides and works outside of the AOC—
along tributaries  or within the drainage basin.
This large segment of the public is often over-
looked or underestimated in RAP public outreach
and participation. The general public is deluged by
information about many topics from many sources.
The RAPs message is just another issue with
which to contend. The people who comprise the
general public are unlikely to attend briefings on
the RAP process, to read even simplified summa-
ries of RAP documents, or to actively seek informa-
tion about the RAP. The general public makes up
the majority of the people who must adopt lifestyle
changes and be willing to pay for implementation
over the life of remediation and beyond. Their
support is essential to the success of the RAP.

  Together these three groups make up a hetero-
geneous public with different needs and interests.
The RAP's approach to outreach and participation
will have to  be sensitive to these differences and
flexible enough to respond to them.

Public outreach. If structured correctly, out-
reach,  or education, efforts can inform people
about the RAP, the problems in the AOC, and how
their actions affect  the AOC. But these efforts
must appeal to different people on different levels.
While people in the Converted public may read a
RAP document or summary, or attend a workshop
on RAP issues, the general public is not so moti-
vated. The purpose of outreach needs to be clear,
but the audience should shape how it is under-
taken. Efforts aimed at the citizens committee may
be designed to increase their awareness of a par-
ticular RAP issue or improve their attendance at
RAP meetings. Those directed at the Converted
public will try to keep them "in the fold." Efforts
designed for the general public are more basic:
simply raising awareness of the RAP, how  their
actions affect the AOC, the benefits from restoring
it, and the commitment needed to do so. Outreach
tries to raise people's awareness and increase their
involvement at their level of participation.

   To accomplish this, messages should be tailored
to particular communities within the general pub-
lic. Reaching the target audience, whether it be
local business leaders, school children, or low-
income people, may require a unique approach.

Public participation. Participation is the hook
that can solidify public support for the RAP. Tra-
ditionally, those involved in outreach and partici-
pation  have  interpreted "participation" to mean
involvement in the planning or decision-making
process. This includes using meetings or hearings
to inform people about a problem and get  their
comments on how to define  and solve it. Often a
citizen advisory committee  is formed for more
input. These traditional steps are still essential to
the RAP's success. However, process-type partici-
pation, for example, a review of Stage I documents,
has limited  appeal to the  general public. The
expanded definition of "participation" used in this
report encompasses general public involvement in
activities to improve the AOC or complete the RAP.
In pushing people to change their everyday prac-
tices, planners are asking them to participate in
implementing the RAP.  Getting a broader seg-
ment of the public to participate requires innova-
tion. For example, a litter cleanup or monitoring
campaign or regatta is more likely to appeal to the
general public. These more active, less process-
oriented events can help people begin to develop
closeness and attachment to a resource that often
extends beyond the limits of the AOC. Once people
develop this sense of attachment—of ownership—
they will be more receptive to calls for changes in
lifestyle or to commit their hard-earned dollars
needed for the RAP's long-term success.

Elements for Success
  State and federal agencies and citizen commit-
tees are, in general, giving increased priority to
efforts to involve and educate the public. However,
the public outreach and participation efforts in
many AOCs are primarily focused on the Con-
verted public. These efforts are directed at ensur-
ing public input to the RAP development process.
Agencies and  citizen committees  place a lower
priority on targeting messages and events at large
segments of the general public. If RAPs are to truly
result in long-term public support in the form of
lifestyle changes and financial commitment, then
current efforts at outreach and participation need
to expand and enlarge to be more inclusive of the
general public. Both elements—ensuring public
input to the process and informing and motivating
the general public—are needed for full RAP imple-

  The elements for success include:

  CD Organize from the bottom up
  ® Develop an inclusive plan with goals, objec-
     tives, and a workplan
  <3> Develop and implement a media strategy
  ® Involve elected officials
  ® Develop and implement a funding strategy
  ® Develop a feedback mechanism for monitor-
     ing success
Descriptions of the factors involved in implement-
ing each of the above elements are summarized

O Organize
Work from the bottom up. RAPs are inherently
local: point and nonpoint problems  have  local
sources, implementing the plan will rely heavily
on local financing, the health and economic im-
pacts of the problems will fall on local residents,
and behavior changes will have to come from the
local people. Organizing must be local as well.

  Organizing from within a community will foster
the  sense of ownership essential to RAPs and will
facilitate the development  of programs to reflect
the  local community. Use local citizens to develop
and implement the public involvement plan. A
program lacking local organization may not be
able to adjust to local characteristics or may cause
local resentment as some earlier federally spon-
sored river basin planning efforts did in the 1970s.

Identify a leader. Just as the RAP requires that
someone be in charge of the overall effort, a clear
delegation of responsibilities and leadership is
needed for the public outreach and participation
program. A person who is experienced at working
with people of diverse backgrounds and has a good
understanding of and feel for local conditions and
concerns is of special importance,  [see sidebar,
page 8] In some instances, communities have sepa-
rated functions, assigning one person with
grassroots skills to work with local people, while
another person manages the organizational  as-
pects of the effort.

Keep organizing.  Once a public outreach and
participation plan is launched, the organizer needs
to prod  it along and to constantly improve and
expand  the efforts. A continual  effort must be
made to keep the members of the citizen committee
active and to keep the Converted active. Newslet-
ters, while only marginally effective at attracting
new people to the RAP, can keep people interested.
Special tours of the AOC or, for example, of the
local wastewater treatment plant may also help
keep people interested.

Tailor the effort and message to the commu-
nity.  Essential to the success of outreach and
participation efforts is the ability to design the
message to fit the community and targeted groups.
Great Lakes AOCs are found in a wide variety of
communities: rural or urban, industrial or resi-
dential, Canadian or U.S.—cutting across diverse
cultural and ethnic lines. The size and composition
of the community may dictate the organizational
approach. Areas, for example, with high popula-
tions of urban poor may need to establish contacts
with churches, labor organizations, and neighbor-
hood groups. The interests of people living near
the AOC will likely be different from those on the
tributaries which may contribute to problems. The
outreach message will have to define the RAP and
its benefits in terms meaningful to the targeted
groups. It must get their attention. RAP materials,
for example, may have to be translated into other

languages. In larger cities with  more issues, a
greater effort will have to be devoted to getting the
RAP on people's individual agendas. In short, the
effort must conform to the community or the mes-
sage will not get through.

Use the members of the citizen committee.
The citizen committee is often a goldmine of skills,
knowledge, and energy. Their efforts can be chan-
nelled into activities which go beyond merely re-
viewing and commenting on agency- provided docu-
ments  and plans.  The RAP's citizen committee
members can be useful in involving the general
public in the RAP process. Use this core group of
citizens to help develop and implement a public
outreach and participation program that will ap-
peal to both the Converted and the general public.
But it requires going well beyond such traditional
activities as sponsoring public meetings and hear-
ings on RAP process issues.

Network and  cooperate. Share and borrow re-
sources and ideas from existing  plans and  pro-
grams. Work with other AOC programs and local
groups to build a constituency for the RAP. Local
planning  agencies,  schools,  municipal govern-
ments, and nonprofit groups working on environ-
mental or poverty issues may be good candidates
for networking. Local businesses or industry may
also have outreach programs compatible with the
RAP effort.

@ Develop a Plan
A public outreach and participation program needs
a detailed plan of how all the parts of the effort will
fit together, identifying responsibility for who will
carry them out, and how the different activities
and functions will be financed.

Goals  and strategy. The public outreach and
participation committee should  develop clearly
defined goals and a strategy  to guide the overall
effort.  The plan needs specific annual objectives
aimed  toward the ultimate goal of implementing
the RAP and gaining support from the public on
changing lifestyles and financial support for cleanup
and restoration, [see sidebar, page 9]

Use an annual workplan. The committee should
establish realistic objectives  for relatively short
time frames. The plan should be flexible enough so

   A single person responsible for leading the out-
 reach  and participation effort will help keep the
 program on track and avoid problems of ambiguous
 responsibility. Several  AOCs  each had a person
 directly and exclusively responsible for outreach and
 participation. However,  the backgrounds and skills
 of those leaders varied greatly.
   Some leaders are staffers from state or local
 agencies. Others are professional outreach consult-
 ants. Still others are members of the citizens commit-
 tee  or directors of independent non-profits. The
 common element in all the of them is that their
 primary job with the RAP is to run the outreach and
 participation effort.
   Three important characteristics showed through
 in each of these leaders. They can get people together
 and working toward a common goal. They are enthu-
 siastic and can motivate people. And they can orga-
 nize people and resources.
   Not all of the leaders were from the local commu-
 nity. A leader from within the local community will
 be able to draw upon a wealth of experiences and
 contacts. However, there are not always local people
 with time to devote to the RAP and the proper
 combination of other skills available, and the effort
 may need an outside consultant. An outside orga-
 nizer may take longer to become familiar with the
 AOC community and develop important local con-
 tacts.  Regardless, the essential element for any
 leader is familiarity with the local community. Some
 of the most successful outreach efforts relied heavily
 on establishing the link between features of the local
 community, such as river history, and the resource.
   It is important to remember that there is no single
 model for an outreach and participation leader.
 However, that person should have a combination of
 skills  and be the one person whose primary and
 exclusive involvement with the RAP is overseeing
 public outreach and participation.
that it can be updated in response to changing
conditions. Annual workplans should identify spe-
cific activites as well as funding and resources
needed for reaching the objectives.

  The committee's workplan must set target dates,
assign individual  responsibility, and designate
funding for each project. Doing so will add reality
checks to the effort and identify what types and
where resource commitments may be needed. It
also enables the committee to budget its time and

resources, coordinate with other elements of the
RAP, and provide clear benchmarks for perfor-
mance. For example, the committee may want to
link an activity like a boat tour to the release of the
Stage I document or a key milestone of the Stage II
RAP. Carrying the example further, the workplan
can ensure that there is both money and time for
the tour and coordinate  events  with the RAP
writing committee or team and the media contact.

   Various community outreach and participation
efforts indicate that it  is  important to give the
committee writing the plan both the authority to
budget and implement their workplan and the
responsibility for meeting the objectives. Allowing
citizen committees or their outreach and partici-
pation subcommittees to make decisions may ini-
tially be an institutionally difficult move for some
agencies, but they should be willing to delegate
responsibility while still retaining the ultimate
authority of approving the budget. Research shows
that in several instances where the members had
such authority and delegated responsibility, they
tended to be more motivated, active, and involved.
In contrast, committees where the members had
little  power  and few responsibilities  were less
active and motivated. Reformulating the way the
citizen committee is structured and how it controls
its budgeting to give the members more authority
and responsibility may be a way to  stimulate a
flagging committee.

Target the audience. The RAP's message and
the activities in the outreach and participation
workplan need to be tailored to particular audi-
ences'  interests. When reaching out to targeted
groups, programs should meet people on their own
"turf" and use face-to-face, two-way communica-
tion. Providing a means to individual questions
and feedback is also essential. Efforts should at-
tempt to make use of existing organizations within
various communities. For example,  the United
Steelworkers, the Chamber of Commerce, or the
Pentecostal Church all represent "communities"
within the general public. The workplan should
reflect an awareness of the differences between
sustaining the support of the Converted public and
enlisting the  general public. Events or activities
planned for the Converted public will not neces-
sarily be effective with the general public; simi-
larly, activities aimed at the general public may
not satisfy the greater demands of the Converted.
Wherever possible, attempting  to reach larger
segments of the general public should emphasize
participatory events such as river cleanups or boat
tours. Some examples of targeting  include the

     Target children. The most important out-
     reach efforts for the long-term future success
     of the RAPs may well  be those directed at
    The Green Bay RAFs Public Education and Par-
  ticipation (PEP) committee's workplan leads to ac-
  tion while giving the public committee members
  authority and responsibility. Furthermore, the plan
  is an "action agenda" detailing exactly what the
  committee wants to do and how they plan to do it.
    The plan's specific annual programmatic objec-
  tives are guided by an overall goal:
  To promote the goals of the RAP through public
  information and education, and provide opportuni-
  ties for public participation in plan development and
    The PEP committee's 1992 Workplan uses  six
  specific  objectives and strategies to achieve that
  goal. For example, the second objective is::
  Provide  RAP information to basin residents to  in-
  crease public awareness and involvement.
    The plan details specific activities needed  for
  action, groups or persons responsible for the activity,
  target completion dates, current status, and esti-
  mated costs for each objective. For example, one of
  the tasks needed to accomplish the second objective
  is to "Promote media coverage for the RAP." The plan
  then offers details such as:
  - Within one month, the media subcommittee will
  develop a list of story ideas and contact reporters on
  local issues relating to RAP implementation.
  - In August 1992, the subcommittee will sponsor an
  "Environmental Tip of the Week" or "Clean Bay
  Backer  Quiz of the  Week" on a local television
  station.  The subcommittee is also responsible  for
  finding the in-kind services which must be donated
  to make the activity work.
 Contact: Vicky Harris,  Wisconsin Department of
 Natural Resources, 414-492-5904.
 Ken Jaworski, Brown County Planning Commis-
 sion, 414-448-3400.

    children. Completion of some RAPs is esti-
    mated to take up to 25 years, and ensuring
    the AOC's continued health will go on well
    beyond that. A ten-year-old child today may
    well be a 35-year-old taxpayer and homeowner
    when the AOC is delisted. Programs which
    involve children in learning about a wetland,
    monitoring a stream,  cleaning up  a river
    bank, and understanding the environmental
    problems in the AOC and direct their behav-
    ior in an environmentally friendly direction,
    will help instill a sense of ownership at a very
    young age. [see sidebar, this page] Projects
    which excite children often serve as conve-
    nient hooks for involving parents. In design-
    ing activities for children, consider their turf:
    the school, youth groups, the scouts, etc.

    Target developers. Many communities in
    the basin continue to experience polarization
    between  two very  important  constituent
                      groups: land developers and environmental-
                      ists. If this polarization exists, it may be
                      necessary to address it in the RAP context.
                      For example, enlisting the support of devel-
                      opers in redevelopment of riparian  areas
                      formerly devoted to heavy industrial uses as
                      in the Buffalo River can be  an important
                      factor in "selling" the RAPs. It also offers a
                      direct and positive connection between the
                      value of economic development and environ-
                      mental quality. Educating and involving de-
                      velopers and building on this positive connec-
                      tion can also facilitate their education about
                      the importance of pollution prevention prac-
                      tices to reduce erosion and toxic contamina-
                      tion runoff in  some AOCs. [see sidebar, this
                      page] Their turf includes trade associations,
                      urban redevelopment plans, and municipal
                      development organizations.
   Two programs on the Chesapeake
 Bay illustrate effective approaches
 to targeting specific groups within
 the general public. One program
 runs field trips for school children
 and teachers, the other takes busi-
 ness leaders and local government
 officials on interactive bay field trips.
   Since 1972, the Chesapeake Bay
 Foundation, an independent non-
 profit organization, has run educa-
 tional  programs, aimed at 5th to
 12th grade children and school teach-
 ers in three states. This year the
 Foundation expects to take approxi-
 mately 33,000 children out on the
 bay in historic boats or to one of 17
 Foundation educational centers lo-
 cated on  islands in the  bay. The
 curriculum, which includes biologi-
 cal and social science components,
 attempts to establish a personal link
 between the child and the bay. In
 the summer, the Foundation invites
 teachers to five-day campout train-
 ing sessions geared toward improv-
 ing environmental education in the
 classroom and the field. State boards
 of education from Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Maryland, and the District
of Columbia pay various proportions
of the cost for the field trips and
teacher training. Membership fees
and private grants to the Foundation
cover the balance.
  The Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay is a coalition of business and
industry groups, agricultural orga-
nizations, real estate developers, lo-
cal planning officials,  and environ-
mentalists dedicated to providingbay
information  and educational pro-
grams since 1971. Most Alliance pro-
grams are geared toward adults. For
the last four years, one of their most
ambitious programs has taken groups
often to 20 businesspeople, such as
bankers and real estate developers,
and professionals from various state
agencies on two-and-a-half day over-
night trips around the bay.  During
the day the adults learn about wet-
lands, water qualify, shellfish, and
other topics in interactive activities.
At night, the adults stay  at educa-
tional facilities rented from the Foun-
dation and discuss policy and land-
use issues relating to the bay. In
addition to the three trips sched-
uled for this year, the Alliance is
planning a  special overnight for
members of the media. Another
Alliance program brings 50 local
regulators, planners, and conser-
vation district representatives to*
gether in day-long sessions to learn
about a specific bay topic, such as
wetland delineation. The Alliance
has six of these trips planned for
this year.
  No programs on the Lakes com-
pare to these efforts in scale and
longesvity, though smaller local-
ized efforts encompass some ele-
ments of the bay programs. How-
ever, these are the types of pro-
grams that will develop the deep
connection of people to resource. In
the bay, these programs have been
in existence for twenty years.

Contact:Ellen Wollensack
Chesapeak Bay Foundation,
Francis Flanigan
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,

     Target low-income people. InmanyAOCs,
     it is the urban poor who still use the river or
     bay for recreation and subsistence fishing.
     These individuals are largely unaware offish
     consumption advisories and underestimate
     the risks inherent in fish  consumption or
     water contact recreation. Refining the mes-
     sage about environmental problems in the
     AOC and choosing appropriate vehicles to
     convey the message will aid in reaching these
     groups. This, in turn, could bring the plan a
     new constituency and new advocates, [see
     sidebar, this page] Their turf: local churches,
     community-based centers, and neighborhood

© Media and communications strategy
   Getting mass media coverage  of the RAP and
progress in  addressing problems in the AOC is
critical to significantly expanding public aware-
ness and lays the groundwork for future targeted
meetings. Fifteen or thirty seconds on the evening
news or a cover story in the local newspaper is
priceless publicity. However, to get the media to
effectively cover these topics requires  a coordi-
nated, planned approach that involves more than
sending out a press release. The media strategy
must target  and then position, inform, and excite.

   What is the news media looking for? Put your-
self in the editor's shoes. Given the choice between
running a story about the release of the complex
and jargon-filled Stage I document or pictures of
school children collecting water samples in a wet-
land which would you run? The answer is obvious
and should indicate what to expect from the news
media. Do not overlook hard facts and significant
process events, such as the release of the Stage I.
However, tie them to something that is more likely
to excite the viewers or readers imagination and
get wider media attention.

Position, inform, excite:

     Position. Be proactive. Go to the media; do
     not wait for them to come to you. The RAP is
     competing with many other groups and is-
     sues for limited time  and space. Press re-
     leases  are important but, in and  of them-
     selves are not likely to get  coverage.  Press
   In many urban AOCs, low-income people, minori-
ties, and non-English speakers are often at greatest
risk from the area's degraded resources. Hie urban
poor represent a disproportionately large percent-
age of subsistence anglers and water-contact recre-
ation users, RAP participation efforts largely fail to
reach these groups. However, some efforts are mak-
ing progress.
   For example, in Cleveland, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, a national environmental organi-
zation, has helped establish the Minority Environ-
mental Association (MEA) to increase minority par-
ticipation in environmental decision making and
improve outreach and education efforts to minori-
ties. MEA hopes to become an active participant in
the RAP process.
   In Rochester,  New York,  the Rochester
Embayment RAPs Public Outreach Subcommittee
found that information about the risks of consuming
fish caught in the bay was not getting through to low-
income anglers. Further, since they were often fish-
ing without a license and the consumption advisory
is printed on the back of the license, subsistence
anglers are even less likely to receive the informa-
tion. In response, the committee has developed pam-
phlets that translate the  advisories into  lay terms
and discuss risks and ways to reduce them, The
committee has a promise front the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency to print the pamphlets and has
contacted local churches,  health clinics, and public
schools to help distribute  them.
   While progress toward reaching these high-risk,
low-access groups is being made in some AOCs, there
is clearly a long way to go. Minority leaders point to
deep-seated distrust of traditional decision-making
and a historic lack of commitment to reach out to the
urban poor. However, they also realize how impor-
tant the RAP is to their communities and that the
RAP will ultimately not be successful without their
involvement and participation.
Contacts: Debbie Sounders, Minority Environmen-
tal Assoc.  419-625-3230
Margit Brazda, Monroe Co. Planning Commission
   conferences without an event or big name to
   attract attention may go uncovered. First,
   designate a permanent media contact person
   and encourage them  the keep up relation-
   ships with targeted members of the media.
   Keep in contact with them to develop famil-

     iarity and trust. Survey members of the me-
     dia to see how much they know about the
     RAP and the problems in the AOC.

     Inform.  Always have  a media  packet on
     hand with background information, RAP con-
     tacts, some 3/4-inch (television-ready) video-
     tape file footage of the AOC, and maps, charts,
     and photos (color and black-and-white) which
     can be easily reproduced in the newspaper.
     Develop a simple, concise  statement that
     sums up  the RAP's  goals and AOC's prob-
     lems. Become the "expert" on this topic—the
     health of the river or bay. Once a professional
     relationship is established or solidified, re-
     porters are more likely to call the RAP's
     media contact. Appoint an articulate spokes-
     person—someone who  is current on  RAP
     issues and is consistently available to talk to
     reporters. Always mention the RAP by name
     to develop name recognition.

     Excite. The media likes to cover exciting,
     unique events. Staging events around pro-
     cess  achievements will  bring them to the
     attention of the "unconverted" public. Where
     appropriate, use elected officials and celebri-
     ties to draw the media. A local or visiting
     celebrity is often willing to do a short press
     conference at the launching of a RAP initia-
     tive  or event,  as it  may serve  their own

Advertise and publicize. Use creative advertis-
ing methods to publicize RAP and public participa-
tion events, such as a river cleanup. Since adver-
tising is expensive, donated time is quite helpful.
[see sidebar, this page] Producing catchy, creative
ads can be costly, too. Universities seeking real-life
experiences for their students, large advertising
firms willing to do pro bono work, and independent
upstart producers eager to show their stuff are all
possible sources for developing inexpensive, high
quality ads. In addition, some corporate advertis-
ers may be willing to "piggy back" environmental
messages  on their standard ads.

   Public  service announcements (PSAs), which
tend to run at odd times on obsure channels, are
less useful than donated  advertising time. How-
ever, they can be helpful in announcing upcoming
events and should not be overlooked, particularly
on radio. Participate in "community calendars" on


   The People for Puget Sound (PPS), a regional
 environmental group based in Seattle, has used
 creative financing methods to put together an effec-
 tive, professional television campaign aimed at the
 general public—for less than $30,000 cash.
   PPS leveraged $27,000 of a direct  foundation
 grant into a series of four television ads that run
 locally during prime time on cable television chan-
 nels such as Lifetime, MTV, and CNN's Headline
 News. One of Seattle's major advertising firms do-
 nated the creative time to develop the commercials.
 The firm's expertise helped PPS "segment" the Puget
 Sound "market" and  aim the ads at their target
 group—the 23% of the general public that is "sympa-
 thetic to but not actively involved in* improving the
 environment. The cash was only used for production
   PPS then  persuaded the local cable carrier to
 donate approximately $140,000 worth of prime-time
 advertising space—distinct from public service an-
 nouncement slots—to run the ads. The ads give a toll-
 free phone number to call to find out more about PPS
 and Puget Sound. In exchange for the commercial
 time, PPS will give the cable company demographic
 information based on who calls the phone number
 and when.
 Contact: Mike Sato, People for Puget Sound,
cable and local television.

  Posters, t-shirts, and buttons also offer ways to
increase  awareness of the RAP name and boost
morale. Buttons and t-shirts give people a sense
that they "belong." In this case, they help develop
a sense of belonging to the AOC community.

O Involve elected officials
  In many cases, elected officials at all levels are
essential to implementing the RAP. These officials
help set the political and financial agenda and can
often draw media and public attention.

Convince officials that the RAP is essential.
Elected officials are inundated with issues and
needs of the electorate. To get their attention, you
must make the RAP stand out and make them
realize their voters' stake in the RAP. Give elected
officials  special attention and  proactively seek

their involvement. It is important to establish a
professional relationship with them or their staff.
The connection between the public agenda and the
RAP must be made clear. It is especially important
to establish the connection between  the  future
economic prosperity of their constituents and the
quality of the environment that the RAP is ad-
dressing. Elected officials are  more likely to get
involved and support RAP activities if events are
well planned and they understand their role. Get
the RAP on their agendas. [See sidebar, this page]

0 Develop a Funding Plan for Public
Outreach and Participation
As  many RAPs move into  the  implementation
stage,  funding looms as a  major issue.  Public
outreach and  participation, even if well struc-
tured,  will result in modest costs. Funding out-
reach and participation should be viewed as an
investment  in  the RAP's future.  Without  such
investments now, the RAP cannot be  successful.
Public support is likely to wane and with it both the
willingness to spend money on cleanup and the
personal will to change individual behavior.

  Public outreach and participation plans need a
strategy for raising  money to  reach their objec-
tives.  Exclusive reliance on state or provincial
allocations will limit both the amount of money
                  received and, in certain instances, restrict the
                  types of projects the committee may undertake. A
                  1991 report by The Center for the Great Lakes
                  found that in the face of limited federal and state
                  resources, RAPs will have to employ creative meth-
                  ods to raise funds for restoration and cleanups.
                  Funding for public outreach and participation will
                  be no exception.

                    In several AOC's and elsewhere in the U.S., the
                  formation of nonprofit organizations have been
                  used successfully to raise and manage money for
                  public outreach and participation. [See  sidebar,
                  page 14] Pursuing this technique for fundraising
                  may act not only to leverage additional sources of
                  funds but provide greater flexibility and comple-
                  ment public sector support of citizen committees.

                    In other AOCs,  local or county governments
                  contributed to the outreach and participation ef-
                  fort or to the citizen committee in general. Local
                  planning commissions or sewage districts have
                  also made donations. Grants from private founda-
                  tions or federal agencies have been used for spe-
                  cific projects such as conducting public awareness

                    Many RAPs use in-kind donations of material,
                  personnel time, office space, vehicles, or comput-
    Elected officials are often essen-
 tial to successfully implementing a
 RAP.  The Chesapeake  Bay Com-
 mission has successfully involved
 state-level elected officials in the
 effort to restore that resource.
    Maryland and Virginia formed
 the Commission in 1980 to manage
 bay resources more effectively.
 Pennsylvania joined five years later.
 Each state's delegation to the Com-
 mission is composed of two state
 senators, three state representa-
 tives, the governor or his or her
 cabinet-level designee, and a citi-
 zen representative.
    The Commission is the bay's ad-
 vocate in the  three state legisla-
 tures. It identifies issues demand-
ing collective or collaborative action
such as sediment and toxics control,
sewage treatment, and population
and land use planning. Members work
to pass legislation in their respective
state legislatures that will imple-
ment Commission resolutions. The
Commission also provides a unified
voice for the bay on federal legislation
and is a forum for resolving inter-
state conflicts.
   Recently, the Commission adopted
a resolution calling for uniform envi-
ronmental and bay education cur-
riculum requirements for the public
schools in the member states. The
Commission's resolution recognized
the need to develop long-term public
support if restoration and protection
efforts are to be successful. Mem-
bers use a matrix describing cur-
rent environmental education pro-
grams in each state and what needs
to be done to bring them each in line
with the Commission's resolution.
  There is no similar association or
mechanism in the  Great Lakes
though the Council of Great Lakes
Governors is a step in the right
direction. An organization of state
legislators, acting in a unified way
would not only provide a more coor-
dinated approach to solving Great
Lakes problems but also send a
strong message to federal legisla-
tors considering Great Lakes bills.
Contact: Ann Swanson, Chesapeake
Bay Commission, 410-263-3420.

ers from local or state  governments  and local
universities. Local universities present a potential
and sometimes overlooked resource for in-kind
donations. Using the skills of students and profes-
sors to design, implement, and  analyze public
surveys, for example, or  developing television or
radio advertisements or short documentaries can
be extremely useful for RAP participation efforts.
They also can be beneficial to the academic institu-
tion by offering practical experience for students
in consumer affairs, marketing, and advertising.
In addition, university extension  services are of-
ten helpful in  organizing events or spreading in-
formation. Occassionally, local businesses or in-
dustries may be willing to make similar donations.

   However, it takes  a fair amount of effort to
develop these potential sources. To be successful,
the public outreach and participation committee
should  have a government-relations  person  to
develop personal  contacts with local government
officials and keep them informed of RAP events
and progress. A development person can focus on
soliciting money  from these sources,  using the
                  government contact's on-going relationship  to
                  smooth the way. Convincing donors that their
                  assistance is necessary requires clear descriptions
                  of need, how the money will be used, and a demon-
                  stration that the  RAP has an organized approach
                  that will result in real payoffs.

                    Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay offer two
                  funding approaches which may provide models for
                  future collaborative efforts on Great Lakes RAPs.
                  Washington State's Public Involvement and Edu-
                  cation Fund (the PIE Fund) for Puget Sound is
                  discussed in a sidebar, on page 15. Efforts  to
                  protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay received
                  an added boost from Maryland which authorized a
                  special automobile license plates—"Treasure the
                  Chesapeake"—that can be purchased for an extra
                  fee. The fee revenues support bay programs. The
                  program has been a very successful funding tool.
    Public outreach and participa-
  tion efforts often compete  with
  other BAP activities such as moni-
  toring, data management, or ac-
  tual remediation for scarce dol-
  lars. Further, money allocated for
  "public involvement" is often first
  used for efforts directed at the
  Converted public such as holding
  public meetings or printing lay
  summaries  of RAP documents.
  Some involved in public outreach
  and participation in the RAPs have
  cited not only funding shortages
  but also a lack of budgeting inde-
  pendence as stumbling blocks to
  improving or increasing their ef-
  forts to reach the general public.
    Therefore, several RAPs have
  turned to creative ways—such as
  forming an independent nonprofit
  organization—to finance efforts di-
  rected at the general  public and
  sometimes gain fiscal indepen-
  dence. Examples follow:
  Therefore, several RAPs and simi-
lar efforts elsewhere have turned to
creative ways to finance efforts di-
rected at the general public. Some
examples are offered below:
  The Green Bay Public Education
and Participation (PEP) committee's
$66,000 budget is supported entirely
through donations from local govern-
ments and businesses. The Natural
Resources Foundation of Wisconsin,
a quasi-governmental  organization
which funds environmental projects
around the state, handles the
committee's finances in a  special
"bank account," accepting private
donations and disbursing funds. This
arrangement makes soliciting dona-
tions easier and reduces the adminis-
trative  burden of managing dona-
tions. Most importantly, the PEP com-
mittee has great flexibility in budget-
ing and planning. Having been freed
of much of the bureaucratic red tape
that accompanies state funding, the
PEP committee's spending and there-
fore choice of activities are limited
primarily be how much money they
can raise. Though the PEP commit-
tee has been using it for about two
years, the Foundation's banking
service is intended to be a short-
term measure leading to the for-
mation of an independent nonprofit.
   In Buffalo, members of the Pub-
lic Outreach Subcommittee formed
their own independent non-profit
organization, the Friends of the
Buffalo River, when theRAP moved
toward  implementation. The
Friends are financed with private
donations and grants. With no state
purse-strings or red tape, the
Friends  remain the most promi-
nent force in public outreach and
participation for the general public
in Buffalo.
Contact: Martin Henert,  Natural
Resources Foundation of Wiscon-
sin, 608-266-9980.
Ken Sherman, Friends of the
Buffalo River, 716-833-1661.

0 Feedback and monitoring
   A reality check—survey, focus group, or de-
briefing—is important at several stages of the
public outreach and participation program. These
assessments help determine if the planning, effort,
and spending are achieving beneficial results.

Surveys. Surveys are most useful for determining
the level of the general public's awareness and
their attitudes and perceptions  of a given set of
issues. Some RAPs' outreach and participation
plans call for a general public awareness survey
every few years. They determine what's working
in outreach and generation of support and what's
not. If a good baseline of information on public
perceptions is  established, subsequent  surveys
can also determine trends in awareness and sup-
port.  One RAP is using a special  type of public
survey, a contingent valuation survey, to find out
how much  the public is willing to  pay for imple-
menting the RAP or improving environmental
quality to a certain level.

   In assembling and conducting surveys,  it is
essential that they be designed,  overseen, and
interpreted by professionals. Improper design or
implementation of the survey or the misinterpre-
tation of data can be worse than not having the
baseline information in the first place. These er-
rors may cause the entire RAP program to expend
precious funds on programs with little potential
and, in the end, weaken the RAP's credibility in
the eyes of the general public.

   While professional surveys can be expensive
and easily exceed the means of a RAPs outreach
and participation budget, at least two RAPs have
found ways around that barrier. In Green  Bay,
researchers at the local campus of the University
of Wisconsin developed and conducted a public
awareness survey. The Cuyahoga River Coordi-
nating Committee has also been able to obtain
funding from a local foundation to conduct a public
awareness survey and a contingent valuation sur-
vey. [See sidebar, page 16]

Focus groups. Marketing and public relations
firms typically use focus groups to design and then
target their public survey efforts. It offers a rela-
tively quick and efficient way to refine a public
    Puget Sound's Public Involvement and Education
 Fund (PIE Fund) is a state financed grant making
 program. It funds small, "interesting, innovative
 activities which involve people, put them in charge of
 decisions, and lead to local action."
    Financed at $1.1 million per biennium, the PIE
 Fund has made 127 grants over the last three years,
 none more than $50,000. The PIE Fund is capitalized
 indirectly from a new statewide tobacco tax. The PIE
 Fund prides itself on funding creative, innovative
 projects which help relate local issues to the larger
 water quality picture. Said a Fund administrator:
 "we like to take some risks."
    Very little of the PIE Fund's money is used to help
 the Converted public get more involved in the deci-
 sion-making process. Most is directed at increasing
 activities aimed at the general public.
    For example, a $30,000 "PIE slice" went to the
 Washington State Dairy Federation to educate dairy
 farmers and other animal keepers about water-
 conscious methods of managing farm animals. The
 federation produced a 14-minute videotape and an
 eight-page brochure to illustrate the message deliv-
 ered at farming community events and at one-on-one
 "kitchen meetings" with dairy farmers.
    A $4,000 slice covered the costs of a local commu-
 nity groups map of local wetlands. The program
 inventoried wetlands, created and printed the color-
 ful map, and distributed it to local organizations and
 buildings. A network of local volunteers helped dis-
 tribute the posters.
    A $5,500 slice to the Snake Creek Nature Center
 helped 120 minority day campers explore the creek
 runnng behind a housing project where many of them
 live. The children monitored water quality in the
 creek and  observed animals in a nearby wetland.
 They also visited a Tacoma aquarium and toured the
 Sound on the local Sea Scout ship giving them a sense
 of their personal relationship to the Sound.
    A project the size of the PIE Fund may not be
 feasible in any individual state in the Great Lakes
 region. However, the Fund's lesson of the value of
 small, innovative projects reaching people on an
 individual level and stressing personal relationships
 to the resource is an essential one.
 Contact.-Bob Steelquist, Puget Sound Water Quality
 Authority, 206-493-9156.
opinion survey instrument. Before conducting the
full- blown survey, the focus group tests ideas and
concepts on a small sample of the population you

are trying to reach. The instrument can be modi-
fied, based on their responses. Conducting focus
groups research should also be managed by profes-
sionals. Local chapters of professional marketing
and communications organizations may be willing
to help with focus groups on a pro bono basis.

Debriefing. This is the cheapest and easiest of the
three reality checks and most often  overlooked.
After holding an event, such as a river cleanup day
or meeting, or annual event, those involved with
the RAP  should  assess it  and discuss potential
future improvement. Using a structured format to
ensure that all pertinent topics are assessed and
getting subjective reactions while still fresh in the
minds of the organizers are important.
  When asked if the public in their area knows about
the RAF or about the problems in the AOC, most
people involved in the RAP process simply shrug.
They might offer a gut feeling or an anecdote to
illustrate the public's feelings. However, in Green
Bay, those involved in the RAP are able to say, for
example, that 21% of the residents in the county
around the bay know of the RAP. Cuyahoga RAP
workers may soon be able to cite similar statistics.
  This feedback, which helps the outreach commit-
tee  assess and direct its efforts, is the result of a
professional-quality public opinion survey. Though
professional surveys can be expensive, that cost does
not necessarily have to be borne by the RAP. Both
Green Bay and the Cuyahoga RAPs used creative
ways to pay for their respective surveys.
  In Green Bay, researchers in the Department of
Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Wis-
consin-Green Bay used staff time and other in-kind
donations to match approximately $12,000 in seed
money from the  Wisconsin  Coastal Management
Program to conduct a telephone survey of over 1,000
local residents. The survey asked questions about
use of the lower Green Bay and Fox River, willing-
ness to pay for improvements, and perceptions about
the cause of the problems in the AOC and the RAP
effort itself. The grant paid for graduate students in
the environmental policy program to conduct the
surveys. Faculty members in the department ana-
lyzed the data and published the results in an aca-
demic journal.  Though the survey was not a RAP
proposal, the Public  Advisory Committee wrote a
letter of support for the project. The Public Education
and Participation committee's workplan calls for
repeating the survey every three years to monitor the
public's changing perceptions of the RAP and the bay.
  In the Cuyahoga River AOC, RAP planners solic-
ited funding from a local foundation to pay for two
public polls used to measure awareness and value.
First, researchers will use $20,000 of the Cleveland
Foundation grant to conduct a public opinion survey,
asking questions about environmental problems and
issues as well  as the RAP. The remainder of the
$69,000 grant will be used to conduct a "contingent
valuation" survey to determine user preferences and
perceived value of the resource. The results of these
surveys will help RAP planners develop better out-
reach and education materials.
Contacts: (Green Bay) Garret Knaap, University of
Illinois, 217-333-9575
(Cuyahoga) Mary Beth Binns, Cuyahoga River Com-
munity Planning Organization, 216-241-2414 x.253

                                                                           Part Three
Part Three
  Much of the orginal research for this project was
done through case studies of four Areas of Concern
and two out of basin areas: Chesapeake Bay and
Puget Sound. The four AOCs were selected largely
for their geographic diversity. Since the project was
funded by the U.S. federal government, all of the
AOCs are in the U.S., however, one is a binational
effort. The RAPs examined were: Green Bay/Lower
Fox River, Wisconsin; St. Clair River, Ontario and
Michigan; Cuyahoga River, Ohio; and Buffalo River,
New York. The case studies profile the structure
and extent of public involvement in each area.

  Center staffers reviewed RAP  documents and
materials and then conducted initial phone inter-
views with people directly involved  in the RAP
process. In each AOC, staffers interviewed the fol-
(D the state or provincial RAP coordinator;
® the state-level RAP administrator;
CD the federal RAP coordinator from the respective
  USEPA regional office;
® a member of the RAPs citizen committee;
® others, depending on the RAP, e.g.,  a public
  involvement consultant, a local environmental-
  ist, etc.
  Noah Eiger and Peter McAvoy conducted the
interviews in January and February 1992. Follow-
up interviews were conducted in February and
March 1992.

Richard Draper, New York Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation (NYDEC), statewide RAP director
Ellen Heath, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Re-
gion II
John McMahon, NYDEC, Buffalo RAP Coordinator
Ken  Sherman, Friends of the Buffalo River, member
Remedial Action Committee
The lead agency for the Buffalo River Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) is the NYDEC.  The structure of citizen's
involvement and advisory roles changed with the release
of the RAP in  November 1989.
* In 1986, local groups and governments called on the
  NYDEC to form a citizen advisory committee for the
  RAP process. Prior to the completion of the RAP, that
  advisory  committee was  called the Buffalo River
  Citizen's Committee (BRCC). The BRCC was composed
  of 21 environmental, sporting, business, university,
  and local government representatives. The BRCC had
  three subcommittees focusing on various RAP needs.
  Subcommittee chairs and NYDEC staff formed a steer-
  ing committee to guide RAP development.

* The Database and Remedial Action Subcommittee was
  the BRCC's technical arm, interpreting  data for the
  whole committee. The committee also created a com-
  puterized database of existing information about the
  river from NYDEC files and other sources.

* The Land Use and Long-Term Goals Subcommittee
  developed the land use section of the Stage I document.
  The subcommittee evaluated plans to develop the river's
  waterfront  and researched ways to enhance public
  access to the river.

* The Public Outreach Subcommittee helped develop and
  implement all public outreach activities such as public
  meetings, slide shows, the Buffalo River Week, etc. The
  subcommittee worked closely with the Citizen Partici-
  pation Specialist hired by  the NYDEC. One primary
  focus of the subcommittee was to network with the
  groups represented on the BRCC to build a constitu-
  ency for the river which did not previously exist.

* The Steering Committee established the RAP goals,
  developed the project workplan, outlined responsibil-
  ity for key tasks, and reviewed drafts and data.

* After the release of the RAP, the BRCC re-formed as the
  Remedial Action Committee, focusing on implementa-
  tion of the plan. Some members of the Public Outreach
  Subcommittee formed the Friends of the Buffalo River,
  an independent non-profit organization. The Friends is
  a non-technical organization whose role includes advo-
  cacy and policy research. They are a main focal point for
  activities aimed at the general public.
* The Buffalo River Study Group, is affiliated with the
  local state university and sponsors research and lec-
  tures about the river. The group  is more technically
  oriented than the Friends.

* The old BRCC and the Citizen Participation Specialist
  were funded by the NYDEC. The Friends of the Buffalo
  River  is funded by personal  donations, foundation
  grants, and consulting contracts.

4 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Assess-
  ment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
  (ARCS) program has a public relations person who
  educates the public about the program's activities. The
  Buffalo River is one of five ARCS demonstration sites
  in the Great Lakes.

Goals and Strategy
* Public participation and outreach is not part of the goal
  in the RAP document. However, it cites a public process
  as determining the desired future state of the river.

* The BRCC set "Communication Objectives" for public

* Involve interested and affected public in RAP develop-

4 Build public support for and community ownership in
  the RAP;

* Utilize the resources of the community;

* Build a working relationship between the BRCC and

* Maintain communication necessary for an ecosystem
  perspective in developing the RAP.

* Goals of  the Friends of the  Buffalo River include
  recommending responsible land use, facilitating public
  outreach about the river's problems and cleanup ef-
  forts, and supporting implementation of the RAP.

* Documents. The BRCC and the NYDEC published
  many written documents about the Area of Concern
  (AOC) and the RAP and how the public could get
  involved. They also produced  a quarterly newsletter
  (since replaced by a RAC newsletter), periodic press
  releases, announcements for monthly meetings, a in-
  formational brochure, and materials for the Buffalo
  River Week.

* Meetings.  The public was invited to several different
  types of meetings. Public meetings introduced the RAP
  process and later gave people the opportunity to com-
  ment on the draft RAP  document.  BRCC, Steering
  Committee, and Subcommittee meetings were also
  open to the public. Several workshops on biota, land

  acquisition, the Buffalo Sewer Authority, and public
  comment were open to the general public.  Since the
  release of the RAP document, the NYDEC holds annual
  public meetings to announce the release of their annual
  progress report.

* Tours. Buffalo River Boat Tour for the NYDEC and the
  BRCC allowed a first hand view of the river. There are
  auto/walking tours of the river for the public. Also, the
  Industrial Heritage Society, a local group interested in
  promoting an awareness of the industrial history of the
  river, sponsors boat tours of the river.

4 Show. A Theater Show geared toward educating the
  general public about river  pollution.

* Bumper stickers. Bumper  stickers were a significant
  public awareness factor and a successful morale builder
  for the BRCC. They were used widely throughout the
  city of Buffalo.

* Slide show.  A RAP Slide Show about the history and
  background of the  river and  the RAP process was
  presented to over 25 community organizations. The
  show was designed to appeal to the public's sense of
  community. A second show was produced to present the
  Stage I document. BRCC members would usually
  present the show.

* Buffalo River Week. Buffalo River Week involved river-
  side cleanups and fun activities geared toward the
  river. State and local officials show up for some events
  providing a media opportunity. The slide show was
  used to set the  stage for this event.

* Regatta. Buffalo River  Regatta got people out and
  sailing on the river.

* ARCS. The ARCS program has generated much public
  interest and media coverage. The program's demon-
  stration projects are sometimes publicized by the RAC.

* Elected officials. The RAC and the Friends successfully
  lobbied the  local congressional representative, Henry
  Nowak, to seek funds to open a Buffalo River nature
  center and for the ARCS demonstration project.

Prescriptions for Success
* Target the press. Push selected events like the release
  of the Stage I document, the river week, or the ARCS
  demonstrations to the media.

* Reorienting the thinking of local officials and the public
  from the  industrial uses of the river toward recre-
  ational and multiple-use opportunities. Recognize the
  need for balancing environmental and economic needs.
  Some development  is planned for the river's water-
  front which means jobs and a new revue base.
* Increase access to the river. Proper development and
  planned green ways help build the new constituency for
  the river.

4 Network with the organizations involved in the RAP. In
  this case, it was organizations previously on the BRCC.
  This also helps build the constituency.

* Define goals and how to reach them.

* Build and maintain a local constituency. Foster trust
  and awareness.

* Keep local officials aware of their ability to influence the
  process. The RAP must stay in touch with state and
  federal legislators.

Outstanding Problems
* Many low income people still fish the river  for food.
  Improve understanding of the risk associated with the
  river; get lower income people to appreciate the risks in
  the river.

Fran Flanigan, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
William Matezuski, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Ann Powers, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Ann Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Commission

The Chesapeake Bay Program is  a federal/state spon-
sored  program that has a fairly elaborate organization
with wide ranging governmental and private sector rep-
resentation. Extensive public outreach efforts involve the
general public on issues affecting the clean up and
protection of the Chesapeake's waters and natural re-
sources. The Bay program has three major components:
* Executive Council composed of the Governors of Mary-
  land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the Administrator of
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
  the  Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission (de-
  scribed below)

* Principle Staff committee is comprised of the directors
  or secretaries of the chief environmental agencies of the
  three  states  and USEPA's Region III administrator.
  They staff the Council and execute its policies.

* Implementation Committee is chaired by USEPA and
  set up to carryout the directives of the Council and Staff
  Committee.  It ensures that day-to-day operations,
  such as data gathering, monitoring, standard setting,
  and permitting programs, are running smoothly. The
  Implementation Committee has 16 subcommittees to
  cover  the various issues and work tasks. The Imple-
  mentation committee also has three advisory commit-

      * Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
      * State and Local Government Advisory Commit-
      * Science and Technology Committee
The CAC is drawn from the entire bay region is comprised
of individuals representing the key citizen constituent
groups or organizations on the bay.
The Chesapeake Bay also has three well established non-
profit organizations that play a role in bay restoration
and protection activities. These are:

The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
The Alliance, established over 20 years ago, encourages
the wise use of the bay and it natural resources. The board
of directors consists of Realtors, developers, governments
officials, environmentalists, scientists. The Alliance is
funded by the USEPA and grants from states, founda-
tions, and corporations.
* Publications. Alliance puts out monthly publications,
  such as fact sheets and white papers, to a 20,000-
  person mailing list.

* Field trips. The Alliance conducts intensive workshops/
  field trips some involve overnights with selected groups
  20-50 to educate individuals about the bay and promote
  it. The workshops are designed to bring diverse groups
  together in non-confrontational manner -press gener-
  ally not there. Participants are selected based on
  perception that they are  key stakeholders/decision
  makers. The programs do not involve school children.

4 Citizen monitoring. The Alliance piloted a program to
  use volunteers trained in basic data-collection tech-
  niques to collect information valuable for trend analy-
  sis showing condition of specific streams and wetlands
  (pH, temperature, salinity, nutrient loadings, water
  clarity). This information can provide important bench-
  marks and be incorporated into more sophisticated
  state/federal data/monitoring programs. The Alliance
  believes with good quality control programs can be

* Urban pollution prevention. The Alliance is piloting
  another program to  get urban homeowners in two
  communities (Richmond, Virginia and the District of
  Columbia) to see connection between use of certain
  products or practices around home and adverse effects
  on the Bay. If successful will take program into other
  urban communities.

The Chesapeake Bay Commission
The Commission preceded the federal/state Bay Program
described above. It was established primarily to involve
state legislators in education information exchange on
bay.  It has seven representative  (two state  senators,
three state representatives, one governor's designee, one
citizen) from each of the three states that surround the
bay (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). Every mem-
ber has a vote. In almost all instances voting done by
consensus. To vote legislators must be present. They may
not send a designee to vote.
The Commission provides information on issues of con-
cern, tries to ensure comparability in all states, (e.g.,
education curriculum, permitting, nutrient loads), and
does analysis of each state laws showing where the gaps
are and what is needed to close them. The Commission
receives $125,000 from each state to fund their activities.
They have offices in each state. Members are now consid-
ering adding other states that lie in the bay's watershed,
such as New York, Delaware, and West Virginia, for
selected issues.
• Meetings. Meetings are open to the public. Here the
  Commission conducts formal business and adopts po-
  sitions by resolution.

* Legislative action. When a resolution is adopted, legis-
  lators committed to trying to get through their respec-
  tive legislatures.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation
The Foundation was established in 1967 and now has
approximately 83,000 members. It is supported by contri-
butions from  philanthropic foundations, corporations,
and its membership. The Foundation, with a staff of 120
and offices in all three bay states, focuses its activities in
three primary areas: environmental education, environ-
mental defense and land management.
* Field trips. Each year the education program takes over
  30,000 students and teachers from the watershed out
  on the water in canoes, work boats and historic skip-
  jacks that serve as floating classrooms. The Founda-
  tion also has 17 education centers around the bay.

* Advocacy. The Environmental Defense Program has as
  its primary goal the protection of the bay. The lawyers
  and  scientists  associated with the program  advise
  decision makers on key issues, propose specific actions
  designed to protect the bay and where necessary bring
  legal actions to enforce compliance with environmental
  laws and policies.

* Land Management. The Land Management Program is
  designed to protect critical habitats, forests and agri-
  cultural lands. The Foundation promotes effective land
  use planning and growth management and conserva-
  tion techniques.

David Beach, Sierra Club representative and CCC mem-
Mary Beth Binns, RAP staffer for the Cuyahoga River
Community Planning Organization
Ava Hottman, state-level RAP coordinator, Ohio Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
Mark Maloney, federal-level RAP coordinator, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
Bob Wysenski, local-level RAP coordinator, OEPA

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is
responsible for developing the Cuyahoga River Remedial
Action Plan (RAP). Several other organizations are also
involved and have various  responsibilities for public
involvement and outreach.
* The Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinat-
  ing Committee (CCC) is composed of 35  representa-
  tives from state and federal agencies, industrial and
  commercial interests, community and environmental
  groups, and local governments.  The CCC's role goes
  beyond advising the OPEA—it has responsibility for
  writing the RAP. Citizens are involved in every aspect
  of the plan's development. The OEPA, the Northeast
  Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), a re-
  gional planning organization, and the Cuyahoga River
  Community Planning Organization (CRCPO), a non-
  profit organization discussed below, provide technical
  and staff support to the CCC.  The CCC has three
  subcommittees and a steering committee.

* The Steering Committee, composed of and elected by
  members of the CCC, handles the organization of the
  CCC's efforts. It also formed the CRCPO.

* The Technical Committee coordinated ongoing field
  work and data collection. It also identified the RAP's
  data and information needs.

* The Community Involvement Committee (CIC) grew
  out of the original Communications Subcommittee. It
  is  responsible for involving the public in the RAP
  process. The CIC organized workshops on the RAP,
  helped  define its goals, and develops methods for
  communicating the RAP message to the public. An-
  other workshop shared information on the river and
  gathered public input on the river's problems.

4 The Plan Drafting Committee researched and wrote the
  Stage I document.

* The Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organiza-
  tion (CRCPO) provides additional resources and staff
  for the CCC. The CRCPO's staff consists of a full-time
  environmental planning coordinator and a part-item
  public involvement coordinator.
* The Friends of the Crooked River is an independent
  advocacy and outreach group focused solely on the
  river. Membership is open to the public. However, the
  Friends are only one of several community or environ-
  mental organizations which are members of the CCC.

* OEPA staff time, NOACA, and CRCPO support the
  CCC. The CRCPO  is funded through  a variety of
  sources including "dues" from the member organiza-
  tions of its board of directors and foundation grants.
  NOACA support is funded with donations from local
  governments and a planning grant from the U.S. fed-
  eral Clean Water Act.

Goals and Strategy
Currently, the strategy adopted by the CIC is awaiting
approval of the overall CCC. The  CIC does not have a
workplan detailing tasks, responsibilities, and costs. Its
goal is to "identify and enlist the stakeholders and the
larger Cuyahoga River community to actively partici-
pate" in developing and implementing the RAP. Further,
the CCC workplan calls for:
* Preparing an involvement strategy;

* Developing a list of technical resources for RAP devel-

* Developing and implement a communications and
  media relations plan;

4 Producing a newsletter and informational bulletins;

* A three-phase  program which would 1) educate the
  public about the AOC and seek its input on defining the
  problem; 2) allow for a public review of alternatives;
  and 3) allow for public review of recommended plans.

Planning did not get more detailed, in part, to prevent
overly formalizing the process. The CIC seeks an iterative
process with short time horizons, better able to respond
to changing needs. However, some strategies of the CIC's
strategies include:
* Bring all the stakeholders into the process early. The
  assumption was that it would be easier for the dispar-
  ate groups to learn to work together on relatively non-
  controversial issues like defining problems. This would
  lower the barriers to cooperation expected in the fund-
  ing and implementation stage.

4 Show successes along the way with or without a plan.

* Identify target populations for education and develop
  strategies for each target audience.

* Target certain groups with outreach efforts and publi-
  cations. It also  recognized the need for on the ground
  event activities which people can really get their hands
  on and understand.

* The CCC recognized the need for a feedback mechanism
  and carried out a study of the contingent valuation
  survey as a mechanism for assessing people's value of
  the river. A public opinion poll funded by the CRCPO is
  in process.

* A train tour of the Area of Concern and a tour of a
  wastewater treatment plant were held  early in the

* A RAP information booth is displayed at community
  events (such as the boat show) and festivals. The booth
  is displayed at local libraries between events.

* Publications, like a RAP brochure and a technical
  bulletin were aimed at the general public.

* A RAP Speaker's Bureau spread the word about the
  RAP and the river to approximately 60 organizations.

* A list and 1500-person mailing list of other organiza-
  tions was used to develop a network of support for the
  RAP. Some of these organizations cosponsored RAP

4 The Communications workgroup, the OEPA, and Kent
  State University developed an educational slide show.

* The CIC held a series of workshops to involve the public
  in the RAP process. The first set (June 1990) allowed
  the public to help define the AOC problems. About 200
  people attended three workshops. The second (January
  1991) was a CIC/PDC joint effort, reporting on Stage I
  progress and demonstrating how the public's com-
  ments were  incorporated in the  Stage I document.
  About 120 people attended.

* The Friends of the Crooked River sponsor river cleanup
  days and canoe trips to generate support.

* Local businesses, restaurants, and bars in "the Flats,"
  a popular entertainment district along the river, spon-
  sored "Riversweep" day with 450 people participating.

* All meetings of the CCC and its committees are open to
  the public.

* The CRCPO is developing a video tape to educate people
  about controlling non-point source pollution.

Prescriptions for Success
* Structure is needed but don't  overly formalize the
  process. One person involved in the process cited the
  inflexible requirements of the watershed planning
  program (Sec. 208 of the Clean Water Act) as being very

4 Get everyone on board early. Let the disparate groups
  which will necessarily make up the citizen's committee
  get acclimated to each other during the problem defini-
  tion stage. This will make things easier during the
  more difficult funding and implementation stage.

* Involve citizen's by making them responsible for the
  RAP. Cuyahoga is one of the few RAP which is written
  by the citizens with the help of the state agency-not the
  other way around.

* Take advantage of the media. Events like river days
  draw the media. That can be used as a hook to interest
  them in more process oriented matters like the Stage
  I document.

* Get elected officials on board. If a Senator or Governor
  tours the area it becomes a media event.

* Redefine the issue in terms of local redevelopment. Jobs
  and redevelopment will encourage the support of local

* Develop a feedback mechanism like the public surveys.
  Repeat them at regular intervals.

Outstanding  Problems
* The public is still not aware of the ecosystem concept.
  They don't associate their purchases and actions with
  the river's status.

* The public does not accurately perceive the risks
  associated with eating contaminated fish or waterskiing
  in the river.

4 Discretionary funds for small projects is needed. A
  small amount of money to fund a number of non-profit
  or local government projects could go a long way in
  motivating the  public.

Victoria Harris, Green Bay RAP Coordinator, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Ken Jaworski, Brown County Planning  Department,
PEP Committee Chair and PAC member
Jo Mercurio, WDNR
Kelly Moore,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
PAC member

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is
the lead agency on the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The
RAP is part of a broader management effort of the entire
drainage  area. The WDNR has  utilized  a number of
technical and citizen advisory committees to help with
RAP development and implementation. The current struc-
ture is the third iteration of RAP committees that have
involved approximately 175 people in all.
+ Public Advisory Committee (PAC) advises the WDNR
  and other organizations  on RAP implementation; rep-
  resents the interests of citizens, business, and agencies
  in the RAP process; and builds public support for the
  RAP. Some of its objectives include setting implemen-
  tation priorities, developing strategies for funding RAP
  activities, getting the RAP on public and private sector
  agendas, and writing a biennial report on RAP progress.
  Members are appointed by the WDNR for three-year
  terms. Representatives include local, state, and federal
  governments, local industry and environmental groups,
  state legislators,  and citizens at large. The PAC also
  oversees  the Public Education and the Science and
  Technical Advisory Committees.

* On  the  Science and Technical Advisory Committee
  (STAC), scientists and resource mangers provide scien-
  tific oversight and technical advice  to the PAC and
  WDNR RAP updates,  implementation, monitoring,
  and research.

* Public Education and Participation advisory committee
  (PEP) promotes the goals of the RAP through education
  and information exchanges, provides opportunities for
  the public to comment and get involved in RAP imple-
  mentation,  and develops and implements an annual
  public information and participation plan.

  The PEP committee's 1992 workplan seeks as much as
  $66,600 in cash and $20,000 in kind for their activities.
  PEP committee budgets must be approved by the PAC.
  Planned budgeting for the PEP committee replaced the
  ad hoc budgeting in previous years. Funding sources
  include  grants and donations from local and  state
  governments and interest groups. For example, Brown
  County has donated $20,000 per year for the past four
  years to the RAP implementation program.
Goals and Strategy
The PAC, STAC, and PEP committees all have goals,
objectives, and budgets spelled out in their respective
workplans. The PEP committee is discussed here.
4 The overall goal is to increase public involvement in and
  support for the RAP. Outreach  efforts  are focused
  primarily on people  who use the resource-targeted
  audiences. The underlying rationale is that those who
  have a stake in the river and bay resources should be
  most interested in the RAP.  Once involved, they are
  likely to be supportive of RAP efforts.

* The PEP committee developed a 1992 workplan with
  goals and objectives. The PEP committee's goal is to
  promote the RAP through public information, educa-
  tion, and outreach programs and to provide opportuni-
  ties for public participation in plan development and
  implementation. Specific program activities, groups
  responsible for the activity, target dates, current sta-
  tus, and estimated cost are all detailed for each pro-
  gram and objective. The objectives to reach the PEP
  goal include:

      * Target RAP education and promotion projects for
        special groups (e.g., schools, business, sport
        fishers, boaters, etc.)
      * Provide RAP information to basin residents to
        increase public awareness and involvement.
      4 Increase participation of local industries in RAP
      4 Periodically assess public awareness of RAP
        (every three years).
      4 Develop a network of volunteers for ongoing RAP
        education programs that includes industry, the
        public, and special interest groups.
      * Document resource contributions for RAP pro-
        gram implementation.

* Survey. A public perceptions and attitudes survey of
  local (Brown County) residents was conducted by re-
  searchers at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay
  which provided valuable feedback on the effectiveness
  of RAP information and outreach efforts. The survey
  found 20% of the residents  knew  of the RAP; 90%
  supported the RAP's goals when described; the major-
  ity  identified newspapers as the primary source of
  information on the RAP; brochures, newsletters, and
  public meetings were the least effective tools.

* Educational Displays. Displays and resource people are
  provided at sport shows and other public events (e.g.,
  an aquarium display or Secchi disk demonstration of
  eutrophication). This forum provides better one-on-one
  contact. The aim is to reach new people. The committee

  plans to establish a large, museum-quality display for
  use at area shopping malls, museum, nature centers, or
  other public facilities.

* Award program. The Clean Bay Backer Award is
  presented annually to people and organizations con-
  tributing to the clean up effort. Now in its third year.
  Not as successful as proponents would like. Does not
  really promote actions but does provide public recogni-
  tion of good works by businesses, community organiza-
  tions, citzens, governments, and youth groups.

* Cleanup Day. The River/Bay Cleanup Day is an annual
  event which attracted approximately 500 people in
  1991 to pickup litter and debris along AOC shorelines.
  While the direct or immediate importance of the effort
  to water  quality may not be significant in the short
  term, the program's real value lies in connecting people
  to the waterfront, making people feel they are contrib-
  uting to  the cleanup and  in the  media coverage it

* Baybook. The Daybook, a citizen's "home guide to
  pollution prevention," identifies specific activities which
  people can use to change their household practices to
  improve the bay.

* Local schools.  The Adopt-a-Waterway program pro-
  vides training, equipment, and transportation to local
  high schools to monitor water quality and study causes
  of pollution. The pilot project is currently being evalu-

+Adopt-a-Waterway. Efforts will focus on expanding the
  program, sharing data, and developing an educational
  video tape.

* Workshop. Co-host a pollution prevention workshop
  aimed at  government and industry.

Prescriptions for Success
* Have a public outreach plan with specific objectives,
  activities, costs, and dates.

* Target audiences with information and activities that
  are meaningful to them; be  prepared to take your
  program to regularly scheduled meetings or events of
  target audiences.

* Network/cooperate with other environmental educa-
  tion programs or group events. Take advantage of
  already assembled audiences.

* Get agencies and industries interested and involved.
  Many RAP actions were undertaken because someone
  representatives an agency or industry on the PAC was

* Invite key individuals to sit on advisory committees who
  can not only represent a corporate, governmental, or
  environmental perspective but can leverage support
  from their agency or interest group. PAC members
  must be willing to go to government meetings, such as
  the county board, to keep them up to date on the RAP.

* Invite educators and communication specialists to be on
  advisory committees.

* Use the PAC to overcome political boundaries. A PAC
  representing a variety of geopolitical  districts can
  facilitate multi-jurisdictional solutions. E.g., a more
  stringent agricultural non-point source ordinance was
  ushered through various local governments by PAC

4 Regularly inform area legislators of needs and keep
  RAP on  political agendas.  Providing bipartisan/
  nonpartisan information to state  and  local elected
  officials and involving them on the PAC has helped get
  legislation and funding for RAP-related  programs.

* The PEP committee works  with other committees on
  the PAC. The STAC wants monitoring data is needed
  to "sell the RAP down the road" and show that the RAP
  is working. Close coordination between PAC, PEP, and
  STAC committees can help  in establishing implemen-
  tation priorities and in targeting appropriate audi-

* Gather quality data and monitor to facilitate technical
  aspects of RAP implementation and to document suc-

* Take into account time constraints of key stakeholders
  (e.g., many working people cannot attend meetings in
  the middle of the day). Structure outreach efforts and
  meetings to accommodate them.

Outstanding  Problems
* The Clean Bay Backer award has suffered from a lack
  of applicants in past years. Effort is needed to improve
  publicity and expand participation.

4 A special and more intensive effort is needed to get
  effective media coverage and to greatly expand the
  audience receiving the RAP message.

* Federal RAP official feels that the local PAC members
  do not have much faith in the federal commitment to
  the RAP process. One federal official said, "they don't
  rely on us because they don't expect anything."

4 Evaluation of information/education projects is diffi-
  cult. Periodic public awareness surveys can help.

Susan Handley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X
Gretchin Hanna, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Kathy Minch, PSWQA
Mike Sato, People for Puget Sound

The public participation and education program in Puget
Sound is spelled out in the biennial Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan  (WQMP).  A special state
agency, the Puget  Sound  Water Quality Authority
(PSWQA), is responsible for implementing the plan and
ensuring that other state agencies, such as the Depart-
ment of Ecology (Ecology) or the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, carry out their portions of the plan as well.
The 1991 WQMP outlines separate program elements for
public  involvement  and public education and for the
creation of  public independent non-profit organization,
The Puget Sound Foundation.
* The  PSWQA, Ecology, and the U.S.  Environmental
  Protection Agency (USEPA) as well as other state and
  federal agencies all have responsibilities for the WQMP.
  Each of these agencies has responsibilities for involv-
  ing and educating the public though the PSWQA leads
  the effort. Several independent private nonprofits are
  also working on projects in Puget Sound.

* The PSWQA is governed by an eleven member board
  with representatives from around the Sound. Some
  members are municipal or tribal representatives  oth-
  ers are citizens at large, all are appointed by the
  governor. The Chair of the board is also the Director of
  the Department of Ecology. The PSWQA also has a staff
  of over twenty primarily devoted to planning and public
  outreach. Five committees composed of representa-
  tives from agencies responsible for the plan, business,
  academia,  and environmental groups advise  the
  PSWQA.  The committees  tend to be technical in na-
  ture; there is no public outreach committee.

* At the PSWQA each staffer is responsible for outreach
  in a geographic area on the Sound. These staffers may
  talk to a special interest group or testify at a hearing.
  The Outreach Coordinator ensures that the staffers
  have the material for their efforts. An Information
  Officer works with the media and develops marketing
  programs with local media and businesses. A Legisla-
  tive Liaison is the PSWQA's link to the state legisla-
  ture, and the Publications Coordinator handle the
  WQA's newsletter and other publications.

* Region 10 of the USEPA has the only full-time regional
  public involvement coordinator in the country. Though
  her work does not apply to Puget Sound exclusively, she
  recently developed draft federal guidance which makes
  public participation planning a requirement for agen-
  cies receiving non-point pollution control funds under
  section 319 of the Clean Water Act.

* The formation of a Puget Sound Foundation is proposed
  in the 1991 WQMP.  Since the WQA is scheduled to
  sunset in 1995, the Foundation would ensure a long-
  term commitment to the public education and partici-
  pation programs. The Foundation is still being devel-

* A private nonprofit organization, the People for Puget
  Sound (PPS), is a recently formed organization aimed
  at increasing awareness  of and  involvement in the
  Sound. PPS is using a series of savvy marketing tech-
  niques to attract a "market segment" which is inter-
  ested in the environment but is not active in supporting
  efforts to restore it. Four professionally produced tele-
  vision spots, donated local advertising time on cable
  television stations such as MTV, Lifetime, and CNN, a
  toll free telephone number, and low membership fees
  ($5 for an adult, $1 for children) are designed to build
  a membership of 50,000 in three years.

* The Puget Sound Alliance was formed in 1984. Origi-
  nally formed to lobby for the creation of the PSWQA it
  now runs a citizen monitoring program called

* PugetSounders is another nonprofit organization work-
  ing exclusively on improving the environmental quality
  of the sound. Its efforts  are  mostly focused on the
  northern end of the sound.

* Funding sought for the public involvement and educa-
  tion portion of the WQMP was almost $2 million for the
  first biennium in 1987-89 and will grow to $8.8 million
  for the 1995-97 biennium. $5.2 million was requested
  for 1991-93. Educational outreach and coordination is
  also funding in the habitat and wetlands elements of
  the WQMP. Not all of this programs were funded.

Goals and  Strategy
As a planning document, the WQMP  is  impressive. It
defines problems, describes the program status, and sets
out goals and strategies. It then  describes  dozens of
program elements, their current  status and funding
requirements. The implementation of the WQMP is greatly
facilitated by having an agency whose singular mission is
carrying out the plan.
i The goals of the education and public involvement
  program are:

      * Inform, educate, and involve individuals, groups,
        businesses, industry, and government in the
        cleanup and protection of Puget Sound;

      * Increase understanding of the Sound's ecosys-
      4 Create the kind of commitment that will  be
        necessary  to sustain efforts to improve and
        protect water quality over the long term.
*  The WQMP lists the following strategies to achieve
  these goals:

      4 a public involvement policy to be followed  by
        agencies and local governments;
      f increase resources to state agencies and tribal
        governments  for coordinated interagency/
        intergovernmental education programs on habi-
        tat, policy, and volunteer action;
      * field agents to coordinate among local and re-
        gional education and participation programs;
      * a Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-
        Fund) to support short term public and private
      * a Puget Sound Foundation to support efforts in
        the long-term.
* While not part of the WQMP, the PPS's goal is to get new
  people involved in the effort to save the Sound. Its
  strategy is to use professional marketing techniques to
  target attract new people from a specific segment of the

The list of the PSWQA's  activities is too long to include
here.  Most of  the  activity in  public involvement and
education is carried out through the Public Involvement
and Education Fund (PIE-Fund).
* Funded at $ 1.1 per biennium, the PIE-Fund make small
  grants to private organizations, non-profits, and local
  governments and schools to implement short-term
  public involvement and education program designed to
  benefit the Sound. In 1987-88, the PIE-Fund made  47
  grants with none exceeding $50,000. The grants fell
  into six sections: waste management, habitats and
  resource protection, monitoring and mapping, water-
  shed protection, citizen participation in decision-mak-
  ing, and water quality  education for youth k-12.

Other activities include:

* The full-time PSWQA Public Involvement Coordinator.

* A water quality directory and information hotlines.

* Water quality field agents were assigned to work with
  some local and tribal governments to improve public
  education and involvement.

* A state Environmental Education Task Force was
  formed to link education and public involvement efforts
  and support K-12 teacher training. The State Board of
  Education has plans to integrate environmental educa-
  tion into the K-12 curriculum. The Governor formed a
  Council on Environmental Education composed of di-
  rectors of natural resource agencies.

4 The Department of Ecology hired an education coordi-

* A pollution prevention education program aimed at
  business and industry was partially funded focusing
  mostly on pesticide users.

* Some teacher training was funded through the PIE-
  Fund. As of December 1990, 52 workshops had been
  offered with about 1,200  teachers attending.

* School  and  citizen monitoring was not funded in the
  WQMP but several area teachers are participating in
  the Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
  water quality monitoring program from the University
  of Michigan.

Diana Klemans, U.S. RAP Coordinator, Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources
Fred Kemp, Port Huron Wastewater Treatment Plant
and BPAC member
Tim Lozen, private attorney and BPAC member
Bill Melville, federal RAP coordinator, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency
Gory Johnson, Canadian RAP Coordinator, Ontario Min-
istry of the Environment (OMOE)
Donna Schmidtmeyer, D.E.Schmidtmeyer Consultants,
OMOE consultant

* The OMOE is the lead agency for the St. Clair RAP.
  However, the St. Clair River is a binational Area of
  Concern (AOC) so the Michigan Department of Natural
  Resources (MDNR) is also responsible for the RAP.

* The 46-member Binational Public Advisory Council
  (BPAC), formed in 1988, advises the RAP Team, a
  group of agency personnel writing the RAP. A consult-
  ant organized the BPAC based on nominations from the
  general  public.  Members  represent various sectors
  with interests in the river as opposed to being chosen
  as individuals, though no group or sector "owns" a seat
  on the BPAC. Each member is supposed to keep others
  in their sector up to date on the RAP. This has allowed
  for few BPAC vacancies and much continuity in the
  BPAC—when members  resign, they often  offer the
  BPAC suggestions on a replacement from their sector.

* The BPAC's Communications Committee, organized in
  1991, represents the BPAC in "communication" mat-
  ters such as reviewing and providing input for commu-
  nication materials such as newsletters and slide shows.
  It does not use a detailed workplan to carry out its
  tasks. The committee is involved in many aspects of
  public involvement: developed ideas, reviewed Stage I
  strategy and overview, commented on newsletters, etc.

* The OMOE  retains a professional communications
  consultant who coordinates outreach, education, and
  involvement activities, facilitates BPAC meetings, and
  handles some clerical responsibilities. Communica-
  tions staff in the MDNR assist in these matters. The
  MDNR, on occasion, has hired a consultant to conduct
  specific activities related to education, communication,
  and outreach.

* The RAP Team, composed of agency professionals, is a
  technical resource for the BPAC, is responsible for
  writing the RAP documents, and oversees the public
  involvement  planning.

* The BPAC has no independent budget or  spending
  authority—it rests solely with the state and provin-
  cial agencies. Currently, OMOE, as the lead agency, is
  responsible for funding the BPAC's activities. MDNR
  pays the cost of special activities (e.g., public meetings)
  and BPAC meetings on the U.S. side of the river. The
  OMOE contribution is  provincial and federal money
  allocated according to the Canada-Ontario Agreement
  (COA); MDNR's source of funds for public participa-
  tion/communication activities has been the U.S. fed-
  eral government's 205J funds. There is no mechanism
  set up to accept private donations to the BPAC. Some
  on the BPAC are frustrated by the current arrange-
  ment saying their ability to produce creative outreach
  projects is restricted by both the lack of funding and the
  uncertainty of the funding process.

Goals and Strategy
* Currently, the BPAC is the primary focus of the public
  participation effort and is the primary means of obtain-
  ing advice and input on the RAP. The overall objective
  is to increase BPAC participation beyond simply re-
  viewing proposed documents. However, outreach and
  participation activities  for the general public are un-
  derway. Due to a lack of funding in Michigan, the effort
  to reach the general public has been stronger on the
  Ontario side.

4 A comprehensive binational strategy for public involve-
  ment in the Stage I RAP did  not exist. However,
  Ontario's Public Involvement Coordinator (see below)
  wrote and followed a Public Consultation Plan for the
  release of the Stage I document to the general public.
  Also, the coordinator wrote a series of public involve-
  ment strategies for Ontario with the support of OMOE.
  Michigan did not adopt these strategies.

* In the future, the agencies, with input and advice from
  the  BPAC, will develop  a public participation and
  education strategy for Stage II. MDNR and OMOE are
  also working on separate standard models for public
  participation in the three binational RAPs bordering
  Michigan and Ontario. These guidelines will be used to
  develop AOC-specific workplans. Some differences in
  approach between the agencies have caused delays in
  establishing the strategy.

* Future strategies may have to have more planning.
  Outreach and participation activities will need to  go
  beyond the public meeting focus of Stage I on both side
  of the river.

* Newsletter. The OMOE consultant writes the periodic
  newsletter with contributions from BPAC members.

* Stage I Summary. The MDNR contracted with a local
  Michigan planning agency to write a non-technical
  summary of the Stage I document. This will allow more

  of the general public to easily understand the RAFs
  projects and the AOC's problems.

+ Meetings. All BPAC meetings are open to the public.
  People who are not members of the BPAC are encour-
  aged to comment at meetings and participate in BPAC
  discussions. Usually, 10-20 non-members attend each
  meeting though special interests, such as boaters, may
  show up in greater numbers if their issue is on the
  agenda. The press often attended.

* Sector meetings. Representatives from  within sectors
  (e.g., environmental, industry, municipal) met in 1988
  and 1989 prior to the formation of the BPAC to discuss
  their expectations of the RAP and the planning process.

«• Public meetings. The OMOE and MDNR used public
  meetings to introduce the RAP program to the public in
  1988.  Approximately, 200 people would attend. At
  recent public meetings held to announce the release of
  Stage I a total of 56 people attended two public meet-
  ings in Ontario and 80 people attended one in Michi-
  gan. The general public also is requested to review and
  comment on the draft documents. The agencies have
  held workshops for the BPAC members and the general
  public on specific topics pertinent to the AOC.

* Mall display. The OMOE developed a portable display
  which has proven popular in local shopping malls, at
  Sarinia's Festival by the Bay, and in marinas during
  provincial Environment Week.

t Cruise. Two river cruises coordinated with the release
  of the Stage I document gave 300 people an up close look
  at the river. This event also generated a lot of media

+ Speaking tour. OMOE and MDNR officials and BPAC
  members have spoken to local interest groups about the
  RAP and the AOC.

* Poster and button. The OMOE distributed posters and
  magnetic buttons depicting the river in a positive light
  to generate enthusiasm about the river cleanup.

* Slide show. The OMOE developed a slide show to help
  in outreach efforts.

* Schools. The communications committee is investigat-
  ing ways to improve RAP material in the local schools.

* Spill response initiative. Some BPAC members made
  suggestions to improve the speed of the existing system
  for notifying officials on  one  side of the border  of a
  chemical spill on the other.

* 1-800 telephone number. Early on in the  process, the
  OMOE maintained a 1-800 toll-free telephone number
  for RAP information. Though useful for specific events,
  the line was eventually dropped because of lack of use.
Prescription for Success
* Assign the BPAC  as members of a sector not as
  individuals and responsibility to report back to that
  sector. This allows for continuity in the BPAC member-

* Develop a plan for public participation. The ad hoc
  method now being used has had problems in generating
  interest and scheduling the required work.

* Use the BPAC. Use its informal nature to accomplish
  tasks which might otherwise get bogged down in the
  inherent bureaucracy of the agencies. Use the BPAC's
  binational configuration  to smooth over differences
  between Michigan and Ontario agencies, such as the
  dispute on review timing which the BPAC negotiated.
  Use the BPAC's muscle to pressure governments when
  needed, such as the BPAC walkout which attracted the
  attention of provincial and state policy-makers not
  already involved in the RAP.

Outstanding Problems
* A binational  public  outreach plan with goals  and
  objectives needs to be developed quickly in order to
  facilitate a coordinated approach to public involvement
  and education and ultimately implement the RAP.

* The commitment to funding and staffing public out-
  reach and participation activities needs to be consis-
  tent throughout the AOC. Future strategies on both
  sides of the river will need to be outlined with expected
  costs and time allocations  listed. The BPAC should
  have direct input into this budgeting process.