United States
Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10
Office of Ecosystems
and Communities
EPA910-R-02-004
May 2002
&EPA
Helping Our Partners and
Benefiting the Environment
Office of Ecosystems
and Communities
FY2000
Grants
-------
Cover:
Lower Wilson River and Blind Slough.
Inset:
Development along Highway 101, Tillamook, Oregon.
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
FY2000 Grants
Helping Our Partners and Benefltting the Environment
Introduction from the Office Director:
The goal of the Office of Ecosystems and Communities (ECO) is to restore and
protect the environment for naturally functioning ecosystems and healthy human
communities. This is of critical importance to people in Region 10, and indeed the
world, but extremely difficult to accomplish. The primary tools ECO has to accom-
plish this goal are a talented staff and a diverse set of programs which we manage.
Many of these programs offer financial assistance to partners to enable them to do
much of the hard work needed to achieve our common goals.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that ECO's financial assistance awards
achieve their intended environmental objectives in a cost-effective manner. Moni-
toring, evaluating and documenting how financial assistance awards are actually
used are important parts of our management and oversight responsibilities. This
report is a snapshot that represents a wide range of accomplishments from our
financial assistance awards.
In FY2000, ECO provided over $100 million in financial assistance through a total
of 100 separate awards. The intent of this report is to summarize data from that
year to convey the magnitude of impact of these financial assistance programs.
It is organized in 3 parts:
• ECO Programs and Dollars are summarized (pp. 5-9)
• Where the Money Goes is portrayed in a series of graphics (pp. 10-15)
• Examples of the "Money in Action" are provided to demonstrate results (pp. 16-30)
We expect this report to be a template for the development of future annual reports
on the use of financial assistance awards within ECO. We also expect to continue to
improve the quality and content of our annual reports, with the goal of documenting
environmental results and accomplishments from the funds we are charged with
managing and overseeing.
Elbert Moore, Director
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
EPA Region 10
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Where the Money Comes From
ECO Programs and Dollars
The U.S. taxpayer, through Congressional appropriations, funds a wide range of EPA programs. Over
$100 million in financial assistance was awarded in FY2000 through programs managed by the Office of
Ecosystems and Communities. These programs vary greatly in their funding and purposes as described
in the following pages.
Total Grant Awards By Program
Program FY2000
Clean Water State Revolving Fund $84,530,144
Nonpoint Source $12,568,527
Pesticides, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) $2,284,862
National Estuary Program $1,100,000
Wetlands, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) $1,071,922
Congressionally Directed $905,050
Regional Geographic Initiative $309,000
NW Forest Plan $256,200
Miscellaneous $134,500
Pesticides, Environmental Program Management (EPM) $124,250
Ocean Disposal $99,700
Wetlands, Environmental Program Management (EPM) $88,232
TOTAL $103,472,387
See
Page
6
6
7
7
7
7
9
7
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Our biggest programs (in dollars) are State Loan Funds and
Nonpoint Source Programs.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
($84.5 Million awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
The State Revolving Loan Fund is by far the largest of
our programs in dollar terms. With the passage of the
Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987,
the U.S. Congress ushered in a new era in clean water
funding. The new CWA calls for the replacement of
the long-running federal Construction Grants program
with an innovative State Revolving Fund (SRF
Program). Under the SRF program, each state (and
Puerto Rico) created revolving loan funds to
provide independent and permanent sources of low-cost
financing for a range of water quality infrastructure
projects. Funds to establish or capitalize the SRF
programs are provided by the federal (83%) and
state (17%) governments. Currently, all fifty states and
Puerto Rico are operating successful SRF Programs.
Capitalization began in 1988; today total assets of the
SRF program stand at more than $34 billion. As
payments are made on loans, funds are recycled to fund
additional water protection projects. If capitalized as
planned, the SRF will be available to play a key role in
funding water quality infrastructure far into the future.
Clean Water
State Revolving Fund
CWSRF
81.7%
NPS
12.1%
Other
6.2%
The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF)
provides the vast majority of financial assistance
available through ECO.
The Nonpoint Source Program (CWA Section 319)
($12.6 Million awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
I NPS
D Pesticides STAG
• NEP
D Wetlands STAG
D Congressional
D RGI
• NW Forest
• Pesticides EPM
• Ocean Disposal
D Wetland EPM
fl Miscellaneous
Nonpoint Source Program grants account for 66.4% of the
$18,942,243 in non-CWSRFfimding available in FY2000.
The 319 program provides grants
to the states and tribes to implement
nonpoint source projects and programs in
accordance with Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Nonpoint source
pollution reduction projects can be used to
protect source water areas and the general
quality of water resources in a watershed.
Examples of previously funded projects
include installation of best management
practices (BMPs) for animal waste; design
and implementation of BMP systems for
stream, lake and estuary watersheds;
basinwide landowner education programs;
and lake projects previously funded under
the CWA Section 314 Clean Lakes Program.
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Other programs provide important assistance.
National Estuary Program (NEP)
($1.1 Million awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
The National Estuary
Program is a non-regulatory
program (Clean Water Act
Section 320) that seeks to
identify, restore and protect
nationally significant
''',"•'''',,'''.''' estuaries. It encourages and
< ; ',•.;'"<"••,<':' provides financial support to
local community efforts to
manage their own estuaries
by protecting the integrity of the whole system —
its chemical, physical and biological properties,
as well as its economic, recreational and aesthetic
values.
This program is different from most EPA programs in that
it represents a long term commitment to support
stakeholders in selected geographic areas to (1) identify
and understand priority problems in the estuary,
(2) develop specific actions to address those problems,
and (3) create and implement a formal management plan
to restore and protect the estuary.
Three of 28 designated "estuaries of national signifi-
cance" are in Region 10:
• Puget Sound (management plan approved in 1991)
• Tillamook Bay (management plan approved in 1999)
• Lower Columbia River (management plan approved
in 1999).
Pesticide Program
(Pesticides STAG $2,284,862 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
(Pesticides EPM $124,250 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
The Pesticides Unit awards the following grants re-
lating to pesticides. State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) funds constitute the majority of the dollars
available and provide basic support for the imple-
mentation and enforcement of pesticides programs by
states and tribes. Smaller amounts of STAG funds are
available for the Pesticides Environmental Steward-
ship Program (PESP). One or two of these grants are
funded each year to promote integrated pest manage-
ment and other pesticide risk reduction initiatives.
The region also receives
varying amounts of Environ-
mental Program Management
(EPM) funds for Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) grants
and a variety of other special
projects. FQPA grants help
develop pest management alternatives for those pesti-
cides likely to be lost as a result of the stricter risk
requirements of the Act.
Wetlands Program
(Wetland STAG $1,071,922 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
(Wetland EPM $88,232 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
The Wetlands Program Development
Grants provide financial assistance to
states, federally-recognized Indian
tribes, and local governments to
support development of new, or
augmentation and enhancement of
existing wetland programs. Projects
must clearly demonstrate a direct link to an
increase in the state's, tribe's or local
government's ability to protect its wetland
resource. Small amounts of Environmental
Program Management (EPM) funding are
available for special projects related to
wetland protection.
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
The Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)
($309,000 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
The Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) is designed
to fund community based efforts in geographic areas
that have been identified as high priority by the
region. Geographic areas facing difficult or far
reaching environmental problems are identified
through a formal selection or ranking process.
RGI is able to fund one or two major
projects a year for three to four year
periods. Because RGI funding is dis-
cretionary, it can be used to support
innovative work that falls outside of
traditional EPA programmatic funding.
Initiatives are generally cross-program in
nature and are focused on engaging many partners
at the local level. For example, the Columbia Plateau
Agricultural Initiative (CPAI) involved EPA staff from
Air, Water, Pesticides and Ecosystems. The project
was funded for four years with the goal of generating
sustained community support for innovative and
improved agricultural prac-tices on the plateau.
It also had the effect of influencing cross-program
coordination and understanding of agricultural
issues within EPA. When funding for
CPAI had been exhausted, EPA's
local partners continued many of
the efforts initiated or encouraged
by the initiative.
Currently, Region 10 receives about
$400,000 for the RGI program.
With that we are able to fund one
major initiative annually in addition
to providing funding for a number of
specific geographically defined regional efforts.
RGI is not a source of continuing funding; rather it
is intended as "seed money" which will result in
sustained community support after the initial EPA
funding is no longer available. The program has
existed since 1995.
The Northwest Forest Plan
($256,000 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
Adopted in 1994, this plan provides a framework for managing 24 million acres of
federal forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. The plan focuses
on restoring and protecting the health of old growth habitat and aquatic ecosystems
(especially for salmon) and provides a backbone for Endangered Species Act and
Clean Water Act compliance and drinking water protection in federally managed
forests of Oregon, Washington and northern California. Office participation in
Regional and Provincial Interagency Executive Committees offers a unique
opportunity for EPA to influence forestry practices and restoration activities by
federal land management agencies. EPA provides limited financial support to its
partners in implementing the plan.
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Ocean Disposal Program
($99,700 awarded in Region 10 in FY2000)
The sediment management program largely deals with
regulatory decisions about disposal of dredged mate-
rial pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and Sections 102 and 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
Both laws share a common theme to prevent signifi-
cant degradation of the waters of the U.S. or the ocean.
The principle focus traditionally has been on contami-
nated sediment: the assessment of sediment/dredged
material for chemical contamination and associated
toxicity, identification and design of appropriate
disposal sites for this material, and monitoring and
management of the sites and material.
In addition to the concern with contaminated sedi-
ments, sediment management also addresses geo-
hydrologic processes (e.g., nonpoint source sedimen-
tation), pollution prevention efforts, mining activities
(including non-processed sand and gravel extraction),
and beneficial uses of sediments or dredged material.
The beneficial use component, which can cover
creation or restoration of habitat, or containment
(capping) of contaminated sediments, is gaining
increasing use to mitigate for unacceptable adverse
effects of projects, to restore degraded habitats and
resources, and to remediate contamination.
Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
(No new awards made in FY2000)
fir
Recognizing the importance of community involvement and the need for citizens living near sites seriously
contaminated with hazardous wastes to be well informed, Congress included provisions in the Superfund
Reauthorization Act of 1986 to establish the TAG program. The TAG program is intended to promote involve-
ment in decisions on site-specific cleanup strategies under
P'": jfik ;',vj L^V^X^jjj^ J~~ Superfund. A Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) provides
"i ?^5l }-^B& '
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Where the Money Goes
Partners, Targets, Approaches, & Locations
As seen in the previous section, the programs managed by ECO work through a variety of mechanisms. The
following figures depict some of the ways this work can be characterized. Note that in many cases, data repre-
senting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program has been excluded so that the detail of smaller
programs is not overwhelmed by the large dollars associated with CWSRF.
Supporting our Partners
We work with a variety of federal, state, tribal, local, university and non-profit partners. State water quality
agencies are by far the largest recipient of ECO funding. These agencies, in turn, use these federal dollars in a
variety of ways, including funding for other government agencies and non-profit organizaions; the details of those
uses are not reflected in these charts.
Local Government
$689,774
3.6%
Non-Profit
$1,018,523
5.4%
Federal
$410,900
2.2%
University
$210,422
1.1%
Other
$373,500
2.0%
Tribes
$828,217
4.4%
State
$15,410,907
81.4%
Type of Funding Recipient (not including CWSRF $)
10
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Our Environmental Objectives or Targets
We work with our partners to achieve a variety of objectives associated with the programs we are implementing.
Since any individual program or project funded by ECO may affect more than one environmental target, we asked
our staff to select one primary and multiple secondary targets as appropriate to characterize their projects.
Habitat
$5.245
0.0%
Groundwater
$10,000
0.1%
Salmon
$15,000
0.1%
Riparian
$25,000
0.1%
Quality of Life
$91,958
0.5%
Air Quality
$5,000
0.0%
Drinking Water
$5,000
0.0%
Water Quality
$3,515,145
18.6%
Dredged Material
$99,700
0.5%
Watersheds
$206,737
1.1%
Forest
$256,200
1.4%
Agriculture
$572,586
3.0%
Ecosystems
$733,304
3.9%
Wetlands
$802,696
4.2%
Estuaries
$1,540,000
8.1%
Pesticides
$1,853,901
9.8%
Nonpoint Source
$9,204,772
48.6%
Funding Benefits Our Environment in Many Ways ($ not including CWSRF). This graph depicts the dollar
amounts and percentages of all grants by their primary 'Environmental Target. ' For example, $9,204,772 in
grants in FY2000 were used to address Nonpoint pollution issues while $3,515,145 was applied to general water
quality issues. Note that only one primary environmental target was indicated for each grant project although
several "secondary " environmental targets may have also been affected.
11
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Our Environmental Objectives / Targets
Dollar Amount of Grant Actions
Affecting Various
Environmental Targets
Number of Grant Actions
Affecting Various
Environmental Targets
c
Q)
Agriculture
Air Quality
Dredged Material
Drinking Water
Ecosystems
Erosion
Estuaries
Forest
Groundwater
Non-Point Source
Pesticides
Quality of Life
Riparian
Salmon
Water Quality
Watersheds
Wetlands
H
^m
•
^^^
~i
i
i
1 '
i
1
ID
i
•
^^H
1
i
1
, ,
floriculture
Air Quality
Dredged Material
Drinking Water
** Ecosystems
pi Erosion
i ^ Estuaries
K
*•• Forest
5!
c —
(D UoKilol
s nauiiai
CMnn-Pnint 9nurrp
.^« Pesticides
5
f- Quality of Lifp
Salmon
Wofpr Ollfllity
Watersheds
Wetlands
— i
3
_
z,
,
•
— ,
T
^
1
=3
•
1
3
I
1
1
1
1
I
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20
Millions of Dollars
10 20 30 40 50
Number of Actions
60 70
I Primary Focus
I Secondary Focus
12
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Approaches Used to Achieve Objectives
A variety of approaches are used to achieve the objectives described. We try to emphasize direct implementation,
but planning and other approaches are often needed and supported.
Over 60% of our funds go to implementation (Not including
Other Approaches
$7,364,974
39%
Implementation
$11,577,269
61%
The other 39% funds a variety of approaches
Demonstration
Habitation Restoration Mitigation Banking
$50,820 Education / Training / Conference
Technical Assistance
$404,400
5.5%
Study
$891,472
12.1%
Staff Support
$118,500
1.6%
Regulatory Enforcement
$2,729,248
37.1%
$62258
U'°°
1.4%
Other
$82,000
1.1%
Outreach Stewardship
$98,785
1.3%
Planning
$2,557,162
34.7%
13
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Geographic Distribution of Assistance
The following graphics display how our financial assistance gets distributed throughout the Region, both by total
dollars and by numbers of grants. There is a fairly even distribution of assistance among the states.
Our Grant funds are almost evenly divided among the
Four Region 10 States.
Washington
$5,576,562 ^\.
29%
R^
Oregon /~~
$4
,458,1 26 J
24%
Alaska
/- $4,451, 333
|^ 23%
\
Idaho
V $3,307,258
17%
\ Multi-State
L $1,148,964
6%
Washington
30
\
Dollars Awarded by State (excluding CWSRF).
Number of Grants by State (excluding CWSRF).
Most of our financial assistance goes to state
recipients or to projects affecting very large
geographic areas. Smaller amounts of money are
targeted at specific watersheds or counties as shown
in the table on this page and the maps on the next
page. Although the maps display only a small part
of our overall financial assistance, they give some
indication of the geographic areas of emphasis for
our programs. In the future we hope to tease more
of this type of detail out from some of our programs
that essentially pass money through state recipients
to smaller scale projects.
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Multi-State
Mapped
$768,175
$346,883
$660,620
$1,202,486
$510,657
$3,488,821
Non-Specific
Location
$19,737,958
$9,515,575
$18,708,762
$51,382,964
$638,307
$99,983,566
Total
$20,506,133
$9,862,458
$19,369,382
$52,585,450
$1,148,964
$103,472,387
14
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Some funds are targeted at priority watersheds
throughout the four states.
I
Legend
Rivera
Crent .ftreaa
$55,440
.,,M
S85,465
S3 S JOS
15
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
ff^r
'•' '. . ' ' if%JF ' tt-JS*1!, fe" litfe / *"" M* 1 " '»
; s ,.
Sometimes progress happens one shovel full at a time...
ECO staff helping to eradicate Spartinafrom Puget Sound tidal marsh.
16
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Our Money In Action: Stories From the Ground
The following stories provide examples of the types of accomplishments that are achieved through
our financial assistance programs. They are representative of some of the range of issues tackled,
partnerships involved, and environmental benefits achieved.
page
Opening the Tide Gates
Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program -Blind Slough Proj ect 18
Planning for Smart Growth
Alternative Futures/Smart Growth Planning for the Chico Watershed 20
Reducing Pesticide Risk
Wenatchee Valley Pear Project 22
Conserving Wetlands
The City of Juneau Wetlands Mitigation Program 23
Restoring Paradise Creek
Paradise Creek Restoration 24
Stream Restoration Yields Dramatic Improvements
Oregon - Upper Grande Ronde Basin 26
Dairy Farm Partnership Protects Watersheds
Dairy Waste Management in Whatcom County 28
Irrigation Changes Successfully Reduce Sediment Problems
Sediment Reduction in the Yakima River Basin 29
Citizens Aim for Sustainable Future 30
17
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Opening the Tide Gates
Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project ($330,000 in FY2000)
Blind Slough Project ($3,500 in NEP funds and $15,440 in 319 funds)
Issues and Context
The long term nature of our
commitment to National
Estuary Programs (NEPs)
allows for support of projects
that develop over time. As the
Tillamook Bay NEP identified
its environmental problems, the
loss of tidal fish habitat was
noted as a priority issue for
salmon resources. Early
demonstration work subsequently
tested "fish-friendly" tide gate
designs to allow fish access to
side channel sloughs that had
previously been cut off by
levies. The project described
below successfully builds on
this earlier work.
Project Description
The NEP started the Blind
Slough project in the summer
of 1998, planning to replace
blocked tide gates to return the
slough to its former function
as a salt-fresh water transition
zone for fish use. Such areas
are relatively rare in the lower
Tillamook Delta and this one
was the most important slough
of all those investigated.
About one and one half miles
of slough, including side
sloughs, were cut off from
functioning. Permission was
requested and received from landowners. Permits
were applied for from Tillamook County, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of State
Lands. The tide gates were built in the Spring of 2001
.iV-fct*-**--^
,««•*.
Blind Slough near Tillamook, OR.
and installation was completed in July of 2001.
All the concept development, project planning, and
contract preparation and management were made
possible by the basic NEP support provided by EPA.
18
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
This project resulted in quick improvements to about four
acres of tidal marsh habitat. Prior to the installation of
the new tide gates, there was no evidence of smolt using
the slough even though there were many sightings of
them on the river side of the levee. Within twenty-four
hours after installation, hundreds of smolt moved up into
the slough and were observed jumping. A plentiful
supply of insects should provide good food for the fish,
increasing their chances of survival.
Similar quick changes were observed in the
vegetation in the slough. Prior to this project, the
slough was covered with a fresh water weed
(Parrots Foot) so thick that it was very hard to
paddle a boat through it. Within seven days of the
introduction of salt water to the slough the Parrots
Foot was gone and the slough was clear and
bright.
New "Fish friendly" tide gate opened tidal marsh habitat to migrating fish use.
19
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Planning for Smart Growth
Alternative Futures/Smart Growth Planning for the Chico Watershed
($35,000 in RGI funding and $40,000 in NEP funding)
Issues and Context
Cumulative effects of sprawl-type development
patterns are overwhelming water quality and aquatic
habitat protection efforts in many areas in the
Northwest. Effective aquatic resource protection and
restoration efforts need to be planned at the watershed-
scale to avoid these impacts. Located in Washington,
the Chico watershed, one of Kitsap County's most
productive salmon bearing streams, is feeling the
pressures of increasing development. Without
adequate planning, the environmental infrastructure
of our watersheds (i.e., our stream-sides, estuaries,
floodplains, fish rearing habitats, etc.) is usually
severely degraded. Generally, local infrastructure
investments have not been able to keep pace with
sprawl development. This reality leads to both
community livability and environmental protection
issues. Further, the piecemeal fashion of many
environmental protection programs makes it difficult
for local governments to efficiently and effectively
respond to these issues.
Project Description
In 2000, EPA Region 10 approached the Puget Sound
Action Team with the idea of applying techniques in
evaluating alternative future development options in
the Puget Sound area. A case study developed by the
EPA Corvallis Research Lab helped interest Kitsap
County in the concept. A project was then co-
designed with the Puget Sound Action Team, the
Washington State Office of Community Development,
and Kitsap County.
Funding included $35,000 of EPA Regional
Geographic Initiative funds; $40,000 of EPA HQ
support from the National Estuary Program; and about
$150,000 in state and local funds. In the Chico
watershed, water quality, water quantity, aquatic
resource habitat protection, and community
infrastructure investment priorities are being
evaluated.
The specific goals of the Alternative Futures/Smart
Growth project are to:
a) improve the protection of aquatic resources through
the design and evaluation of alternative development
scenarios considered through local planning processes;
b) foster broader discussion and understanding of both
community and ecosystem-based approaches as they
relate to federal, state and local program objectives;
c) more clearly define the types of information and
analyses needed by local jurisdictions to successfully
develop smarter growth and development patterns that
result in more effective watershed protection and
restoration efforts.
Results
A conference on alternative future and "smart growth"
concepts held in Bremerton was well attended and
initiated substantial discussion. Kitsap County has
committed to using the results of the alternative
futures project to adjust the land use plan for Chico
Watershed. Decisions about further development are
awaiting the results of this project, planned for
completion in March, 2003.
20
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Smart Growth in the Chico Basin starts with understanding
how land is being used.
Cumin Chic* Builti l-»"il I'tr
|rurrrnl<'miillr|i.r-<.|
^^B Chico Subwatersheds
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL:
fl^fe Rural (5-10 acres/DU)
^^3 Estate (2.5-5 acres/DU)
Suburban (1-2.5 acres/DU)
. Urban Low (1-3.5 acres/DU)
Cumml Cfcko Bailn land UK
(Currant CowUHonx)
fj
Transportation
o
Urban Standard (3.5 - 8.7 acres / DU)
Urban Medium (8.7 -14.5 acres / DU)
Urban High (> 14.5 acres/DU)
COMMERCIAL:
Commercial Service
Commercial Retail
Auto Highway
Off-Street Parking
Hotel/Motel
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial Light
Industrial General / Mines
Industrial Heavy
I 4
DNR Hydro 2000:
Water Type 1
Water Type 2
Water Type 3
Water Type 4
Water Type 5
Unclassified Water
OTHER:
Open Land
Wooded
Vacant
Schools
Parks
Public Facilities/Institutional
Transportation / Utilities
Mobile Pa rk-Sym 88
Pa rks_specia I/Pa rks_resort - Sym 207
21
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Reducing Pesticide Risk
Wenatchee Valley Pear Project ($19,000 in EPA funding)
Issues and Context
In this project, EPA partnered with commercial pear
growers in the Cashmere-Peshastin growing area of
the Wenatchee River Valley in Eastern Washington.
Concern has been expressed over potential movement
of organophosphate pesticides from orchards and
decreasing effectiveness of pesticides due to pests
developing resistance.
This project focused on decreasing insecticide use
and enhancing the populations of natural enemies.
Funding partners include the Washington Tree Fruit
Research Commission, The Pew Charitable Trust, and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Scouting for pests.
Project Description
An area of 141 acres in the Wenatchee Valley was
divided into blocks with differing approaches to pest
treatment (with and without organophosphates).
Blocks not using organophosphate pesticides used
pheromone to disrupt codling moth mating success.
All blocks were intensively monitored for key pests
such as the codling moth, pear psylla, grape mealybug,
natural enemies, and efficacy and economics. Project
representatives produced weekly scouting reports and
held lunch meetings with 15 participating growers,
including D'Anjou pear producers and agchem
fieldmen. Monthly newsletters with information on
pests, natural enemies and pest control options were also
produced. Two early season hands-on training sessions
(scouting, pest and natural enemy identification) were
held and one pre-harvest field day was completed.
Results
The different pest control treatments used in this study
showed some clear differences. Although requirng
more intensive management, "soft" treatments (those
not using organophosphate pesticides) saved an
average of $160 per acre when compared to the costs
of treatments using organophosphates. As expected,
populations of natural enemies of pests were highest in
the soft treatments. Fruit damage by one key pest,
pear psylla, was three times greater in the "soft"
treatments, but overall damage was economically
acceptable.
This project demonstrated that a combination of soft
programs and enhanced natural enemy populations
can result in effective and economic fruit production,
while reducing risks from organophosphate pesticides.
As a result of this project, an increased number of
growers choose to use mating disruption techniques
for control of codling moth in commercial pear orchards.
22
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Conserving Wetlands
The City of Juneau Wetlands Mitigation Program ($65,000 in Wetlands Funding)
Issue and Context
The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) is surrounded
by towering mountains, glaciers and fjords in a
temperate rainforest along the coast of Southeast
Alaska. The cool, wet climate and topography create
an environment that supports an abundance of forested
and inland meadow wetlands, streams, ponds, tide flats
and estuaries which provide important habitat for five
species of salmon and other resident fish populations.
In the past 30 years, residential and commercial
development in the community has grown at a rapid
rate. Useable land is limited to a narrow fringe along
the coastline and the Mendenhall Glacier Valley.
Much of the development has occurred in wetlands,
resulting in a loss of over one third of the original
historic wetlands acreage. In addition, such
development has contributed to the impairment of
five urban salmon streams and their listing on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list for sedimentation,
dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria,
hydrocarbons, heavy metals and habitat alteration.
Project Description
The CBJ Wetlands Mitigation Program is an
opportunity to establish wetland conservation areas in
the community that could be used to compensate for
future wetland development impacts under the Clean
Water Act Section 404 permitting process. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency provided the City
and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) with a $65,000 Wetland
Program Development Grant to establish a wetlands
mitigation program for the community. In order to
mitigate for the unavoidable wetland losses under the
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program, the
s'fljgfi&j
ff , Vi** f f - f
Saltwater marsh near Juneau.
CBJ initiated a community planning process to
establish a wetlands mitigation program. The program
was developed and established an initial preservation
bank site and a criteria matrix that could be used to
evaluate and rank future restoration sites.
Results
The CBJ is looking at purchasing an initial
preservation bank site through a land swap or outright
purchase. A portion of the monies gained from the
sale of credits could be used for restoration of other
degraded sites. After the restoration has been
completed for the degraded sites, credits may be sold
from that site as well. The CBJ Wetlands Mitigation
Program has identified approximately 10 sites that
could be part of the overall Wetland Mitigation
Program. The sites include: North Twin Lakes, S&S
Pond, Lower Duck Creek, Duck Creek Enhancement
Ponds, Kodzoff Property, Taku Boulevard Greenbelt,
Upper Jordan Creek, Montana Creek Greenbelt, Lower
Montanan Fen and Herbert River.
23
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Restoring Paradise Creek
Paradise Creek Restoration ($1,746,948 in CWA 319 funding)
Issues and Context
Paradise Creek flows from its headwaters in the Palouse
Range through the City of Moscow and across the
Washington State line to the South Fork of the Palouse
River near Pullman, Washington. In 1994 Paradise
Creek was identified as water quality limited from its
headwaters to the Washington State line for the
following pollutants: ammonia, nutrients, sediment,
habitat modification, pathogens, flow alteration, and
temperature.
The primary nonpoint sources of pollutants in the
Paradise Creek watershed are non-irrigated croplands,
grazing lands, land development (construction activities),
urban run-off, roads and forestry activities. Permitted
point sources of pollution include the Moscow
wastewater treatment plant and University of Idaho's
aquaculture facility.
Interstate waters, such as Paradise Creek, are required
by the Clean Water Act to meet the receiving state's
water quality standards at the state line. Washington
water quality standards classify Paradise Creek as a
Class A water to be protected for reasons such as
salmon spawning, water supply, wildlife and
aesthetics. A water quality management plan (TMDL)
to ensure that these waters will meet both Idaho and
Washington water quality standards was finalized in
1998.
Several partners including the City of Moscow and other
local entities, the USD A, the Bureau of Disaster
Services, and EPA have come together to fund the
restoration of Paradise Creek and implementthe TMDL.
EPA has provided Clean Water Act Section 319 grants
totaling over $1.7 million to assist in these efforts.
I
J".:£'-:^'. "'"'V
.»?^' -^V*^v: '
..*M,
;,y
Stream channel prior to restoration work.
24
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Project Description
The Foothill Road Project is an example of the
restoration work funded. A 3600 foot section of
stream channel had been previously straightened and
used as a drainage ditch along Foothill Road. The
streambanks were bordered by reed canary grass, and
active wheatfields were directly adjacent to the stream.
Without an effective riparian buffer, this section of
creek was exposed to unfiltered storm water runoff
and direct heating by the sun.
To restore this stream segment, a new riparian
corridor, approximately 300 feet wide, was
constructed with a meandering stream channel and
associated wetlands. Native woody vegetation,
grasses, and emergent herbaceous wetland plants
were used in the restoration.
Results:
This rural riparian restoration project will demonstrate
the effectiveness of maintaining a riparian buffer strip
along agricultural stream channels. A riparian
functioning assessment team will monitor the site
annually. The following benefits are expected:
• The recreation of meanders that resemble the
creek's historical path will restore hydrological
diversity within the creek.
• The 300 foot vegetated buffer will improve water
quality by providing shade to the creek and filtering
sediments, nutrients and organic matter from runoff
before it reaches the creek.
• Native riparian vegetation along the creek will also
provide improved habitat for fish and aquatic
invertebrates, a corridor for migratory wildlife, and
habitat for resident wildlife.
Paradise Creek will benefit from a newly constructed stream channel, vegetation and wetlands.
25
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Stream Restoration Yields Dramatic Improvements
Oregon - Upper Grande Ronde Basin ($70,000)
Issues and Context
A wet meadow once flourished near the confluence of
McCoy Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde River in
northeast Oregon. Grasses grew high and the creek ran
clear and cold. Streams in the area supported rainbow
trout, salmon, summer steelhead, and bull trout.
Beaver ponds provided cool refuge and habitat
complexity. The lush grass provided good forage for
grazing. Unfortunately, as the meadow was managed
for grazing in the past few decades, the creek was
straightened and moved to one side of the valley where
it became shallow, muddy and exposed to the sun.
Grasses did not grow as well. Beaver disappeared.
Cold water fish became rare. Water quality conditions
were poor.
Project Description
A group of people with a vision of restoration
possibilities came together to discuss their ideas. The
group included progressive landowners, Oregon DEQ,
Before restoration.
26
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Union County SWCD, the Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla, NRCS, EPA, and others. The
group decided to use the Upper Grande Ronde
area as a long term monitoring site for the
Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program
and to document the results of stream restoration
with physical, chemical, and biological data.
$70,000 a year supports monitoring for this
project and for the Upper Grande Ronde as a
whole. In 1997, a section of McCoy Creek
was restored by redirecting flow from the
straightened channel to the remnant old channel
that meanders through the meadow. The
response has been dramatic.
Results
Grasses responded immediately, greening and growing.
Beaver are back and their ponds provide habitat complexity
and cold refugia at their depths. The channel is narrower,
deeper and colder in the restored reach. The highest
concentration of fish in McCoy Creek is seen in the restored
reach; the numbers of rainbow trout juveniles have increased
each year since 1997 while rainbow trout numbers in adj acent,
unrestored reaches remain unchanged during the same period.
$165,000 of CWA Section 319 funds supported the
restoration work. Because this reach is so much improved,
similar restoration is being considered for additional reaches
of this stream and for other streams as well.
After restoration.
27
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Dairy Farm Partnership Protects Watersheds
Dairy Waste Management in Whatcom County ($90,000 per year for 3 years)
Issues and Context
When improperly managed, manure from dairy cows
can become a major problem affecting water quality.
Each adult milk cow produces waste equivalent to the
waste of 22 humans. Whatcom County is located in a
high rainfall area of Washington State and has
approximately 69,000 cows resulting in a quantity of
waste equivalent to that produced by 1.5 million
people. The Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) has been coordinating an ongoing
Watershed Based Approach to Dairy Waste
Management project focused on the Nooksack
River watershed using CWA 319 funding.
Project Description
The goal of this project was to lower dairy-related
fecal coliform and other manure associated
contaminants in the watershed. The Watershed
Approach to Dairy Management, coordinated by
Ecology, received $90,000 in CWA 319 funding from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for each year
of the project to improve water quality (ongoing for
the past three years).
Ecology partnered with The Northwest Indian College
to monitor fecal coliform levels on a bi-monthly basis.
In addition to the mandatory inspections of the dairy
farms, the consistent monitoring data collected by the
college for this and other 319-funded projects helped
determine which sub-basin tributaries have the highest
level of fecal coliform loading. These monitoring
results helped focus follow-up work.
Outreach and education is vital, and farmers are
referred to the Whatcom County Conservation District
for farm planning and technical assistance. The
referrals, education and outreach have encouraged
farmers all over the county to implement BMPs such
as long-term waste storage facilities, manure solids
separators, rainwater gutters and down spouts,
agronomic manure field applicator schedules, and
fencing livestock out of streams.
Results
This program has resulted in major changes in the way
dairy farmers operate their farms. Inspections and
monitoring have shown that many significant problems
were associated with areas away from their milking
facilities where replacement stock are managed.
About 75 informal (non-penalty) enforcement notices
were issued for potential discharge problems as
preventative solutions between July 1998 and
June 2000.
Upgrades to control pollution completed to date have
been accomplished through partnerships established
between Ecology, the Whatcom Conservation District,
and the Whatcom County office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. As of the last
quarter of 1999, fecal coliform loads in the Bertrand/
Fishtrap Creek sub-basin were down 21% and are
expected to drop further. The Department of Ecology
has also signed an agreement that calls for a 15% per
year reduction in fecal coliform loads as compared
with the 1996-1998 TMDL fecal coliform monitoring
study conducted by Ecology.
28
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
Irrigation Changes Successfully Reduce Sediment Problems
Sediment Reduction in the Yakima River Basin
(CWSRF $10,000,000, CWA 319 $1,292,458)
Issues and Context
Since 1994, the Yakima Conservation District, the
Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency along with many other groups have
been working to reduce sediment erosion in the
Yakima River Basin, particularly in the Moxee,
Granger, and Sulphur Creek Drains. Agriculture in
this area has traditionally used furrow irrigation,
especially on hops farms. This method of irrigation is
notorious for high water use, causing sediment loss,
and carrying associated pesticides like DDT into the
water. In 1994, furrow irrigation resulted in the loss
of 100 tons of sediment and pesticides per acre, per
year into the water.
Project Description
Since 1994, the North Yakima Conservation District
has received CWA 319 funding, and shortly thereafter,
the South Yakima Conservation District also received
CWA 319 funding to work on reducing impacts from
irrigation practices. The Department of Ecology also
started developing a management plan to achieve
water quality standards in the entire Yakima Basin;
the plan was finalized in 1997.
The main method used to reduce sediment loads due to
furrow irrigation is the implementation of more
efficient drip irrigation methods, such as sprinklers.
Site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) were
(continued on next page)
Turbidity has been greately reduced from the Sulphur Creek Wasteway.
29
-------
REGION 10 GRANT PROGRAMS IN FY2000 - OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS
(continued from page 29)
designed with individual landowners. In one
case, the demonstration included application of
polyacrylamide (PAM) through a central pivot
irrigation system. PAM is a coagulating agent,
and when used in irrigation, causes better soil
saturation and less runoff in the fields. The
combination of these two management practices
was new in this area.
Another primary goal of the combined 319-funded
projects was to provide education and outreach to
local groups and individual farmers to inspire
people to take responsibility and become involved
in their watershed.
Results
Education and outreach has been so successful
that the irrigation districts have joined together on
their own accord and formed a joint interest group,
the Roza-Sunny side Board of Joint Control. They
took responsibility for their watershed, obtained a
10 million-dollar SRF loan to improve water
quality and because of their efforts, received an
award for Environmental Excellence in 1998.
By the time Ecology's management plan (TMDL)
was finalized in 1997, there was a 30% reduction
in sediment load in the Moxee Drain alone, and
drip irrigation has been implemented on over
2,000 acres of farmland. Samples were collected
in approximately 15 sites within two sub-basins
from June 1997 through October 1999. One sub-
basin registered a decrease in total solids (TSS) of
86% and the other sub-basin showed a decrease of
56%. Thanks to CWA 319 funded projects and to
BOJC's ongoing efforts, that turbidity reduction
goal in the Yakima Basin has already been reached
this year in the majority of drains.
Citizens Aim for
Sustainable Future
Hundreds of citizens in Washington, Oregon and
Idaho recently participated in Regional Watershed
Roundtables. These successful events were funded with
$15,000 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and an additional $17,000 from the U.S. Forest Service.
With an eye towards "creating a sustainable future for fish,
water and people," the citizens spent two intensive days
building consensus, crafting watershed solutions, learning
skills and sharing successes. A set of recommendations
for future actions emerged. The recommendations
were featured at the National Watershed Forum in 2001.
They include:
• increasing public education and outreach on watershed
issues;
• building better mechanisms for collaboration within
watersheds, such as professional facilitation;
• creating a common vision for sustaining watersheds
among various groups; and
• increasing awareness of the variety of funding
mechanisms and watershed groups' ability to leverage
these funds.
Washington State University Center for Sustaining Natural
Resources sponsored the three roundtables. Summary
reports from these meetings will be available on their web
site at: www.wsu/csanr.org and on the EPA Region 10
Clean Water Action Plan webpage at: www.epa.gov/
rlOearth/cleanwater.htm.
In conjunction with the roundtables, Funding Workshops
were held by the Environmental Finance Center at Boise
State University and University of Maryland. Attendees
learned about working with watershed stakeholders to
leverage restoration and protection funding. EPA and other
agencies within the Regional Watershed Coordinating Team
has since sponsored more of these workshops.
30
-------
Helping Our Partners and Benefitting the Environment. FY2000 Grants.
Office of Ecosystems and Communities:
Elbert Moore, Director
Roger Mochnick, Associate Director
Production:
Kathy Veit, Community Involvement & Outreach
John Gabrielson, Natural Resources Management
Tina Hendrix, Researcher
Andrea Lindsay, Community Involvement & Outreach
Christopher Moffett, Graphics
Woody Pang, Community Outreach Publications
Photo Credits:
Tillamook Aerial (cover & p. 18): Don Best Impressions, Tillamook, OR
Tillamook cover inset and tidegate (cover & p. 19): John Gabrielson, EPA Region 10
Chico map (p. 21): Kitsap County Planning Dept.
Pesticide project (p. 22): Sandy Halstead, EPA Region 10
Juneau wetlands (p. 23): Society of Wetland Scientists, Alaska Regional Chapter.
Paradise (pp. 17, 24-25): Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute, Moscow, ID
Upper Grande Ronde (pp. 26-27): from Lombardo, L.A., G.L. Grabow, J. Spooner, D.E.
Line, D.L. Osmond, and G.D. Jennings. Section 319 Nonpoint Source National
Monitoring Program Successes and Recommendations. NCSU Water Quality Group,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, NC State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina, 2000.
Sulphur Creek (p. 29): Joe Schmitt, Roza-Sunny side Board of Joint Control
-------
------- |