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 t«~ 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
© Bull Run Watershed
m Tualatin River Basin
® 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
------- |