EPA 910/9-39-023 &EFA United Stales Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington Water Division Nonpoint Sources August 1989 Effective Nonpoint Source Public Education and Outreach: A Review of Selected Programs in Region 10 ------- Effective Nonpoint Source Public Education and Outreach: A Review of Selected Programs in Region 10 By Clare Ryan Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Water Division August 1989 ------- Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge and thank the U.S. EPA National Network for Environmental Management Studies Program, which provided funding for this research. Mr. Elbert Moore, Region 10 Nonpoint Source Coordinator, sponsored the project and provided valuable guidance, direction and review for the study and final report. In addition, thanks are due to the many nonpoint source educators throughout the Region 10 states who provided program information through numerous telephone interviews, and hosted several site visits. The author also appreciates the time and efforts of the interagency review group, who provided technical review and comments on the work plan and drafts of the report: Russ Collett, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Anita Diaz, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) Debra Garner, Unified Sewerage Agency Nancy Richardson Hansen, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Dave Sturdevant, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Bruce Sutherland, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Don Martin, U.S. EPA, Idaho Operations Office Dick Wallace, Washington Department of Ecology Disclaimer This report was developed through the U.S. EPA National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) program. The program provides funding and opportunities for graduate students to investigate topics of particular interest to U.S. EPA. This project was administered from U.S. EPA Region 10 in Seattle, Washington, and monitored by Mr. Elbert Moore, Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinator. The report has been reviewed by the Region 10 Office of Water Planning, and approved for copying and dissemination. The contents and views expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other organizations named in this report, nor does the mention of trade names for products or their software constitute their endorsement; ------- Abstract Nonpoint Source (NPS) pollution has been identified as the principal remaining cause of water quality problems throughout the United States, and public education and outreach is recognized as an essential element of an effective NPS control program. There are a number of successful NPS public education and outreach programs being planned and implemented in U.S. EPA's Region 10. This report documents and evaluates several selected NPS public education and outreach programs in Region 10. Nine statewide/areawide initiatives and 14 individual education programs are examined, addressing a number of different target audiences and types of NPS pollution. An evaluation of the effectiveness of educational techniques across a wide variety of geographical areas and projects is conducted. Evaluation consists of a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the program in general as well as the specific educational techniques employed. Many of the educational techniques identified as effective are common to several of the programs, regardless of the target audience or type of NPS pollution. These techniques are identified as "keys" to success and represent what educators see as the most crucial elements of success for their particular educational efforts. ------- CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 4 II. Statewide/Areawide Initiatives 7 State Section 319 Reports 7 Alaska 7 Oregon 8 Washington 8 Idaho 9 Other Statewide/Areawide Initiatives 9 Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program 9 Columbia River Slough Project, Oregon 11 Watershed Enhancement Program, Oregon 12 Tirriber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement, Washington .'. 13 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Washington 14 III. Selected Nonpoint Source Programs and Projects-Oregon 15 Upper Crooked River Watershed 15 Bull Run Watershed 16 Tualatin River Basin Study 18 Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Program 20 Bear Creek (Rogue Valley Council of Governments) 22 IV. Selected Nonpoint Source Programs and Projects-Washington 24 Johnson Creek Project 24 Burley-Minter Clean Water Project 25 Moses Lake Clean Lake Project , 28 Clearwater River Project 29 Puget Sound FARM Project 30 Associated General Contractors Project 32 V. Selected Nonpoint Source Programs and Projects-Idaho 33 Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program 33 Little Canyon Creek Project 35 Willow Creek Project 36 VI. Conclusions/Recommendations 38 ------- FIGURES Number 1 Selected Nonpoint Source Pollution Public Education/Outreach Programs in Region 10 IV ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nonpoint Source (NPS) pollution has been identified as the principal remaining cause of water quality problems throughout the United States. In order to address this problem, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states are directed by the Water Quality Act of 1987 to assess their waters and devise appropriate solutions to NPS problems in their areas. Regulation and control of NPS pollution is difficult because of the diffuse nature of the problem. As a result, public education is recognized as an essential element of an effective NPS control program. Through education and technical assistance, individuals and groups become aware of how their actions can and do cause NPS pollution, and prompt behavior changes to correct those problems. This report documents and evaluates several selected NPS public education and outreach programs in U.S. EPA's Region 10. Nine statewide/areawide initiatives and 14 individual education programs are examined, addressing a number of target audiences and types of NPS pollution. Documentation was accomplished through literature review, phone interviews, and personal visits to some of the project areas. An evaluation of the effectiveness of educational techniques across a wide variety of geographical areas and projects was conducted. The evaluation consists of a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the program in general as well as the specific educational techniques employed. Many of the educational techniques identified as effective are common to several of the programs, regardless of the target audience or type of NPS pollution. These techniques have been identified as "keys" to success and represent what educators see as the most crucial elements of success for their particular educational efforts. Several of the more common "keys" are summarized below. Framing the problem in terms of individual and area wide issues (i.e., impacts on fish, irrigation management, erosion control, and individual economic concerns) tends to be more effective than emphasis on generalized environmental concerns such as water quality. Complete information must be provided to watershed or area residents regarding the nature of the problem and actions required to correct it. If residents clearly understand the problem and the steps required to correct it, the chances of high participation in implementing solutions increases. Adequate technical assistance is necessary to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other control strategies. Staff must be available to deal with the large number of requests for technical assistance generated by the information and education program. ------- Frequent personal contacts by staff who are providing technical and financial assistance is very important. A BMP is more likely to be implemented if contacts are frequent throughout the life of the project. Financial incentives such as cost sharing, tax reduction plans and grants are important, but perhaps not as important as the combination of these incentives with additional incentives. Other incentives that are successful when combined with financial incentives include labor from public agencies or other groups to install BMPs, public recognition of a job well done, and personalized, project specific promotional items such as hats with special project area logos for participants in the project. Peer education in the form of individual, neighbor-to-neighbor contacts is effective in encouraging nearby landowners to implement BMPs. Peer group sponsorship of educational events and activities increases the overall credibility of the program. Commitment to adequate funding of public education and outreach, as well as including educational specialists as part of the staff, is essential. A definite budget for education and outreach helps ensure that educational activities do in fact take place. Interagency coordination allows agencies and groups to pool their resources and efforts, making education and outreach a more comprehensive part of the solution to NPS pollution. Early educational efforts are crucial to the success of a NPS control program because area residents become involved and participate in the development of solutions. Participation allows area residents to take ownership of the NPS control program, increasing the chances for successful implementation of the program: The possibility of future regulation of nonpoint sources appears tซ~ be an important incentive for participating voluntarily in NPS programs. Several of the projects examined have fall-back regulatory provisions should the voluntary program not prove to be effective in controlling NPS pollution. Local and individual autonomy are essential in designing and carrying out NPS control projects. Autonomy in designing solutions provides an opportunity for area residents to develop site specific solutions, which are more likely to be implemented. Participatory events such as tours, trips, *nd demonstrations are more effective than public meetings where people simply listen to presentations of information. ------- Newsletters are an effective way to contact all of the people in the watershed or project area. Newsletters should be regular and include stories about project-specific activities and individuals. Several recommendations can be formulated based on the identification of some of the common elements of successful NPS public education and outreach programs. NPS public education and outreach must be a regular, defined and funded element of a NPS control project's budget. Without it, educational activities may not be conducted unless there is a motivated staff person to make sure that the education takes place. A formal education and outreach strategy must be developed for each project area. Planning for education and outreach activities increases the chances that the education will take place, and that those activities will be successful in encouraging implementation of solutions to NPS pollution. Education and outreach must begin at the earliest point possible in the implementation of a NPS control program. The most effective NPS control programs have conducted educational efforts up front, and were successful in encouraging high participation in implementation of BMPs. Programs that did not do so encountered extreme public opposition, and were forced to step back and conduct public education and outreach before solutions were implemented. j Further investigation is needed regarding the effect of the possibility of future regulation of nonpoint sources as an incentive for participation in "voluntary" programs. Many of the effective programs are voluntary, but have the provision that regulations will be developed if the voluntary program does not prove to be effective. ------- I. INTRODUCTION Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution is the result of actions by many different people, animals, or businesses, the combined effects of which can be significant in a particular body of water or watershed. Because NFS pollution impacts are site- and source-specific, difficult to identify, and challenging to quantify, assessments of the severity of NFS problems nationwide vary. However, in the 1982 National Water Quality Inventory, six out of 10 EPA regions reported that NFS pollution is the principal remaining cause of water quality problems in their region (Humenik et a!., 1987). Regulation and control of NFS pollution is difficult because of the diffuse nature of the problem,, and the fact that pollutants and watersheds often cross political boundaries, while most control programs or ordinances are implemented within strict jurisdictional lines. While extensive regulatory programs are in place for other types and sources of pollution, this is not the case for NFS pollution. Recent water quality evaluations and landmark legislation place NFS pollution control programs at a pivotal point. The Water Quality Act of 1987 specifically addresses NFS pollution in directing state governments to assess their waters and devise appropriate solutions to their NFS pollution problems. These solutions require ongoing commitment and effort from an informed and involved public; public education and outreach is recognized as an essential element of an effective NFS pollution control program. Through education and technical assistance activities, individuals and groups become aware of how their actions can and do cause NFS pollution problems, and prompt behavior changes to correct those problems. Objectives/Methodology Several successful NFS related public education and outreach programs are being planned and implemented in U.S. EPA Region 10. The objectives of this report are to document and review selected programs in Region 10, and to provide a reference docurriC, u tor state and local governments and other groups regarding the development and implementation of successful NFS public education and outreach programs. The NFS programs were selected for review on the basis of their reputations for having effective public education and outreach activities, as well as their success in obtaining high participation rates in the application of best management practices (BMPs). Additional programs were suggested by state and federal agency staff as appropriate for review. These additional programs are in preliminary stages of planning or implementation, but have shown to be successful in early educational efforts. Figure 1 shows the locations of selected programs. The report begins with a general discussion of statewide and areawide NFS initiatives, and includes documentation and evaluation of selected NFS educational programs in the states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Documentation was ------- accomplished through review of existing literature, phone interviews and personal visits to some of the project areas. The evaluation consists of a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the program in general as well as the specific educational techniques employed. Several of the educational techniques identified as effective are common to many of the programs, regardless of the target audience or type of NFS pollution. These techniques have been identified as "keys" to success and represent what educators see as the most crucial elements of success for their particular educational efforts. This information will be useful to states as they develop, implement and evaluate their NFS public education and outreach efforts. ------- Figure 1 Selected Nonpoint Source Pollution Public Education/Outreach Programs in Region 10. Washington Johnson Creek Burley-Minter Watersheds B Clearwater River Moses Lake Clean Lake Project Oregon (5} Upper Crooked River Watershed ฉ Bull Run Watershed m Tualatin River Basin ฎ Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Program @ Bear Creek Idaho (To) Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program (ij) Little Canyon Creek (12) Willow Creek ------- II. STATEWIDE/AREAWIDE INITIATIVES State Section 319 Reports Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 significantly increases the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency and the states to address nonpoint source controls to protect water quality. Under this section, states are required to complete two major reports - an Assessment Report and a Management Program for NPS pollution. The Assessment Report identifies: 1) those waters in the state which without additional action to control nonpoint sources, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the Act; and 2) the categories, subcategories, and particular nonpoint sources of pollution which contribute to not meeting water quality standards. This is a statewide inventory which is updated every two years in conjunction with the state's Water Quality Assessment Report required by Section 305 (b) of the Act. The Nonpoint Source Management Program is based on the Assessment Report, and includes nonpoint source management and pollution control actions the state intends to undertake over the succeeding four fiscal years. The Management Programs also identify all sources of funding for NPS pollution control, as well as a schedule for implementation of the program. The 1987 Water Quality Act authorizes $400 million in grants for four years for the states to use in implementing approved management programs. Given this mandate in the Water Quality Act of 1987, states have a new impetus to assess and prioritize their existing NPS programs, and to develop new programs. The following is a brief description of the public involvement process used in each Region 10 state as their section 319 reports were developed. ALASKA 319 REPORT The Alaska Assessment Report was prepared primarily by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) staff, with the assistance of working groups including 15 state and federal agencies, which provided most of the initial waterbody information. No Citizen or Technical Advisory Groups were convened. Extensive public comments were received on the first draft, and working groups were expanded to include six cities, industry representatives, and environmental representatives. The assessment report calls for an increased effort to conduct public education regarding NPS pollution (ADEC, 1988). A second draft assessment has been prepared, and ADEC, with the assistance of the Conservation Districts, will be coordinating public review meetings throughout the state in the Fall of 1989. 7 ------- OREGON 319 REPORT The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) empaneled a NFS Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to help define the basic elements of the state's NFS program. The results of the CAC's work have been adopted as the backbone of Oregon's NFS program. In devising a program for the prevention and control of NFS pollution, DEQ sought the advice of citizens with experience in forestry, agriculture, aggregate mining, fishing, local government, citizen involvement, and environmental protection. The CAC was briefed by DEQ and a number of other natural resource agencies on NFS pollution types and sources, existing water quality programs, the requirements and opportunities of Section 319, and general water quality issues. The group met eight times over a nine month period in 1988 to develop and recommend to the DEQ a generic process for: Identifying, establishing, and evaluating NFS management programs. Identifying, establishing, and evaluating, best management practices. Defining the appropriate NFS program monitoring approach. Resolving NFS program administration issues and problems. Involving the public in NFS program activities. In addition, an interagency review group was established to assist in developing the assessment process and report contents. The review group held many meetings and developed a questionnaire that was used to solicit water quality information for the assessment. Approximately 500 questionnaires were mailed out to a state-wide mailing list of individuals, agencies and organizations. DEQ scheduled, publicized and carried out a state-wide series of 13 public meetings on the assessment. About 275 interested persons reviewed the maps and data and offered comments, corrections and new information (Oregon DEQ, 1988). With regard to public involvement during the development and implementation of a NFS program, the CAC purposefully left the extent and type of public involvement flexible, so that it may be tailored to the nature of the implementing agency and the activity performed. Generally, the CAC recommended that each public involvement process should: 1) reach a broad cross-section of the interested public; 2) ask for public input in advance of final decision making; 3) give the public adequate time to respond; and 4) produce a "responsiveness summary" or other written record of public comments received and the responsible agency's responses to those comments (Oregon DEQ, 1989). WASHINGTON 319 REPORT The Washington Department of Ecology's (Ecology) 319 report was prepared by Ecology staff. To encourage public, agency and tribal participation in developing the assessment and management program, Ecology held three series of four meetings throughout the state in 1987 and 1988. In addition, Ecology contacted individual state 8 ------- and federal agencies, tribes, local governments, and citizens to obtain available data and information on water quality, beneficial use support, and management activities. As part of several public outreach efforts, Ecology contributed articles to various trade journals and press releases to general news publications about the requirements of Section 319 of the Glean Water Act and the state's progress in meeting those requirements. Widespread radio and television coverage throughout the state was sought for public meetings, with good response (Ecology, 1988). Ecology proposes in its management program to develop and implement a comprehensive education program as a major component of the state's NPS management program to increase public awareness of ways individuals can contribute to the solution of NPS problems. An overall goal of the education program will be to increase public support of and individual participation in NPS pollution control. IDAHO 319 REPORT The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), Division of Environmental Quality prepared the 319 report in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAG), composed of representatives from federal and state natural resource agencies, citizen groups and industry. The TAG provided input in planning the Assessment and furnished information on NPS pollution throughout the state. Agencies also identified programs they had developed to deal with NPS pollution. An informational brochure explaining the Draft Assessment and its development process was mailed to approximately 1,700 people on an established mailing list. Additional brochures were provided to the TAG for distribution. The brochure contained a form for requesting a copy of the Draft Assessment, and over 150 copies of the draft were circulated for public review and comment. Copies of the report were also available for review at DEQ central and regional offices and at District Health Department offices, A press release was distributed to media offices in the state announcing availability of the draft for review, and public comments were accepted during a 30-day review period. A public comment period was also provided for the final Assessment (IDHW, 1989). Other Statewide Areawide Initiatives IDAHO AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM In 1979, Idaho developed and adopted a statewide Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan with funds provided under Section 208 of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act. The 15-year plan called for a voluntary program that would encourage farmers and ranchers to apply BMPs to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution from Idaho's agricultural lands. Using Idaho's state Water Pollution Control account to support implementation, the program directs the state's Division of Environmental ------- Quality (DEQ) to make grants to local Soil Conservation Districts, enabling them to plan for and implement pollution control projects. Grants from DEQ to local Soil Conservation Districts are available for two types of projects: planning and implementation. Planning projects last from one to two years. During this time, districts identify critical erosion areas and other nonpoint sources, select best management practices to correct the problem, estimate treatment costs, and conduct information and education programs for farmers and the general public in the project areas. Implementation grants enable conservation districts to apply voluntary NPS controls in priority watersheds. This is done through programs to share with farmers the costs of installing BMPs. Farmers in a project area may receive up to 75 percent of BMP capital/installation costs, up to a maximum of $50,000 per farm. Districts receiving implementation grants are required by the state to enter into contracts with the farmers for 50 percent of the critical acreage in a project area within three years of receiving the grants from DEQ, and 75 percent within five years. Districts may spend up to 15 percent of the total implementation grant on project administration, educational activities, and additional technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service. Idaho officials believe that the Agricultural Water Quality Program demonstrates that farmers will voluntarily install and maintain BMPs to improve water quality when they receive adequate information, technical assistance and financial help. Strengths of the program include the autonomy given the districts in carrying out their projects, and the personal contact and cooperative attitude between farmers and personnel with technical expertise. Also noted is a "ripple effect" whereby farmers on lands at the edges of project areas are voluntarily implementing BMPs they see benefitting neighboring farms (Industrial Economics, Inc., 1989). The broad cross section of publics directly involved in the development of the Plan served to provide a strong foundation for the State agricultural nonpoint effort. The emphasis on information and education has led to wide-spread acceptance of the plan by farmers, ranchers, cooperating agencies, state legislators, and the general public. State funding shows a strong financial commitment to achieving water quality objectives. Farmers and ranchers have demonstrated their commitment to the plan by matching state expenditures for BMP application under the cost share program. Based on the success of BMPs installed in project areas, many farmers and ranchers are applying BMPs outside of the project area at their own expense. Progress to date demonstrates that a voluntary program is well received by farmers and ranchers, ^nd is effective, given a strong information and education program, adequate technical assistance, and financial incentives. An evaluation of the degree to which water quality objectives have been achieved under this approach is scheduled to be conducted in 1989. The plan calls for a back-up regulatory program to be developed if it is demonstrated that the voluntary program has not proven to be effective (IDHW 1989a). 10 ------- COLUMBIA RIVER SLOUGH PROJECT, OREGON The Columbia Slough is an 18-mile-long body of water that parallels the south shore of the Columbia River. The slough and its branches are the remnants of a more complex natural drainage system of lakes, streams, and marshes that existed in the Columbia River flood plain before much of it was filled and developed. The slough and its associated wetlands provide one of the city of Portland's largest open space and wildlife habitat resources, as well as cover and feed for over 120 species of birds. Pollution in the slough results from its heavily developed basin. Along the lower slough, untreated sewage mixed with stormwater is discharged into the slough when the combined sanitary and storm sewers are overloaded during rainstorms. Along the upper slough, pollutants from cesspools are carried into the slough by groundwater discharges. In addition, industrial spills and discharges, agricultural runoff, the St. John's Landfill and existing pollutants in the slough's sediments contribute to poor water quality (City of Portland, 1988). In 1987, the Portland City Council authorized its Bureau of Environmental Services (Bureau) to study the water quality of the Columbia Slough and draft a plan recommending needed improvements. Approximately $392,000 was allotted for the study and development of the plan. The objective of the plan is to identify and recommend projects and actions that will improve water quality in the slough. Education and public outreach activities are conducted by the Bureau, and have targeted the general public in the Portland area. The majority of the educational efforts have been directed at raising public awareness of the slough, and encouraging involvement in the development of the management plan. As a result, specific BMPs to address NPS pollution are not yet being implemented. Educational activities include: Public workshops to obtain comments on the study and proposed actions for the final management plan A regular newsletter issued by the Bureau Utility bill inserts with information on the slough - A series of public events called the "Slough of Summer Events", that included ''* a 10K walk, canoe trip and cleanup day A "Leadership Committee" was formed as an advisory group to the Bureau Press releases were used often and generated good media coverage Displays at fairs and other public events 11 ------- Use of the City of Portland's extremely well organized neighborhood network as a mechanism to easily deliver information to the public The Portland Audubon Society has been very active in educating the public and coordinating with the Bureau in its educational activities Because the management plan for the slough is so new and not yet fully implemented, it would be premature to attempt to predict how effective this program will be in correcting the NPS problem in the slough. There is no doubt that education will play an important role in the implementation of the plan. However, there are several educational techniques that have been used throughout the process that the Bureau staff believes are effective. Use of the existing neighborhood associations proved to be extremely helpful in educating interested people, and the public events were successful in raising people's awareness of the problem and the activities underway to try to address them. The Bureau is committed to building trust with the community and feels that this is best accomplished through the public events where personal contacts are made and the public is able to directly participate in an activity. In addition, a good relationship with the press and use of a complete and updated mailing list are keys to successful educational efforts (Kramer, 1989). WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, OREGON Oregon's watershed enhancement program provides technical assistance and grant funds to Oregonians for projects that improve the water-holding capability of streambanks and nearby lands. The program is managed by the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB), and was created by the 1987 Legislature with an initial biennial fund of $500,000 for watershed projects. The program is modeled after the successful Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) managed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. STEP depends on local volunteers and matching dollars for projects to improve spawning grounds and habitat for fish. Any person, public or private agency may request funding, advice or assistance in developing a watershed project. The watershed enhancement program focuses on improvements to the riparian and upland areas of watersheds, and on projects that improve the quality or supply of water. Most projects involve small streams in dry climate watersheds. Technical assistance is provided by the agencies participating in the program. With $500,000 available for the 1987-1989 biennium, GWEB received 60 requests that totaled more than $2.7 million. Nineteen projects totalling $434,000 were approved, with individual project costs ranging from $1000 to $60,000. The Board also approved $39,000 in direct grants to Soil and Water Conservation districts for watershed projects. For the 1990-1991 biennium, GWEB will be funded from revenues from the state lottery. It is expected that approximately $1 million will be available from this source for funding watershed projects. 12 ------- In addition, GWEB implemented a $27,000 public awareness and education program that included: Speaking tours and slide shows on watershed project benefits Teacher workshops on nonpoint source pollution Videos on riparian and forest rehabilitation Printing and distribution of three different brochures Planning for GWEB's sponsorship of a January 1990 watershed enhancement conference The educational program will be continued each year, although the level of funding has not yet been determined. Because this program is relatively new, it is difficult to determine the overall effectiveness of the projects. GWEB plans to conduct an evaluation of the entire program at the end of the 1989-1991 biennium. The effort is successful in that projects are being implemented and are generating a high degree of interest and large numbers of requests for applications for GWEB funds (Stahr, 1989), TIMBER/FISH/WILDLIFE AGREEMENT, WASHINGTON The Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW) Agreement was recently developed by state natural resource agencies, environmental groups, timber industry representatives and treaty Indian tribes. It grew out of preliminary discussions among groups with a historical interest in forest practices, and presented a solution to a long-standing controversy about management of forest resources under the state's forest practices regulations. The agreement has significantly enhanced cooperative resource, management of forest practfces, especially in the areas of fisheries habitat and water quality protection. Implementation of the agreement began in January, 1988, and provides the framework, procedures, and requirements for managing state and private forests to meet the needs of the timber industry and to provide protection for fish, wildlife, water resources and cultural/archaeological resources. Although not NPS specific, a general form of education takes place under the auspices of the Training, Information and Education Committee, which is a working group under the TFW Administrative Group. Its members include education, public information and technical specialists who are also representatives of parties to the TFW agreement. This committee works to coordinate communication projects among TFW participants. The group is currently producing a TFW directory of participants, a monthly newsletter, a slide presentation on TFW, displays and a primer describing the TFW process (PSWQA, 1989). 13 ------- While TFW does not include a formal requirement or strategy for NFS education, the management system that has been developed allows for informal education to occur. A critical element of the proposed management system is the interdisciplinary team (ID team) concept. On-site review and evaluation of certain forest practices is necessary if the objectives of the management system are to be met. The ID team is a group of varying size and composition, having specialized expertise, assembled by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to respond to the technical questions associated with a proposed forest practice activity (DNR, 1987). The ID team travels to the site of the proposed activity and evaluates the area. Together the team then decides and agrees upon what actions are appropriate for the area in order to protect water quality or other concerns. If the team cannot reach an agreement, DNR makes the final decision. Again, because the process is relatively new, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Success may be indicated by the fact that agreement on the site specific decisions made by the ID team is reached in approximately 85-90% of the cases (Backes, 1989). PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAM (PIE FUND), WASHINGTON The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority is a state agency established in 1985 and directed to develop a comprehensive water quality management plan for Puget Sound. The Authority is based in Seattle, Washington, and has jurisdiction in the 12- county Puget Sound area. The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan called for the establishment of a program to focus on projects that could serve as models for educating and involving the public in the cleanup of Puget Sound. The 1987 legislature appropriated approximately $1 million from the Centennial Clean Water Fund (generated from a tax on cigarettes) for this model program during the 1987- 1989 biennium. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority uses the money for a series of contracts; through which various groups around the Sound have been funded to carry out Public Involvement and Education projects. The money has been awarded in two competitive rounds: Round 1 awarded 20 contracts for $584,200 in January 1988. Round 2 awarded an additional 27 contracts for $412,100 in June 1988. The PSWQA has been appropriated another $1.1 million by the state legislature for the 1989-1991 biennium. Round 3 contracts will be awarded in November 1989, Round 4 in June 1990. Although not all of the funded projects were focused on NPS pollution, several were. Two such projects are discussed later in this report. Many of the projects are still underway, making it difficult to evaluate the success of the program at this time. Nevertheless, the PIE money has served as "seed" money and has been successfully used to mobilize extensive volunteer and in-kind efforts. Many useful model projects have been developed, and there appears to be a great resource of creative ideas and motivated people who are ready to be actively involved in protecting Puget: Sound. 14 ------- III. SELECTED NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS-OREGON UPPER CROOKED RIVER WATERSHED, OREGON Site/Problem Description: This project is descriptive of only one of several projects being undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) throughout Region 10. The Upper Crooked River watershed is located in central Oregon, in the Blue Mountains, and the project area focuses on 95 miles of public lands that contain tributaries to the Upper Crooked River. Rangeland grazing by cattle is the dominant land use, and the beneficial water uses include resident fish populations, recreation, fishing and irrigation (U.S. EPA, 1988). The project has concentrated primarily on riparian areas and associated uplands, which provide forage for domestic animals and important habitat for a large portion of the wildlife species in eastern Oregon. Damage to these areas is caused by improper livestock grazing on public and private lands. Grazing practices in the area rely primarily on season-long use, which allows livestock to concentrate in riparian areas, rather than on adjacent uplands. As a result, many of the riparian areas in eastern Oregon are in a state of disrepair and degradation. These lands are Of marginal or no value for livestock forage in their present state and lack productive habitat for fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife (Elmore, 1987). Education/Public Outreach Activities: Education and public outreach activities are targeted at area ranchers, with the goal of developing and improving stream systems through grazing strategies. Educational efforts of the BLM are coordinated with U.S. Forest Service, Extension Service, and the Soil Conservation Service and include: Tours of the watershed for area ranchers, environmental groups, the general public and legislative representatives ^* Speeches/presentations by participating ranchers and BLM staff (350 presentations in the last 6 years) Distribution of a brochure on riparian areas A grazing advisory board composed of local ranchers A video entitled "Riparian Management: A Challenge for Our Future" was created and over 250 copies have been distributed. BLM is currently producing a new video on grazing practices in streamside areas. 15 ------- Participatory workshops were conducted throughout the state in which participants worked in small interdisciplinary groups to develop solutions to actual riparian and streamside problems they had brought to the workshop. Funding/Implementation OfBMPs: Funds for educational activities come out of the BLM district budget, with funding levels determined each year by district staff. BMPs implemented in the watershed focus on increasing vegetation production and reducing the water sediment load. They include riparian fencing, placing salt, prescribed burning and various grazing strategies. A unique 10 year management plan is devised for each district. Individual plans are then written for stream systems based on consideration of creek bed geology, average flow, velocity, sediment loading, and watershed topography. There has been noticeable improvement in riparian vegetation, pasture growth, and stocking density. Bear Creek, for example, no longer dries out and now supports trout (U.S. EPA, 1988). Comments On Program Effectiveness: The educational techniques used were of varied success. While workshops and field trips were successful for some groups, they were not as effective for others. The most successful efforts resulted when the target audience's own group sponsored the event, such as having the Cattlemen's Association sponsor a meeting or workshop. The participatory workshops which were held for BLM districts and ranchers statewide, were the most effective technique. In the workshops, small groups examined over 300 miles of streams and developed solutions to real problems that were then implemented the next year. This technique was effective in the sense that implementation and results were seen fairly quickly for a "real life" situation and problem. Participants were also exposed to other thought and problem solving processes as a result of working in small groups together. The effective workshop technique involved activities targeted specifically at public and private land managers, which required tailoring technical information to that specific audience (Elmore, 1989). BULL RUN WATERSHED PROJECT, OREGON Site/Problem Description: The 60,000 acre Bull Run Watershed is located approximately 30 miles east of Portland, Oregon, on the west side of the Cascade mountains close to the northern Oregon border. The watershed is the primary source of water for approximately 700,000 people in the Portland area. In 1892 the area was declared a Forest Reserve by President Harrison and closed to entry. Beginning with the 1904 Trespass Act, the Bull Run watershed has been recognized as a valuable source of drinking water for the Portland metropolitan area. 16 ------- Timber harvesting and road construction in the Bull Run watershed began in 1958. A system of roads provides access to timber sales and facilitates fire protection. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail follows the northeastern boundary of the watershed. Timber harvesting proceeded on a scheduled basis until a lawsuit in 1977 suspended additional activities. Today's harvesting consists of salvaging timber which has been damaged by natural events such as windstorms or insect epidemics. Because turbidity and bacteria are major water quality concerns, harvesting is carefully regulated to ensure that water quality is protected. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Education and public outreach activities are conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and are targeted at the general population of Portland and specifically at contract loggers that are responsible for harvest activities. The U.S. Forest Service Columbia Gorge Ranger District has conducted three tours of the Bull Run Watershed area for the general public. Future tours are being planned. An updated brochure about the area is currently under development, and 10,000 copies will be printed and distributed A video, "Managing a Water Resource: The Bull Run Story", has been produced, and plans for a new video are underway Several articles have appeared in local newspapers A small number of public workshops have been conducted As a part of their contract, loggers must maintain certain standards of operation and comply with a variety of harvesting requirements that address turbidity, roads, and slope, among others. Education of loggers takes place in the contracting stage, as plans for an area are finalized, usually at the harvest site itself. Funding/Implementation OfBMPs: Education and public outreach activities have been funded out of the general Forest Service budget for the project area. Recently, however, the Forest Service has hired a public affairs and education specialist to work full time in the district. BMPs are designed to reduce sediment and erosion. Road construction is minimal, designed to follow a low grade and reduce erosion. Trees are yarded by helicopter as much as possible, and tractors are not used (U.S. EPA, 1988). 17 ------- Comments On Program Effectiveness: The most effective technique has been the watershed tours for interested people. This brings people out to the area, and greatly increases their understanding and appreciation of the watershed as a resource (McCammon, 1989). It is interesting to note that many of the public education and outreach activities have resulted from the active involvement of a local citizen in the area, who was successful in a lawsuit in prohibiting further timber harvests from the Bull Run watershed area. This citizen has organized a group (the Bull Run Interest Group) to continually monitor activities in the watershed area. TUALATIN RIVER BASIN STUDY, OREGON Site/Problem Description: The Tualatin River, located southwest of Portland, is an important natural resource used for irrigation, industry, recreation and wildlife habitat. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has two sewage treatment plants that discharge tertiary effluent to the river in the summer and four that provide secondary treatment, but then recycle the water onto land. In combination with the generally slow moving, meandering nature of the river, heavy algae growth discourages recreational use of the river. Phosphorous helps feed this algae growth, and even with tertiary treatment, about 85% of the excess phosphorous in the summer comes from USA's treatment plants. Low dissolved oxygen caused by ammonia nitrogen discharges from sewage treatment plants also threatens aquatic life. Land management activities such as forestry, agriculture and urban development trigger erosion of nutrients and sediments, and contribute to water quality concerns in the river. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Education and public outreach activities have been directed at the general public and emphasize awareness of the Tualatin. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sponsored some early educational activities; however USA curi^ntiy conducts most of the educational efforts, which include: Formation of a three tiered committee structure-Steering Committee, Citizen Advisory Committee, and Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee-to make decisions, identify and adopt program development objectives, and coordinate the interests and responsibilities of over 30 involved agencies. Distribution of three surface water management newsletters to a mailing list of over 800 individuals A speakers bureau that has reached 45 groups to date and continues its outreach efforts 18 ------- Two community workshops and one open house/public meeting Several informal "open houses" were sponsored by DEQ at local parks, consisting of a "touch tank", information on the river and staff available to answer questions A slide show presentation is available and presented to a variety of groups Speakers are available for public forum panels sponsored by various groups Approximately five fact sheets about the river and its pollution problems were issued by DEQ USA is sponsoring events to raise awareness of the river, water quality issues and how people affect water quality. The events include a canoe trip with elected officials (guided by Portland Audubon Society), removal of debris along a river segment, a fair display and parade float focusing on recycling treated wastewater Funding/Implementation OfBMPs: While DEQ at one time had a full time public information staff person assigned to this project, USA is now conducting the majority of the public education efforts under a city and county grant funded program. In this project area, organizational and jurisdictional responsibilities are still being determined, and USA is trying to establish regional authority for surface water management. As a result, specific BMPs are not yet being implemented in the project area. It is the goal of this project that pollutants that interfere with fishing and swimming in the Tualatin River be controlled by 1993. DEQ has set limits, or "total maximum daily loads" on how much phosphorous and ammonia nitrogen the river can handle. The total amount of allowable nutrients will be divided up into "load allocations" between the jurisdictions and land areas that add nutrients to the river. USA, the counties and cities in the basin, and agencies for forestry and agriculture must submit plans to control phosphorous. Comments On Program Effectiveness: Because this effort is in its early stages, it is difficult to evaluate the overall success of the public education and outreach efforts. The outdoor open houses sponsored by DEQ were extremely successful, and raised people's awareness of the river (Kengla, 1989). In addition, the speakers bureau sponsored by USA has been effective in reaching a large number of people in a relatively short period of time (Garner, 1989). 19 ------- TILLAMOOK BAY RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECT, OREGON Site/Problem Description: The Tillamook Bay drainage basin is located on the northern Oregon coast in Tillamook County, bounded on the east by the Pacific Coast Range and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The primary agricultural industry is dairy farming, which involves approximately 12,190 acres. The livestock produce over 300,000 tons of manure each year, which resulted in severe instream water quality problems. Additional farmland is used for hay and silage production, and raising other types of livestock. The estuary is Oregon's primary oyster growing area, which has been continually threatened with closure due to excessive fecal coliform levels in the growing waters. Recreational clam digging, fishing, boating and numerous other activities attracting more than a million tourists a year have also been affected (U.S. EPA, 1988). Using Environmental Protection Agency funds, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted an investigation to identify the sources of contamination to the Bay and the five rivers that feed into it, and developed a plan to protect the shellfish. Dairies, malfunctioning sewage treatment plants and on-site sewage disposal systems were identified as primary sources of the fecal coliform contamination in the Bay. The Tillamook Soil and Water Conservation District developed an Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan to address water quality problems from dairies. The Rural Clean Water Program is the major implementation program to address animal waste management in the 23,000 acre project area. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Educational activities are targeted at dairy farmers in the project area and are a coordinated effort between the Conservation District, Extension Service, and Soil Conservation Service. The county planning department has also been active, and a citizen advisory group was very involved during the formative years of project. Some of the techniques used include: Extensive one-on-one contact by Conservation District supervisors with dairy farmers in project area Tours of farms that had installed BMPs, with "show and tell" presentations by participating farmers for other farmers Radio and newspaper coverage was extensive during the early phase of the project A regular newsletter from Conservation District was .saued to all farmers in the project area 20 ------- The Tillamook Creamery used a variety of techniques such as field staff and monthly inserts with milk payment checks to promote participation in the project Brochures, both technical and general, were distributed Displays have been used at the county fair and other public events A number of workshops and meetings with farmers have been conducted Slide presentations on the project Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: The initial investigation and the Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan were funded with section 208 grants, and the RCWP has provided the major implementation funding support. The estimated costs for BMPs, technical assistance and information and education activities is approximately $5,186,715 (ASCS, RCWP 1988 Annual Report). Dairy farmers have invested approximately $1.8 million on their own. The Cooperative Extension Service received approximately $50,000 from the RCWP for information and education activities. BMPs are aimed at preventing rainwater and clean surface water from coming into contact with manure, and to prevent contaminated surface water from reaching the streams and bays. BMPs have been encouraged since 1981 and so far have been applied to 109 farms of approximately 150 in the basin (U.S. EPA, 1988). Comments On Program Effectiveness: The success of this program can be attributed to the involvement of dairy farmers and local citizens throughout all phases of the> study, and funding for cost sharing the application of BMPs to accomplish the implementation of the plan. (U.S. EPA, 1985). The one on one contact with peers seemed to be most effective for the dairy farmers. The Tillamook Creamery was effective in using its influence to get farmer participation. An additional strength of this project is the excellent interagency coordination. Other "keys" to success include an active and involved Citizen Advisory Committee, a clear problem definition, available technical and financial assistance to solve the problem and farmer involvement in designing and implementing solutions. Initially it was difficult to get "problem" farms to sign up for participation. After a few successful BMPs were applied, participation of dairy farmers increased and eventually snow-balled to 98% participation of farmers in the critical area. 1985 data shows a 40% to 60% improvement in bacteria conditions in the Bay, and a 50% to 80% improvement in the rivers, where the sources of pollution are located. The cleanup has been conducted without permanently closing any industries, agriculture, or shellfish production activities, and has resulted in economic benefits for both dairy farmers and shellfish growers. The benefits to dairy farmers are in terms of 21 ------- improved forage production on pastures and reductions in cost of animal waste management. Less frequent closures of shellfish growing areas have benefitted shellfish producers. BEAR CREEK (ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WATER QUALITY PROGRAM), OREGON Site/Problem Description: The Bear Creek watershed is in Southern Oregon, and the creek flows through a wide, flat valley and the town of Medford before joining the Rogue River. The Rogue River system includes two major reservoirs and a wild and scenic river reach between the towns of Grants Pass and Agnes. The land use of the valley is mixed, and includes irrigated cropland, orchards, grazing animals, forestry and quarrying. A park corridor has been created along the length of Bear Creek, which provides many recreational opportunities, as well as use of the river water for irrigation (U.S. EPA, 1988). The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) Water Quality Program began in the rnid-1970's, and the first 208 grant supported work concentrated on determining the nature and extent of surface water pollution from sources such as failing septic systems, agricultural and urban runoff. Several reports completed during this time noted the relatively high bacteria, sediment and nutrient levels in Bear Creek and its tributaries. In the early 1980's the RVCOG Water Quality Program began to emphasize reducing both bacteria and sediment levels. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Educational efforts are directed at the general public and agricultural communities of the surrounding area, and are conducted by the RVCOG in coordination with local government agencies and environmental groups. The efforts have included: Posters Storm drain handouts Brochures on septic system care and maintenance sent to every household as inserts in water and power bills Newspaper and media contacts Magazine articles regarding proper disposal of household chemicals V A water quality advisory committee was formed, consisting of citizen and agency representatives 22 ------- Slide show Workshops for small farm management Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: The Oregon DEQ has provided some funding to address the nutrient problems, and section 208 grants funded the initial work. About one quarter of the program is funded by DEQ, the rest is funded by the county, city of Medford, the irrigation district, and local environmental groups. Approximately 6,000 acres have been converted from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, with an average increase in irrigation efficiency from 35 to 70 percent. Permanent crop cover is planted in orchards, and orchardists have removed chemical and heating devices from close proximity of streams and irrigation ditches (U.S. EPA, 1988). Comments On Program Effectiveness: The RVCOG has monitored 38 sites along Bear Creek and its tributaries since 1980. Monitoring shows that fecal coliform counts have dropped significantly, and qualitative observations on fish populations show higher populations of anadromous fish and migration further upstream (U.S. EPA, 1988). Effective coordination between 36 different agencies and groups has been a key to the success of this program. The media has been the most effective way to get the message to the general public about problems in the area (Dittmer, 1989). 23 ------- IV. SELECTED NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS-WASHINGTON JOHNSON CREEK PROJECT, WASHINGTON Site/Problem Description: The Johnson Creek watershed is located in Whatcom County, Washington and consists of approximately 13,450 acres. The watershed is primarily used for dairy farming, and there are 57 family-owned small dairy farms with an average size of 117 acres, producing approximately 40 million gallons of animal wastes per year. The wastes are applied to pastures and cropland when weather conditions permit. The storage of animal wastes during the wet season was causing major water quality problems. Johnson Creek is no longer used for swimming, and fish populations are greatly reduced due to poor water quality (U.S. EPA 1988). In 1981 the Whatcom County Conservation District devised a plan to cope with the increasing water quality problems in the Johnson Greek watershed. Local farmers, concerned about stream erosion and clogged drainage systems as well as the loss of important coho salmon habitat, cooperated in a site-by-site inventory conducted by the conservation district of the 55 dairies within the watershed. Forty-five of these farms were found to need some form of upgraded BMPs or other capital improvements (PSWQA, 1988). Education/Public Outreach Activities: Education and public outreach activities have targeted area dairy farmers. In order for the BMPs to work effectively, a lower water table was required. A consolidated drainage improvement district was formed, and public education was conducted regarding the process of establishing a district. Other educational activities included: A newsletter produced by the Conservation District four times per year Press releases and inserts in the local newspaper Interviews on local radio programs Public hearings/meetings Personal contacts with landowners regarding appropriate BMPs Funding/lrr^'ementation Of BMPs: Formation of the consolidated drainage improvement district made it possible to obtain non-government funds for matching the grants that came to the area. These 24 ------- funds from local landowners provided matching money when grants were awarded, as well as provide continued maintenance funds for system improvement. Grants, loans and other assistance were secured from several sources including Ecology, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and others (PSWQA, 1988). To date, more than $1 million has been spent by landowners combined with federal grant funding through the Soil Conservation Service. An additional $.5 million in technician and administrative assistance was spent on this project. This amounts to approximately $111.00 per acre to address 82 percent of NFS pollution problems (Whatcom County Conservation District, 1988). A detailed conservation planning inventory was completed for all the farms in the watershed in 1979; BMPs were individually applied to each farm from 1980 on. The measures included guttering, animal waste storage facilities, and fencing of streams to limit livestock access. As of 1988, most of the structural work had been completed and the 10-year project was 80% complete. Eighty-two percent of planned structural practices are in place. Twenty of the 45 individual contracts are completed. The remaining contracts will be completed by 1991. The Department of Ecology plans to begin a follow up monitoring program in 1989 to document and quantify the effects of the program on the creek's water quality (Whatcom Conservation District, 1988). Comments On Program Effectiveness: This project was successful in encouraging cooperation of 87 percent of the farms in the area (PSWQA, 1988). A key to the success of this program is that landowners recognized-that there was a problem, and sought assistance to solve that problem. The problem, as well as the actions required to correct it, were clearly defined from the beginning. Landowners were involved early on in the process, and were treated as an important part of the solution to the problem, rather than as the "bad guys" that caused the problem. In addition, grant money to solve the problem was available and the cost sharing was spread over the entire watershed, rather than burdening a few landowners (Miller, 1989). : THE BURLEY-MINTER CLEAN WATER PROJECT, WASHINGTON Site/Problem Description: Burley Lagoon and Minter Bay are two watersheds located on the south side of the Kitsap Peninsula, Washington, which are heavily used for commercial oyster harvesting. These rural areas, part of northern Pierce County and southern Kitsap County, support predominately part time and hobby farmers, who rear a variety of animals, including horses, llamas, and guinea fowl. There are over 175 farms in the project area, 66 percent of which are less than 10 acres in size (U.S. EPA, 1988). 25 ------- During routine testing in 1978, the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) found that Burley Lagoon oysters contained over 700 times the FDA standards for the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria. The bays were closed to commercial shellfish harvesting in 1978, and remain closed to date (U.S. EPA, 1988). Two oyster operations were decertified as a result, in response to the closures, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) began an intensive survey in 1983 in order to identify the specific sources of bacteria. The results of the survey were published in 1985, and identified failing on-site wastewater disposal systems and small non-commercial farms as the two major sources of fecal coliform bacteria loading into the streams of the two watersheds. Because the watersheds of the two estuaries lay within Kitsap County and Pierce County, the two county Conservation Districts agreed to work jointly on the problem. As the intensive survey began, so did funding of the two local Conservation Districts to begin a water quality improvement program aimed primarily at the farmers within the two watersheds (Naglich, 1987). Education/Public Outreach Activities: Education and public outreach activities are targeted at local hobby farmers and the general public of the Burley-Minter watershed areas. Specific activities include: A Citizens Advisory Group that was formed in response to the proposal of Pierce County that the most effective long-term solution to the NPS pollution problem would be regulations to manage drainage, animal keeping practices, and on-site septic systems. The group formed to protest the lack of citizen- involvement in the proposal, and worked for several months developing a report that presented recommendations for solving the problem. This report evolved into a Water Quality Plan that called for a 2-3 year voluntary program and addressed land use, density controls, septic systems, agriculture, erosion, stormwater and water monitoring. The group is still active and meets on a regular basis to assist counties in educating the public about the Plan and implementation of the plan A slide show depicting the water quality problem in the two watersheds is presented to various community, civic and school groups throughout the watersheds Brochures and manuals addressing BMPs, riparian zones, septic tank maintenance, landscaping/yard maintenance, and open space tax reductions are distributed to landowners Workshops/Public presentations have been presented to local grange, 4-H, garden, riding, school and other civic and community groups in the watersheds. 26 ------- Newspaper/media have covered the study area quite often without the use of press releases A newsletter is issued by the Conservation District approximately four times per year. Personal contacts by Conservation District staff to distribute a packet of information to landowners, and encourage voluntary actions to control nonpoint nnlh itinn pollution The Burley-Minter Joint Board, consisting of representatives of Pierce and Kitsap counties, meets regularly to coordinate activities between the two counties (Naglich, 1989). Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: To date, grants from Ecology to the Pierce and Kitsap Conservation Districts have totaled approximately $170,000. U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) funds have been used for cost sharing on BMP implementation. Labor from Washington Conservation Corps and other work groups is provided to install BMPs. In addition, landowners who are willing to set aside sensitive lands and protect them from development and use receive an immediate 90% tax reduction for streams that have been fenced to keep livestock out. Implementation of BMPs was initiated in 1984 and is ongoing with projects such as stream fencing, sediment ponds, streambank erosion protection, culvert installation, gutters and downspouts, manure storage facilities, livestock crossings, grassed waterways, pasture renovation, and riparian zone revegetation (U.S. EPA, 1988; Naglich, 1988). Comments On Program Effectiveness: Limited monitoring shows some improvement in fecal coliform levels. However, the oyster beds are still decertified. The project has been successful in generating requests for technical assistance from the entire area of both counties. Indian tribe representatives are also requesting help on various streams. An important element in the success of this particular program is the entire incentive package-that is, the free labor, cost sharing for BMPs, and the open space tax reduction plan. It is difficult to identify which of these elements provides more of an incentive for landowners. An additional element is the personal communication between neighbors as an educational aid and incentive for installation of BMPs on neighboring properties. Finally, an aggressive, active Conservation District technician who makes frequent contacts with landowners is extremely important to the success of the program (Naglich, 1989). 27 ------- MOSES LAKE CLEAN LAKE PROJECT, WASHINGTON Site/Problem Description: Moses Lake is a large, shallow, eutrophic lake located in Grant county, Washington. The watershed is approximately 2,450 square miles, drained by Crab Creek and Rocky Ford Creek. Much of the land in the Crab Creek watershed is agricultural, and irrigated farmland predominates in the lower watershed. Moses Lake is regulated as part of the Columbia Basin Project which supplies water to over 500,000 acres of farmland. The lake is used extensively for recreational purposes, primarily fishing, boating and swimming. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Educational activities have been conducted by the Cooperative Extension Service and the local Conservation District, targeted at irrigators in agricultural areas. Educational activities include: Annual meeting to draw landowners together and discuss the Clean Lake project Articles in local newspapers Presentations to a variety of groups One on one contact with landowners Tours showing installed BMPs such as irrigation systems Contacts with editors of local papers and media Interpretive signs posted at project areas explaining BMPs Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: Clean Lake Project cost share funds were provided by the Washington Department of Ecology and EPA. $1 million has been spent since 1983. Cost share funding was available for only 5,000 acres to be put under contract, with a maximum cost share limit of $50,000. ASCS also provided some cost share money. Irrigation water management, irrigation system improvements, fertilizer management, animal waste control, sediment and water control structures, and stream protection systems are the primary BMPs applied. Other BMPs, including diluting the lake water with Columbia River water and overhauling existing sewage systems have greatly contributed to water quality improvements in the lake. 28 ------- Comments On Program Effectiveness: The Cooperative Extension Service initially had responsibility for information and education, this was taken over by the Conservation District in the second year of the program. The District no longer employs an education specialist, and education is accomplished by the technicians as they visit specific project areas. The District was overwhelmed with requests for assistance, and still has a large volume of requests. An effective technique was to frame the problem in terms of water management, rather than water quality. The landowners were motivated to implement BMPs once they were educated about how water management problems affected them economically, and more people wanted to participate than there was funding to support. The $50,000 cost share opportunity was also an effective incentive (Kanoff, 1989). There has been noticeable improvement in the water quality of Moses Lake; phosphorous levels have declined by 50%, chlorophyll-a levels have dropped 62%, and lake water transparency has doubled. CLEARWATER RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON Site/Problem Description: The Clearwater River is on the western slope of the Olympic mountains in western Washington. Slopes are steep and covered with Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, Sitka spruce, and white fir. The Clearwater River and its tributaries support a wide variety of fish species! Coho and Chinook salmon as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout can be found in the basin. Minor runs of sockeye and chum salmon also exist. The basin is under intensive timber management by state, federal and private land owners. Eighty percent of the lands in the watershed are state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lands. The intrusion of fine-grained sediment into spawning gravels is the most significant forestry-related impact in the watershed. Intensive logging has caused logging road landslides, which have had negative effects on spawning gravel and fish food organisms (Cederholm, 1989). In addition, winter refuge habitat is being lost due to disruption or blockage of small floodplain channels, and channel stability has decreased due to removal of large woody debris (U.S. EPA, 1988). Education/Public Outreach Activities: The detrimental effects of logging in the basin caused negative publicity for DNR and loggers. As a result, educational activities are targeted at contract loggers and include: A video entitled "The Coho Salmon Puzzle" produced by the DNR and 29 ------- Washington Department of Fisheries Workshops for DNR staff and contract loggers dealing with correct harvesting techniques Personal visits to harvest sites to instruct loggers in proper practices Education is conducted on a sale-by-sale basis, emphasizing site specific training (Cederholm, 1989). Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: No formal funding has been set aside for educational activities, and educational responsibilities are incorporated into the jobs of DNR staff. Some funds were obtained from the Washington Department of Fisheries, who cooperated in the study and funded part of the video. Washington's Forest Practices Act regulates harvest activities, and is the primary source of harvesting requirements. As a part of the contracting process, DNR requires loggers to protect winter habitat and minimize siltation, leave standing buffers along streams, protect small streams, maintain passage for small fish, pave main roads, stabilize landslides, and minimize road mileage. Roads are constructed on full benches to minimize sidecast. DNR has also worked to create ponds and other habitat for fish. Comments On Program Effectiveness: The project has been successful in creating important winter habitat for coho salmon. A key to this success is providing hands on experience to loggers in the field. If it is clear from the outset what is required and why, then most loggers will comply. Education well in advance of the actual harvest activities, including explanations for the requirements, ensures a greater degree of compliance with harvest requirements and conditions. The in-office training was not successful, because each site is very different and generalizations do not apply. It has been extremely difficult to convey and educate loggers regarding the concept of basin wide effects (Cederholm, 1989). PUGET SOUND FARM PROJECT, WASHINGTON (PSWQA PIE PROJECT) The Puget Sound Farm Animal Resource Management (FARM) project is sponsored by the Washington State Dairy Federation with a $30,000 PIE grant and focuses on farming practices, targeting owners of farm animals and commercial milk producers. The project consists of a 14-minute video and an eight page brochure which addresses animal owners' role in protecting water quality. The video presents ways to reduce the impact that farm animals have on the water, and the brochure demonstrates the economic value of proper animal handling techniques. The project 30 ------- was designed in cooperation with agricultural organizations, the Cooperative Extension and Conservation Districts. The video and brochure were presented at "kitchen meetings" in the homes of dairy farmers who live in the 12 Puget Sound counties during 1988 and 1989. This informal approach was a very successful from of peer education. To reach other animal owners, the Federation worked with the Grange, Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Association, Cooperative Extension Service, Woolgrowers, 4-H and the Future Farmers of America. Prior to the submission of a proposal to undertake a public involvement and education project, agriculture in general, and dairy farmers specifically, gained significant media attention as being "major contributors" to nonpoint source pollution in Puget Sound. Nearly half of the Federation members agreed in a survey that their activities may have an effect on the waterways of the Puget Sound Region, so it was clear that they were aware they were part of the problem. The entire project presented a challenge because the Federation's reputation was at stake. Credibility had to be maintained, or the organization would be looked upon as an enforcer or "watch dog", causing loss of credibility as an advocate of dairy farmers' best interests. The Federation created both a technical and user advisory committee to oversee the project. They were able to provide advice regarding whether the program would "sell", and how receptive their peers would be to the program. In addition, the video narration was done by a prominent farm broadcaster who is well respected in Washington's dairy community. One unexpected problem was that the demand for brochures was much greater than planned. There was a "dry spell" in brochure distribution while it was being reprinted, and there is still a high demand for the brochures. The Federation will follow up with local conservation districts during 1989-1990 to see whether dairy farmers without waste management plans who have been exposed to the FARM program have developed and implemented plans. The project , got good media coverage in dairy areas, and the Federation is receiving requests for the brochure from around the country. Forty copies of the video were distributed to farm groups, district offices, etc., and over 2,000 brochures have been distributed (Coyne, 1989). 31 ------- ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS PROJECT, WASHINGTON (PSWQA PIE PROJECT) This project is sponsored by the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Washington with a $37,000 PIE grant and is targeted at members of the construction industry to: Involve them in learning about NPS pollution and about what they can do in their work to reduce such pollution Promote industry action toward preventing pollution and enhancing water quality in the Puget Sound Region Research construction related water quality problems Develop practical and economically feasible solutions for these problems The project addresses safe disposal practices for hazardous and nonhazardous wastes generated in the course of construction activity; best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation during the clearing and grading of a construction site; and resources available for contractors to help them solve problems that arise during construction. A 39-page manual and poster were used to deliver this message. The manual briefly outlines proper waste disposal methods and gives a thorough list of reference people to call for complete disposal requirements. The high degree of popularity and demand for the educational materials was not anticipated. Because of the volume of requests, a second printing was required, and a third was considered. A total of 2,500 manuals were distributed. (Peterson, 1989) AGC plans to send a manual to each chapter of the AGC across the country and also to the local chapter of several other construction groups. As part of the project, AGC sponsored water quality seminars for builders in Tacoma and Seattle. At the seminars, contractors posed questions about hazardous waste regulations, contprr.inated soils, enforcement and other issues to a panel of state and local government staff. The primary reason for the success of this project is that the peer groups and other small groups were conducting the education. Contractors are pleased with the approach, the presentation and the contents of the manual. The size and appearance of the document are not overwhelming, and the drawings are attractive and descriptive. That the manual came from "within" increases the chance that it would be more readily accepted by the industry as opposed to a manual that came from an agency (Peterson, 1989). 32 ------- V. SELECTED NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS-IDAHO ROCK CREEK RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM, IDAHO Site/Problem Description: The Rock Creek Watershed is located in south central Idaho and drains to the Snake River near Twin Falls, Idaho. Approximately 25 percent of the watershed area is in irrigated cropland. All crops are irrigated by water diverted from the Snake River and delivered through a series of canals. Livestock grazing also occurs. Hydroelectric power generation takes place in the lower watershed, and the river water is used for irrigation. Fishing and swimming are common all along Rock Creek. Recreational floating (tubing) is popular in the Rock Creek Park area (U.S. EPA, 1988). The project area is mostly furrow-irrigated cropland planted to dry beans and peas, sugar beets, alfalfa hay, and corn. A 1960 water quality study by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare- Division of Environmental Quality identified Rock Creek as a severely degraded stream with serious public health problems. For years, the creek had been used as a waste dump by sugar, meat and dairy processing plants, stockyards and feedlots. Septic tank overflow discharged into the creek. Hundreds of car bodies were stuffed into the canyon where the creek flows. By the end of the 1970s, most of the direct discharge into the creek had been cleaned up or removed, but the creek was still carrying high loads of sediment and agricultural pollutants. In March 1980, the U.S. Department of Agriculture selected 13 initial project areas for implementation and funding under the new Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), and the Rock Creek project was one of them (U.S. ASCS, 1989). Education/Public Outreach Activities: Educational activities are directed at area landowners and conducted by the Soil Conservation Service and the Conservation District. Some of the successful activities include: A video on the compliance requirements of the Food Security Act Awards banquets to recognize outstanding cooperators Poster contests conducted in three elementary schools A construction field day was held to stabilize eroding Rock Creek streambanks. The work day utilized approximately $10,000 worth of volunteer labor and donated supplies. District sponsored tours of conservation tillage fields 33 ------- Classes on water quality taught to approximately 100 fifth and sixth graders A display is utilized at local meetings, conventions, fairs, etc. 12 conservation tillage signs are posted on farms where good conservation practices can be viewed from major highways Newspaper and radio coverage A newsletter is mailed out to 325 people 3-4 times per year Fact sheets were developed, printed and distributed Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: The Rock Creek RCWP is administered by the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Technical Assistance is provided by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, and the Snake River and Twin Falls Soil Conservation Districts. Cost-sharing grants are made to farmers cooperating in the program through the implementation of qualified BMPs. Approximately $3.5 million in RCWP funds have been expended since the project began in 1980. Farmer contributions are expected to reach $2 million by 1996 (U.S. EPA, 1988b). BMPs are individually tailored for each participating.farm, and conservation tillage is commonly identified as the most appropriate BMP. Other conservation practices include emplacement of sediment basins, mini-basins, l-slots, vegetative filter strips, buried pipe runoff control systems, concrete irrigation ditches, and gated pipelines. Cessation of stubble burning is also encouraged as a non-structural BMP. Improved animal waste management plans are also being implemented for confined animal operations (U.S. EPA, 1988). Comments On Program Effectiveness: Newsletters are an effective way to reach everyone in the watershed. The District has received good feedback on their newsletter, especially if it includes articles on area residents who are participating in the project. Movable interpretive signs were extremely effective. When the contracting period ended in late 1986, the District unveiled a special plaque in a local park along Rock Creek that recognized farmers who had participated in the program. One on one contact with the landowners is an additional key to the success of this program. Suspended sediment has decreased significantly in five of the six sub-basins studied, and fish sampling shows an increase in native trout populations in Rock Creek since 1981 (U.S. EPA, 1988b). 34 ------- LITTLE CANYON CREEK PROJECT, IDAHO Site/Problem Description: Little Canyon Creek watershed is located in Lewis, Nez Perce, and Clearwater counties in north central Idaho and drains to the Clearwater River. The southern part of the watershed is primarily cropland (wheat, barley, peas or lentils), with a few operators raising cattle as well. The northern watershed cropland is on less productive soils, so producers have a more diversified operation of crops and livestock. Approximately 90 percent of the combined watersheds are in dryland farming. The Clearwater River provides significant anadromous fish spawning habitat, and supports a significant recreational and subsistence fishery (U.S. EPA 1988). Conventional tillage of summer fallow is the major contributor to soil erosion and subsequent water quality degradation in the Little Canyon drainage. Excessive amounts of sediment, nutrients, and bacteria from agricultural nonpoint sources are threatening the beneficial uses (water supply) of Little Canyon Creek. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Educational activities are directed at landowners and operators in the Little Canyon watershed. The goal of the Information and Education program is to make people aware of the Idaho State Agricultural Water Quality Program, and the short and long-term benefits of conservation of soil, water and other natural resources. Activities include: Development of a logo for easier recognition of the Little Canyon project A project kick-off luncheon Information packets including a letter from the district supervisors, a fact sheet, a map of the project area, and a questionnaire which the farmers were asked to complete and return A slide show was developed to explain the planning and implementation phases of the project A conservation tillage workshop and a crop tour were held for area farmers Information was provided to the surrounding schools through a poster contest and a sixth grade tour A photo contest, fair displays, grocery bag stuffers and numerous articles . were used to reach the general public 35 ------- A quarterly newsletter was an effective educational tool. A different BMP was spotlighted in each newsletter and an article connected with water quality was included. Mass media was widely used via news releases, public service announcements, etc. An advisory board was formed Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: To date, this project has consisted of planning only, and no BMPs have been implemented yet. As BMPs begin to be implemented, cost share funds will be provided by the Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement program. Comments On Program Effectiveness: Peer education is a critical element to the success of this program. A unique aspect of this project is that the district supervisors (area farmers), have responsibility for contacting a group of farmers in their area, and explaining the program to them. With supervisors actively involved in the program, farmers respond positively to fellow farmers. This also served to make the farmers aware of who the supervisor is and the role that the supervisor has in the program. WILLOW CREEK PROJECT, IDAHO Site/Problem Description: Willow Creek is a major tributary to the Snake River, and the watershed is impacted primarily by runoff from non-irrigated crop production, rangeland and pastureland. These activities have led to channelization of Willow Creek and most of its tributaries. Beneficial uses of primary and secondary contact recreation are potentially at risk. The primary pollutants in this watershed are sediment and nutrients from agricultural activities combined with dryland erosion and low precipitation. Land use is primarily agricultural, with some small grain and dryland wheat production. All of these areas drain to Willow Creek, which empties into Ririe Reservoir. Impacts include sediments in the reservoir, and impairment of fishery and recreational uses of the area. Education/Public Outreach Activities: Education and public outreach activities are targeted at local landowners and operators with non-irrigated cropland. The Conservation District also conducts outreach activities for the general agricultural community of Idaho Falls. Activities include: Area supervisors talk to landowners about controlling erosion, and do not 36 ------- focus on water quality at first. The problem is framed in terms of erosion control, and the voluntary nature of the project is emphasized. " News releases Radio station/local TV contacts A monthly district newsletter is distributed Two Conservation Districts (East side and West side) cooperate together A personal letter explaining the program is sent to each landowner Small group meetings were conducted Hats as a promotional item (with logo of Willow Creek project) are very popular Slide presentations An advisory committee was formed Tours of watershed area with demonstrations of BMPs Funding/Implementation Of BMPs: BMPs are implemented with cost share funds from Idaho's Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program, as well as funds from the Conservation Reserve Program. BMPs have focused on chiseling, crop residue management, sub soiling, deep ripping, contour farming, terraces, water and sediment basins, and no till. Most farms in area have implemented some BMPs. Not all farms are under contract, but many are voluntarily applying conservation practices. Comments On Program Effectiveness: Peer education, or landowner-to-landowner contact, is important. This technique involved district supervisors, who would install BMPs on their lands. As neighbors became interested in what they were doing, the supervisors would educate them about the program and where they could request assistance. The framing of the problem in terms of personal concerns (i.e., erosion, economic benefits) increased the participation rate. Regular and frequent contact is important, and promotional items with logos were very effective in drawing in the landowners in the area together as participants in the project. 37 ------- VI. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS There are a number of successful NPS pollution public education and outreach programs being planned and implemented in EPA Region 10. The elements of a "successful" program have not yet been formally defined, but for the purposes of this report, success has been defined as the ability to educate area and watershed residents about NPS problems in their area, and then encourage implementation of BMPs to control those problems. The overall effectiveness of each program proved to be difficult to measure because many of the programs are in the early stages of implementation and have not had extensive monitoring to document water quality improvements. In addition, many of the educational activities are not well documented, and education takes place in an informal and ad hoc manner in some project areas. In spite of the fact that a more rigorous evaluation of each project was not possible, this review identified several common elements that contribute to the success of NPS public education and outreach programs. These "keys" to success were common to many of the programs, regardless of the target audience or type of NPS pollution. Several of the more common keys are summarized below. Framing the problem in terms of individual and area wide issues (i.e., impacts on fish, irrigation management, erosion control, and individual economic concerns) tends to be more effective than emphasis on generalized environmental concerns such as water quality. Complete information must be provided to watershed or area residents regarding the nature of the problem and actions required to correct it. If residents clearly understand the problem and the steps required to correct it, the chances of high participation in implementing solutions increases. Adequate technical assistance is necessary to implement BMPs and other control strategies. Staff must be available to deal with the large number of requests for technical assistance generated by the information and education program. Frequent personal contacts by staff who are providing technical and financial assistance is very important. A BMP is more likely to be implemented if contacts are frequent throughout the life of the project. Financial incentives such as cost sharing, tax reduction plans and grant are important, but perhaps not as important as the combination of these incentives with additional incentives. Other incentives that are successful when combined vJth financial incentives include labor from public agencies or other groups to install BMPs, public recognition of a job well done, and personalized, project specific promotional items such as hats with special project area logos for 38 ------- Participants in the project. Peer education in the form of individual, neighbor-to-neighbor contacts is effective in encouraging nearby landowners to implement BMPs. Peer group sponsorship of educational events and activities increases the overall credibility of the program. Commitment to adequate funding of public education and outreach, as well as including educational specialists as part of the staff, is essential. A definite budget for education and outreach helps ensure that educational activities do in fact take place. Interagency coordination allows agencies and groups to pool their resources and efforts, making education and outreach a more comprehensive part of the solution to NPS pollution. Early educational efforts are crucial to the success of a NPS control program because area residents become involved and participate in the development of solutions. Participation allows area residents to take ownership of the NPS control program, increasing the chances for successful implementation of the program. The possibility of future regulation of nonpoint sources appears to be an important incentive for participating voluntarily in NPS programs. Several of the projects examined have fall-back regulatory provisions should the voluntary program not prove to be effective in controlling NPS pollution. Local and individual autonomy are essential in designing and carrying out NPS control projects. Autonomy in designing solutions provides an opportunity for area residents to develop site specific solutions, which are more likely to be implemented. Participatory events such as tours, trips and demonstrations are more effective than public meetings where people simply listen to presentations of information. Newsletters are an effective way to contact all of the people in the watershed or project area. Newsletters should be regular and include stories about project-specific activities and individuals. Several recommendations can be formulated based on the identification of some of the common elements of successful NPS education and outreach programs. NPS public education and outreach must be a regular, defined and funded 39 ------- element of a N PS control project's budget. Without it, educational activities may not be conducted unless there is a motivated staff person to make sure that the education takes place. A formal education and outreach strategy must be developed for each project area. Planning for education and outreach activities increases the chances that the education will take place, and that those activities will be successful in encouraging implementation of solutions to NPS pollution. Education and outreach must begin at the earliest point possible in the implementation of a NPS control program. The most effective NPS control programs have conducted educational efforts up front, and were successful in encouraging high participation in the implementation of BMPs. Programs that did not do so encountered extreme public opposition, and were forced to step back and conduct public education and outreach before solutions were implemented. Further investigation is needed regarding the effect of the possibility of future regulations on nonpoint sources as an incentive for participation in "voluntary" NPS control programs. Many of the effective programs are voluntary, but have the provision that regulations will be developed if the voluntary program does not prove to be effective. 40 ------- REFERENCES Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1989 Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report. Section 319 Report to the Environmental Protection Agency. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, AK. 65 pp. + appendices. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1988. Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report. Public Review Draft. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, AK. 53 pp. + appendices. Amara, Mark. Moses Lake. Conservation District. Personal communication, 8/2/89. Backes, Kris. Northwest Renewable Resources Center. Personal communication, 7/24/89. Cederholm, Jeff. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication, 6/15/89; 6/22/89. City of Portland. 1989. Choices for the Slough Handbook. City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services. Portland, OR. 15 pp. City of Portland. 1988. Water Quality Report. Columbia Slough Water Quality Management Plan. City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services. Coyne, Dan. Washington State Dairymen's Federation. Personal communication, 6/19/89. Dittmer, Eric. Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Personal communication, 6/29/89. Elmore, Wayne. Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, OR. Personal communication, 6/19/89; 8/3/89. Elmore, W., and R.L Beschta. 1987. "Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management," Rangelands 9, No. 6., p. 260-265. Garner, Debra. Unified Sewerage Agency. Personal communication, 6/19/89; 7/14/89. Hansen, N.R., H.M. Babcock, and E.H. Clark II. 1988. Controlling Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution: A Citizen's Handbook. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 170 pp. 41 ------- Hansen, N.R., C. Dyckman, and S. Kelly. 1989. "Effective Use of Public Involvement, Education, and Decision-Making Techniques in Nonpoint Pollution Control". Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA. 11 pp. Hasselstrom, Kathie. Lewis Soil and Water Conservation District. Personal communication, 6/28/89. Holtrop, J. 1988. Final Report. The Small Farms Program. Prepared for the Washington State Conservation Commission. King County Conservation District, Renton, WA. 59 pp. + appendices. Houck, Mike. Portland Audubon Society. Personal communication, 7/14/89. Humenik, F.J., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing. 1987. "Pollution From Nonpoint Sources: Where We Are and Where We Should Go," Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol, 21, No. 8, pp. 737-742. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 1989. Idaho Water Quality Status Report and Nonpoint Source Assessment 1988. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau. 170 pp. + appendices. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 1989a. Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau. 105 pp. + appendices. Industrial Economics, Inc. 1989. "Idaho Agricultural Water Quality Program". Prepared for U.S. EPA. Draft. 15 pp. Kanoff, Bernie. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Moses Lake Field Office. Personal communication, 8/3/89. Kengla, Shirley. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication, 6/13/89. Kramer, Karen. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Personal communication, 7/13/89. Lewis Soil Conservation District, Clearwater Soil and Water Conservation District. 1988. Little Canyon Creek Water Quality Project. Final Report. 35 pp + appendices. McCammon, Bruce. U.S. Forest Service, Columbia Gorge Ranger District. Personal communication, 6/19/89; 7/14/89. 42 ------- Miller, Joanne. Whatcom County Conservation District. Personal communication, 6/15/89,8/1/89. Naglich, F. Kitsap County Conservation District. Personal communication, 6/15/89; 7/7/89;7/24/89. Naglich, F. 1989. Final Report. Burley-Minter Clean Water Project. Prepared for the Kitsap County and Pierce County Conservation District. Port Orchard, WA. 12 pp. + appendices. Naglich, F. 1988. Final Report. Burley-Minter Clean Water Project Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Kitsap County Conservation District. Port Orchard, WA. 40 pp. + appendices. Naglich, F. 1987. The Burley-Minter Clean Water Project. Final Report. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Kitsap County Conservation District. Port Orchard, WA. 71 pp. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1989. Nonpoint Source Statewide Management Plan for Oregon. Planning and Monitoring Section, Water Quality Division, Portland, OR. 160 pp. + appendices. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1988. 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. Planning and Monitoring Section, Water Quality Division, Portland, OR. 166 pp. + appendices. Peterson, Doug. Associated General Contractors. Personal communication, 6/20/89. Petrich, Frank. Jefferson County Conservation District. Personal communication, 6/30/89. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. Managing Nonpoint Pollution. An Action Plan Handbook for Puget Sound Watersheds. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1988. State of the Sound 1988 Report. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Seattle, WA. 225 pp. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986. Issue Paper: Nonpoint Source Pollution. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA. Springer, Jim. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication, 7/26/89. 43 ------- Stahr, Lorraine. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board. Personal communication, 7/26/89, 8/9/89. Stover, Gayle. Snake River Soil and Water Conservation District. Personal communication, 7/28/89. U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 1989. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program. 1988 Annual Progress Report. 92 pp. U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 1988. Annual Report: Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Project. Tillamook County, OR. 66 pp. U.S. EPA. 1988. Effectiveness of Agricultural and SIMcultural Nonpoint Source Controls. EPA 910/9-88-210. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Seattle, WA. 183 pp + appendices. U.S. EPA. 1988a. Creating Successful Nonpoint Source Programs: The Innovative Touch. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. 12 pp. U.S. EPA. 1988b. NWQEP 1987 Annual Report. Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. National Water Quality Evaluation Project. Office of Water, Regulations and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA. 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C. 33 pp. + appendices. U.S. EPA. 1985. Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. Proceedings of a National Conference. Kansas City, MO. EPA 440/5-85-001. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. 514 pp. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Tn*-//;. vol. 30, No.3. 18 pp. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1987. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement. A Better Future in Our Woods and Streams. Final Report. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 57 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1988. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program. Final Draft. Publication 88-17. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Weaver, Cathy. East Side/Wett-Gide Soil Conservation Service. Personal communication, 7/21/89. Whatcom County Conservation District. 1988. 1988 Annual Report. 73 pp. 44 ------- |