Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project
Content
Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project
REPORT BACK & DIALOGUE SESSION Montana Association of Conservation Districts Helena, Montana October 12, 2010
CONTENTS 1. Session Notes…………………………………2 2. Participant Feedback……………….............10 3. Participant List………………………………15
Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project
REPORT BACK & DIALOGUE SESSION SUMMARY Montana Association of Conservation Districts Helena, Montana October 12, 2010
1.
Session Notes
The purpose of the meeting was to share what was learned during this project and solicit comments and recommendations recommendations for next steps. To accomplish this, a summary presentation was provided up front, followed by discussion about the implications of the project and suggestio suggestions ns for future activities or actions. A summary outline follows. I. Purpose of the Project -- To ask Montanans from diverse sectors to describe successful methods they use to protect riparian areas II. Project Goals A. Collaborate with Conservation Districts statewide B. Co-sponsor 14 listening sessions that engage diverse BMP “users” C. Compile, categorize and detail BMPs in a comprehensive list so others can benefit III. Project Outcomes A. What You Can Expect 1. A wide range of experiences and individual thoughts on riparian protection and BMPs 2. Greatest depth in the coverage of agricultural riparian BMPs 3. Impressions of participants on what good BMPs might be and how to encourage more 4. Lots of food for thought and further action B. What You Can’t Expect 1. BMPs that have all been scientifically evaluated and monitored for effectiveness 2. Complete coverage of all geographic and sector activities 3. Other concerns of people not present. IV. Accomplishments A. 10 Listening Sessions with Conservation Districts – Lewis & Clark ( Helena), Flathead (Kalispell), Dawson (Glendive), Cascade (Great Falls), Richland (Sidney),
Miles City), Missoula ( Missoula), Missoula), Bitterroot (Corvallis), Mile High (Butte), Custer ( Miles Beaverhead (Dillon)1 B. 2 Focus Groups (with targeted t argeted sectors)– Billings & Lewistown 2 C. A total of two hundred twenty five people p eople attended all sessions.
D. Approximately 92 BMPs were described, primarily as anecdotal, impressionistic impressionis tic personal stories. E. The final project report will include 10 case ca se studies (profiles) from different sectors which were compiled from more than 20 interviews, several following up on input from the listening sessions. V. What We Learned A. General observations 1. The Forestry BMP Program & SMZ Act are held up as a successful example of one sector instituting best management practices that utilize voluntary and regulatory components components.. 2. There is NO commonly shared idea of what a “good” BMP is. 3. There seems to be a heightened awareness, knowledge & experience in western Montana; whereas in dryland Montana, awareness and knowledge of riparian areas appears to be less. 4. There is broad acknowledgment statewide that “one size doesn’t fit all” 5. There is persistent tension (and conflict) between individual (site-specific) & broader & community objectives outcomes or watershed-wide riparian protection goals, 6. Education is a continuing need & opportunity, especially for certain audiences 7. Government regulation is a concern of many sectors 8. Economic costs and benefits were high on citizens’ lists of needs and concerns statewide. 1
Summaries of each individual listening session are available at at http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/ http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/
2 2 Focus
Group summaries are available at at http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/ http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/
B. Two Themes Themes in the Listening S Sessions: essions: Education and Regulation 1. Education a. Audiences and what they need more of i. City/County governmen governments ts - “BMP How To’s” for dealing with stormwater runoff - Additional information for county sanitarians, flood plain administrators, planners. For example, BMPs for agriculture; making siting decisions; for educating new landowners; training on their roles as “riparian educators” ii. Ranchettes/Small Rural Landowners - Riparian functions, values, benefits - Cost effective BMPs and economic benefits of using them iii. Realtors, Developers, Contractors - Information and data on the economic benefits of riparian protection iv. Dry Land Agricultural Landowners - What is a riparian area in dry land areas? Why should I protect them? -- How can they be protected? b. Suggested Educational Messages i. Tap the eloquence of ranchers & farmers who have instructive experiences to share. ii. Change the dominant mindset. For example, a road construction engineer recommended that prevention become the operative mind set among the regulators and the regulated. iii. “Keep it messy.” For example, a riparian landow landowner ner coined this phrase based on his learning the importance of vegetated streambanks. iv. “These are valuable resources—protecting them will protect your property’s value.” For example, o one ne agricultural landowner who lost land to bank sloughing and channel migration emphasized this point. v. “It’s just physics. Knowing how streams and rivers operate can help you make better management decisions.” 2. Regulation a. MS4 Stormwater Regulations are perceived to be an “unfunded mandate” by some Montana cities impacted by federal requirements r equirements.. b. There is perceived inequity and inconsisten inconsistency cy in application and environmental consequences consequences of “strict” regulator standards for
industry vs. voluntary regul regulation ation of agriculture (particularly (particularly regarding nonpoint source pollution). c. Regulation can be a disincentive to ‘do the right thing’ due to costs, poor interagency communication and cooperation and conflicting regulatory objectives and requirements. d. The concept of “Voluntary BMPs” resonates most positively with many e. Montanans. Some participants acknowledged that riparian areas would not likely be protected if some industries were not regulated. VI. Challenges A. Poor intergovernmental and interagency communication and coordination involving permitting requirements requirements and rregulatory egulatory mandates was described as problematic and burdensome by participants at several listening sessions (Flathead, Missoula, Bitterroot) B. Economic Incentives would facilitate adoption and implementation of more riparian BMPs C. From Regulation Regulation to Compliance: What about En Enforcement? forcement? Is it be being ing done? If so, how well? If not, why not? D. Public awareness & knowledge of the functions and values of riparian areas and the benefits of protecting these areas needs to become widespread. Citizens would also benefit from learning that many sectors of society have important roles to play (voluntary and regulated) in protecting riparian areas. E. How can we create forums for collaborative problem-solving that bridges individual site-specific riparian protection needs with watershed-wide riparian ripar ian protection needs and outcomes? VII. Opportunities A. Continue & expand support to those doing innovative and relevant education & outreach 1. Flathead Lakers 2. Montana Watercourse 3. Bitter Root Water Forum 4. Yellowstone River Conservation District Council 5. Others…? B. Extract ‘lessons’ from the Fo Forestry restry BMP Program, adapt them and develop comparable strategies for other sectors (e.g. agriculture)
C. Support educational programs that link landowner needs to educational opportunities for youth (e.g. kids planting willows for farmers in the Flathead) VIII. Unanswered Questions A. Have we overlooked riparian BMP “treasure” that may be archived in CD 310 permit records, DNRC RRDG records, and DEQ’s 319 grant program records? B. Education 1. Two sectors seemed “mysterious” and unknown to some listening session participants: Highway maintenance and riparian protection—how does it get done? What about energy pipelines? The project did not obtain sufficient information to address these questions. 2. How and where would BMP education have greatest the effect? At permitting? In land buy-sell? Other? C. Regulation 1. What could be done to minimize confusion and delays resulting from the lack of a common approach to permitting & regulation? 2. What characteristics of an industry or sector may make it easier (or predisposed to) self-policing vs. regulation? 3. What makes voluntary efforts effective? At what point do people choose to act? 4. Look at the intersection of regulation (permitting) & costs—are there situations where price discrimination could be used as an incentive? 5. What about enforcement? Is it don done? e? How well? Do people self self-police? -police? If so, where & why? 6. Where’s the scientific evidence that BMPs “work” (e.g. improved water quality, etc.) IX. Group Discussion of Next Steps? (Recommendations? Applications of this report for certain audiences?) A. Participant questions, comments 1. What are we trying to accomplish? 2. Let’s get specific—what about the 27 regulatory issues that affect transportation
3. Is it a question of offering a carrot or a stick? F Facilitator acilitator response: It may not be an either or proposition. proposition. Look at the succe successful ssful example of Forestry. B. What next? What should be done wi with th this inform information? ation? 1. An engineer present shared his “creative insight” on evaluating the effectiveness effectivenes of BMPs, noting oral and Having written both comments useful. Datas should not drivethat eve everything. rything. wouldare beboth very helpful. Disseminate the inform information ation in a “pat in th thee back” sstyle. tyle. “There is a fine stream here”—instead here”—instead of “there is raw sewage here.” Let’s recognize some successes in oral form, which feeds into education. 2. Bitterroot Audubon member comments: We recognize that cottonwood bottoms in the Bitterroot River are important, so we contacted all owners with greater than 20 acres. They’re interes interested ted in “what next,” but ne need ed to make things happen. happen. Local clubs, organization organizationss need to organize an and d work with FSA, other agencies a gencies and get the discussion going. Define local stakeholders and get them in the loop. Bringing in realtors might be a way to do this. Also need more inform information ation resources to help mee meett needs. 3. Is the next step to break down different sectors—bring together together the different sectors and take it down to the specific level—get lay people and technical people together? together? Sector-specific, local w working orking groups cou could ld develop next steps, if you want on the ground protection. Find out if there are really problems out there, create a process that builds solutions, bridges anecdotal examples to actual protection. 4. Develop a TV show on riparian BMPs—“go big.” Highlight grea greatt things that are really really going well. Create a sh show ow that do does es this. Other ideas: “The riparian minute” minute” film with stories. Any media outle outlets; ts; stories—good if coordinated. 5. Who’s responsible for disseminating disseminating the report? It will be made available on MACD and DEQ web sites. sites. Other suggest suggestions? ions? Through MSU/UM Extension services to agriculture; through Lubrecht at UM; Montana Tech. 6. The report should also be disseminated to granting agencies. For example, tell the EPA should be told that educational needs have not yet been met. Include trade associations—contractors, wood products, grain growers, realtors
7. Identify funding sources for people to use to further BMPs, including how to go about cost-share. 8. Define problems. BMP is in eye of the beholder. They depend on the objective. People sometimes don’t see the effect their activity may have on causing a problem. On site, downstream, downstream, upstream—equating cau cause se and effect. People need to kno know w and identify the action actionss that they may have taken that have caused the problems. problems. With the forestry ssector, ector, it was the threat of regulation that made them look at their practices and a nd consider “what are actual practices that are causing problems? What BMPs would actually work?” We need to sshow how the pos positive itive benefi benefit. t. 9. There needs to be training for people (consultants, project managers, etc.) involved in restoration restoration projects. The case studies are showing lots of trial and error before success. success. Maybe there shou should ld be ongoing traini training ng for advising landowners—consultants landowners—consultants and project managers. Watershed groups need to be included included too. Continuing education is neede needed. d. 10. Apply the “No adverse impact” concept used in floodplain management. Make sure what you do doesn’t affect anyone else. There is lots of material available with this model. model. It might also ident identify ify what those next next steps are. 11. BMPs are in eye of the beholder—how different people understand riparian areas differs sector by sector. We need to use other language, the “voice of the sector” as the basis for education and outreach, so the riparian protection message is heard. 12. Does the report define riparian? Could we include this in the report? How is this different different between east and w west? est? Do we need som something ething local to show something familiar? 13. “Prevention” is a very important thing that n needs eeds to be mention mentioned. ed. It’s easier not to mess up an area to begin with. 14. We need to define the impacts to riparian ripar ian areas—chemical, mechanical, biological, hydrologic. hydrologic. What are the specific conce concerns--understo rns--understory, ry, removal, channelization, channelization, etc? Which ones are we trying to address? 15. EPA has done a good job of defining the impacts—by industry—by WQ— includes chemical, chemical, biological, physical. This provides a start, but don’t forget that this isn’t the only set of objectives at a time.
16. But we’ve done a million brochures! I like the media. How do we get it out and get it out? 17. Stream Teams and river “watchers” are methods to work on prevention. For example, look at the Hudson. Hudson. Give someone responsi responsibility bility so they feel it and run with it. We are looking ffor or key people to run with it. 18. Do you have to make make someone care? What about other incentive incentives? s? Education and outreach are uphill battles—links are difficult to make. Could there be ways to pay them to institu institute te riparian BMPs? Response: NRCS, Farm Bill have been doing this since 1985 (with the Conservation Reserve Program, etc.) etc.) This is a huge part of our national budget—t budget—that hat sector has BMP things that work at the local level. 19. What about imitating something something like the energy star program? Something that hasn’t been created? created? Something peo people ple do, at least in part, to save money. What wou would ld it take? 20. There have to be opportunities for other incentives, such as carbon trading? Wetland bankin banking? g? Further “out of the box” thinking is needed. C. As the session wrapped up, the facilitator asked “How many of you would participate in a working group to follow-up on BMPs for your sector?” A few people raised their hands. All present were thanked for attending and making making great contributions. A summary of this session will be distributed to those who attended and posted on MACD’s Riparian BMP wiki site. The meeting was adjourned shortly before 5 p.m. and all were encouraged to complete a Feedback Form to share additional thoughts and suggestions by Friday, October 15 at 5 p.m.
2.
PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
The following are responses responses provided by those in attendance (or submitted by mail or online) following the session. 1. What nextActors? steps should be taken to follow fo llow up on the outcomes of this project? proje ct? (Actions? Audiences? Methods?)
a. Governor’s Task Force for Riparian Protection should consider outreach to the real estate/building industry trade associations in Montana, to see if they would be interested in participating in a working group aimed at compiling best management practices for development near streams and other water bodies in Montana. Work with Mark Si Simonich monich to see if he would help spearhe spearhead ad this. Working group would include some riparian resource specialists, as well as builders and realtors. Unsure about funding funding requirements to pull this off off.. Results of the working group process would be distributed through the trade associations, included in Continuing Education workshops, and used as the basis for an award/recognition a ward/recognition program. b. Governor’s Task Force for Riparian Protection should work with Montana DNRC and forestry industry on an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the BMPs and regulations of the Streamside Man Management agement Zone Act. Unsure of funding requirements requirements to accomplis accomplish h this. Until this evaluation is m made, ade, I do NOT think the forestry BMPs process should be used as a “model”. “ model”. c. Actions: i. Increased W.Q. ii. People to act in own best interest bur for environmental protection to be in a person’s best interest. iii. Increase financial incentives. Tie in costs to benefits. Get people paid rather than get people to “care”. Education and outreach re: programs. d. Actors: i. Montana Watercourse, etc. education ii. Media iii. Community & school groups e. Methods i. Contracts with Government to promote carrot vs. stick management ii. Positive enforcement and praise iii. Expert elicitations as data points f. BMPs + agriculture= contract with FWP for increasing hunting big game permits? g. Following up from an idea at the Oct 12 Report Back session – suggest that for each sector - identify potential riparian iimpacts mpacts and existing resources resources (carrots and sticks) in to place to address. us usee potential impacts education outreach tool “users “users” ” such as Also landowners, developers, …asIfanhave limitedand
resources concentrate on new or emerging sectors that don’t have a history of carrots and sticks. We heard that older/established sectors include the following following and have both voluntary and regulatory r egulatory tools: i. Agriculture (private landowners addressed w/ both carrots ex. conservation provisions of Farm Bill, and sticks ex. Swampbuster) ii. Forestry (SMZ law both voluntary and regulatory provisions) iii. Transportation – regulations associated w/ Federal highway funds h. How about developing a check list for how to evaluate what a “good” riparian BMP is? i. Targeted Education campaign j. Broad media outreach k. Good follow-up and evaluation of efforts. l. Like the idea of a sector by sector approach: test if impacts are real or perceived and if BMPs work. m. Important to include in educational messages— i. Actions that led to problems ii. What individuals can do to prevent further damage and/or to restore iii. Where/how to access help n. Problem—separation and inequity of any program (regulation, voluntary education, etc.) i. Yet potentially disturbing activities to a riparian area are ar e categorized (forestry, agriculture, development construction, etc.) ii. And for each there must must be a focal source (agency (agency)) for practitioners to approach— iii. E.g. the forestry BMP/SMZ only had a chance to succeed because practitioners had for years, and still do, need to come to DNRC for existing regulatory HRA program. iv. So action might be to figure out the focal point for that the category of activity—who are the practitioners forced already to interact with—of v. vi.
course thisproblem. has the potential to lead to added apparent inequities, a perceived Next action—education first of the focal point persons—public impressions are diverse and so are agency persons impressions. Defining problem—not problem—not as easy as one may think due to the incredible variability of natural systems and the ability of sites to “recover” “r ecover” on their own. Sometimes problems are perceived when a change occurs without full comprehension of natural time frames and disturbance processes. (D.J. Bakken—comments Bakken—comm ents to original question posed at the session)
o. Actors i. Problem--I am not really aware of any group that voluntarily pulled together their own regulation/education program—at least beyond a single localized area with common experiences.
ii.
Forestry again—the actor was the Legislature—Laws (the voluntary BMP and then mandatory SMZ) was forced collaboration—it was then that interdisciplinary groups were assembled assembled to work out a mandated solution. (D.J. Bakken—comments Bakken—comments to original question posed at the session) p. Method— i. ii.
Depends onbase—any scale—small local area—drainage orwith etc. folks common experience concerned group working folkswith involved can make positive progress—education related. Bigger scale—statewide—face the fact that only legislatively mandated action will ever pull diverse diverse interests to the table. (D.J. Bakken— comments to original question posed at the session)
2. Can you think of any creative applications for use, distribution and/or adaptation of the project report? a. Videotaping 1-2 of the best interviewees with the best stories to share about their efforts to protect riparian areas. areas. Use as an educational tool in a variety variety of venues.
b. c. d. e.
Unsure of funding funbe ding requirements to accomplish this . Would Montana Watercourse an requiremen appropriatetsproject sponsor this. if we could find the $$ to do it? Look to Governor’s Task Force or perhaps MACD for leadership. Encourage MACD and individual CD’s to use this information as the “pulse” “ pulse” of the landowners and provides support for CD’s to increase their role in streamside management and protection. Opportunities in legislative session. It will be of most interest to decision makers—becau makers—because se it is so general (and some of the practices aren’t tested) More projects that involve youth in restoration community service projects
3. Can you think of anything this project has missed entirely that should be considered or addressed? a. I think we missed the opportunity to describe this project as something other than Riparian Protection. That is what it is, of co course, urse, but the term does not grab people. Unfortunately, I can’t readil readily y come up with a better phrase phrase although maybe we got got one fro from m a listenin listening g session participant: “Keep It Mes Messy”. sy”. Would make a good bumper sticker, or campaign slogan. b. CARD. DNRC has a bureau that su supports pports Conservation Di Districts; stricts; they should should receive the report and in hind sight should have been more involved in the outreach and participation in the meetings. meetings. They could play a very iimportant mportant role in supporting what was heard and follow up steps – especially in providing prov iding education and outreach to CD about stream mechanics and dynamics and how to assess 310 proposals.
c. Hit the agriculture. sector hard—missed developmen developmentt sector that has permanent impacts d. Below is an abstract being presented presented at AWRA Oct 2010. The public educatio education n campaign was evaluated for effectiveness. effectiveness. The results cou could ld provide good information for future outreach endeavors. Riparian Buffer Public Education Campaign Campaign Tammy Crone, Water Quality Specialist, Gallatin Local Water Quality District, , 1709 W. College St, Suite 104, Bozeman, MT, 59715, (406) 582-3145, [email protected]. Riparian areas offer important water quality protection for rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and ground water. Increasing development pressure is disproportionately stressing riparian areas as people choose to live near water. This development pressure and its associated outcomes -- growth in the numbers of residences, septic systems, stormwater runoff, transportation infrastructure, and other activities a ctivities -- are impacting the extent and health of riparian areas and water quality across Montana. The Montana Governor’s Task Force for Riparian Protection, as well as statewide efforts from Montana Watercourse and other groups, has targeted developers and realtors with information about the importance of healthy riparian areas and wetlands. While efforts to reach these groups are important, and should continue, these services are driven by consumer demand. Therefore, the general public must also be informed so that valuing and maintaining healthy riparian areas becomes the social norm in Montana. Local government agencies such as conservation districts, water quality districts and health departments are uniquely positioned to reach out to their communities with this message, and to provide supporting strategies such as workshops and demonstration projects. Partners in this campaign include: Flathead Conservation District, Missoula Valley Water Quality District, Lewis & Clark County Water Quality Protection District, Gallatin Local Water Quality District, Ravalli County Environmental Health, and Lake County Environmental Health. Building upon riparian vegetation public education campaign launched by the Missoula Valley Water Quality District in 2007, the goal of this project was to increase public awareness of the important functions of native riparian vegetation, and foster development of a social norm that encourages establishing, improving, and maintaining healthy riparian areas in Montana. Professional television and radio public service announcements, web page banner ads and billboards were created, and media time was purchased to air these materials in the partners_ geographic areas in western Montana in spring 2010. Campaign effectiveness was evaluated using pre- and post-campaign surveys designed to measure the public’s awareness of the importance of riparian vegetation. The surveys were conducted in Gallatin County. The results of these evaluations will be presented.
e. Funding limitations, struggles f. Hostility from certain groups. This need to be addressed head on. 4. Why are you interested in riparian protection? pr otection? What do you hope to accomplish through riparian protection? a. Clean water, room for floodplains to roam, and robust riparian ripar ian areas safeguard b. c. d.
healthy aquatic and wildlife wildlife habitats. That, in turn, helps to saf safeguard eguard our quality of life and our long-term economic well-being. I’m interested in the education aspect. Protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat Reach more citizens with targeted messages that move them to protect/restore these areas.
5. What “favorite resources” do you y ou use or direct others to regarding re garding riparian protection and related best management practices? (Publications? Web sites? People? Organizations?) a. Montana DEQ/Montana Audubon reports on benefits of streamside protection to water quality, aquatic habitat, and wildlife habitat.
b. Janet Ellis c. Montana Watercourse workshops and website d. Local FWP biologists e. Montana Watercourse Publications f. Stream Management Guide—DNRC g. MT Audubon publications—great stuff 6. Other thoughts? Recommendations? a. We heard that the listening sess sessions ions provided quite a diverse and lengthy list of ideas and responses. responses. How about picking 3 or 4 recommended recommended “to do’s” fo forr each sector. One’s that pass the laug laugh h test and are just go good od common sense. sense. b. Nice job. Thanks so much for all your hard work. c. Favorite thoughts from this session: i. “How many booklets and brochures have been created?” We do need to think big in terms of how to get the t he messages out to targeted audiences. ii. Use the language the audience knows and understands.
