riparian best management practices listening session project

8/3/2019 Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project

1/14

Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project

REPORT BACK & DIALOGUE SESSIONMontana Association of Conservation Districts

Helena, MontanaOctober 12, 2010

CONTENTS

1. Session Notes22. Participant Feedback.............103. Participant List15


2/14

Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project

REPORT BACK & DIALOGUE SESSION SUMMARYMontana Association of Conservation Districts

Helena, MontanaOctober 12, 2010

1. Session NotesThe purpose of the meeting was to share what was learned during this project andsolicit comments and recommendations for next steps. To accomplish this, a summarypresentation was provided up front, followed by discussion about the implications ofthe project and suggestions for future activities or actions. A summary outline follows.

I. Purpose of the Project -- To ask Montanans from diverse sectors to describesuccessful methods they use to protect riparian areas

II. Project GoalsA. Collaborate with Conservation Districts statewideB. Co-sponsor 14 listening sessions that engage diverse BMP usersC. Compile, categorize and detail BMPs in a comprehensive list so others can

benefit

III. Project OutcomesA. What You Can Expect

1. A wide range of experiences and individual thoughts on riparianprotection and BMPs

2. Greatest depth in the coverage of agricultural riparian BMPs3. Impressions of participants on what good BMPs might be and how to

encourage more4. Lots of food for thought and further action

B. What You Cant Expect1. BMPs that have all been scientifically evaluated and monitored for

effectiveness2. Complete coverage of all geographic and sector activities3.

Other concerns of people not present.

IV. AccomplishmentsA. 10 Listening Sessions with Conservation Districts Lewis & Clark (Helena),

Flathead (Kalispell), Dawson (Glendive), Cascade (Great Falls), Richland (Sidney),


3/14

Custer (Miles City), Missoula (Missoula), Bitterroot (Corvallis), Mile High (Butte),Beaverhead (Dillon)1

B. 2 Focus Groups (with targeted sectors) Billings & Lewistown2

C. A total of two hundred twenty five people attended all sessions.D. Approximately 92 BMPs were described, primarily as anecdotal,

impressionistic personal stories.

E. The final project report will include 10 case studies (profiles) from differentsectors which were compiled from more than 20 interviews, several followingup on input from the listening sessions.

V. What We LearnedA. General observations

1. The Forestry BMP Program & SMZ Act are held up as a successful exampleof one sector instituting best management practices that utilize voluntaryand regulatory 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 knowledgeof riparian areas appears to be less.

4. There is broad acknowledgment statewide that one size doesnt fit all5. There is persistent tension (and conflict) between individual (site-specific)

& broader community or watershed-wide riparian protection goals,objectives & outcomes

6. Education is a continuing need & opportunity, especially for certainaudiences

7. Government regulation is a concern of many sectors8. Economic costs and benefits were high on citizens lists of needs and

concerns statewide.

1Summaries of each individual listening session are available athttp://montanabmp.pbworks.com/

22

Focus Group summaries are available athttp://montanabmp.pbworks.com/
http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/


4/14

B. Two Themes in the Listening Sessions: Education and Regulation

1. Educationa. Audiences and what they need more of

i. City/County governments- BMP How Tos 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

protectioniv. 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 Messagesi. 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 operativemind set among the regulators and the regulated.iii. Keep it messy. For example, a riparian landowner coined this

phrase based on his learning the importance of vegetatedstreambanks.

iv. These are valuable resourcesprotecting them will protectyour propertys value. For example, one agriculturallandowner who lost land to bank sloughing and channelmigration emphasized this point.

v. Its just physics. Knowing how streams and rivers operate canhelp you make better management decisions.

2. Regulationa. MS4 Stormwater Regulations are perceived to be an unfunded

mandate by some Montana cities impacted by federal requirements.b. There is perceived inequity and inconsistency in application and

environmental consequences of strict regulator standards for


5/14

industry vs. voluntary regulation of agriculture (particularly regardingnonpoint source pollution).

c. Regulation can be a disincentive to do the right thing due to costs,poor interagency communication and cooperation and conflictingregulatory objectives and requirements.

d. The concept of Voluntary BMPs resonates most positively with manyMontanans.

e. Some participants acknowledged that riparian areas would not likelybe protected if some industries were not regulated.

VI. ChallengesA. Poor intergovernmental and interagency communication and coordination

involving permitting requirements and regulatory mandates was described asproblematic and burdensome by participants at several listening sessions(Flathead, Missoula, Bitterroot)

B. Economic Incentives would facilitate adoption and implementation of moreriparian BMPs

C. From Regulation to Compliance: What about Enforcement? Is it being done? Ifso, how well? If not, why not?

D. Public awareness & knowledge of the functions and values of riparian areasand 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 bridgesindividual site-specific riparian protection needs with watershed-wide riparianprotection needs and outcomes?

VII. OpportunitiesA. Continue & expand support to those doing innovative and relevant education

& outreach1. Flathead Lakers2. Montana Watercourse3. Bitter Root Water Forum4. Yellowstone River Conservation District Council5. Others?

B. Extract lessons from the Forestry BMP Program, adapt them and developcomparable strategies for other sectors (e.g. agriculture)


6/14

C. Support educational programs that link landowner needs to educationalopportunities for youth (e.g. kids planting willows for farmers in the Flathead)

VIII.Unanswered QuestionsA. Have we overlooked riparian BMP treasure that may be archived in CD 310

permit records, DNRC RRDG records, and DEQs 319 grant program records?

B. Education1. Two sectors seemed mysterious and unknown to some listening session

participants: Highway maintenance and riparian protectionhow does itget done? What about energy pipelines? The project did not obtainsufficient information to address these questions.

2. How and where would BMP education have greatest the effect? Atpermitting? In land buy-sell? Other?

C. Regulation1. 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 (orpredisposed to) self-policing vs. regulation?

3. What makes voluntary efforts effective? At what point do people chooseto act?

4. Look at the intersection of regulation (permitting) & costsare theresituations where price discrimination could be used as an incentive?

5. What about enforcement? Is it done? How well? Do people self-police? Ifso, where & why?

6. Wheres the scientific evidence that BMPs work (e.g. improved waterquality, etc.)

IX. Group Discussion of Next Steps? (Recommendations? Applications of this reportfor certain audiences?)A. Participant questions, comments

1. What are we trying to accomplish?2. Lets get specificwhat about the 27 regulatory issues that affect

transportation


7/14

3. Is it a question of offering a carrot or a stick? Facilitator response: It maynot be an either or proposition. Look at the successful example ofForestry.

B.What next? What should be done with this information?1. An engineer present shared his creative insight on evaluating the

effectiveness of BMPs, noting that oral and written comments are bothuseful. Data should not drive everything. Having both would be veryhelpful. Disseminate the information in a pat in the back style. Thereis a fine stream hereinstead of there is raw sewage here. Letsrecognize some successes in oral form, which feeds into education.

2. Bitterroot Audubon member comments: We recognize that cottonwoodbottoms in the Bitterroot River are important, so we contacted all ownerswith greater than 20 acres. Theyre interested in what next, but need to

make things happen. Local clubs, organizations need to organize andwork with FSA, other agencies and get the discussion going. Define localstakeholders and get them in the loop. Bringing in realtors might be a wayto do this. Also need more information resources to help meet needs.

3. Is the next step to break down different sectorsbring together thedifferent sectors and take it down to the specific levelget lay people andtechnical people together? Sector-specific, local working groups coulddevelop next steps, if you want on the ground protection. Find out if thereare really problems out there, create a process that builds solutions,

bridges anecdotal examples to actual protection.

4. Develop a TV show on riparian BMPsgo big. Highlight great thingsthat are really going well. Create a show that does this. Other ideas:The riparian minute film with stories. Any media outlets; storiesgoodif coordinated.

5. Whos responsible for disseminating the report? It will be made availableon MACD and DEQ web sites. Other suggestions? Through MSU/UMExtension 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 associationscontractors, wood products, grain growers,realtors


8/14

7. Identify funding sources for people to use to further BMPs, including howto go about cost-share.

8. Define problems. BMP is in eye of the beholder. They depend on theobjective. People sometimes dont see the effect their activity may have on

causing a problem. On site, downstream, upstreamequating cause andeffect. People need to know and identify the actions that they may havetaken that have caused the problems. With the forestry sector, it was thethreat of regulation that made them look at their practices and considerwhat are actual practices that are causing problems? What BMPs wouldactually work? We need to show the positive benefit.

9. There needs to be training for people (consultants, project managers, etc.)involved in restoration projects. The case studies are showing lots of trialand error before success. Maybe there should be ongoing training for

advising landownersconsultants and project managers. Watershedgroups need to be included too. Continuing education is needed.

10.Apply the No adverse impact concept used in floodplain management.Make sure what you do doesnt affect anyone else. There is lots of materialavailable with this model. It might also identify what those next steps are.

11.BMPs are in eye of the beholderhow different people understandriparian areas differs sector by sector. We need to use other language, thevoice 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 between east and west? Do we need something localto show something familiar?

13.Prevention is a very important thing that needs to be mentioned. Itseasier not to mess up an area to begin with.

14.We need to define the impacts to riparian areaschemical, mechanical,biological, hydrologic. What are the specific concerns--understory,removal, channelization, etc? Which ones are we trying to address?

15.EPA has done a good job of defining the impactsby industryby WQincludes chemical, biological, physical. This provides a start, but dontforget that this isnt the only set of objectives at a time.


9/14

16.But weve done a million brochures! I like the media. How do we get itout and get it out?

17.Stream Teams and river watchers are methods to work on prevention.For example, look at the Hudson. Give someone responsibility so they

feel it and run with it. We are looking for key people to run with it.

18.Do you have to make someone care? What about other incentives?Education and outreach are uphill battleslinks are difficult to make.Could there be ways to pay them to institute riparian BMPs? Response:NRCS, Farm Bill have been doing this since 1985 (with the ConservationReserve Program, etc.) This is a huge part of our national budgetthatsector has BMP things that work at the local level.

19.What about imitating something like the energy star program? Somethingthat hasnt been created? Something people do, at least in part, to savemoney. What would it take?

20.There have to be opportunities for other incentives, such as carbontrading? Wetland banking? Further out of the box thinking is needed.

C. As the session wrapped up, the facilitator asked How many of you wouldparticipate in a working group to follow-up on BMPs for your sector? A fewpeople raised their hands.

All present were thanked for attending and making great contributions. A summary ofthis session will be distributed to those who attended and posted on MACDs RiparianBMP wiki site.

The meeting was adjourned shortly before 5 p.m. and all were encouraged to completea Feedback Form to share additional thoughts and suggestions by Friday, October 15 at5 p.m.


10/14

2. PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKThe following are responses provided by those in attendance (or submitted by mail or

online) following the session.

1. What next steps should be taken to follow up on the outcomes of this project?(Actions? Actors? Audiences? Methods?)a. Governors Task Force for Riparian Protection should consider outreach to the

real estate/building industry trade associations in Montana, to see if they wouldbe interested in participating in a working group aimed at compiling bestmanagement practices for development near streams and other water bodies inMontana. Work with Mark Simonich to see if he would help spearhead this.Working group would include some riparian resource specialists, as well asbuilders and realtors. Unsure about funding requirements to pull this off.

Results of the working group process would be distributed through the tradeassociations, included in Continuing Education workshops, and used as the basisfor an award/recognition program.

b. Governors Task Force for Riparian Protection should work with MontanaDNRC and forestry industry on an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of theBMPs and regulations of the Streamside Management Zone Act. Unsure offunding requirements to accomplish this. Until this evaluation is made, I doNOT think the forestry BMPs process should be used as a model.

c. Actions:i. Increased W.Q.

ii. People to act in own best interest bur for environmental protection to be ina persons best interest.

iii. Increase financial incentives. Tie in costs to benefits. Get people paidrather than get people to care. Education and outreach re: programs.

d. Actors:i. Montana Watercourse, etc. education

ii. Mediaiii. Community & school groups

e. Methodsi. Contracts with Government to promote carrot vs. stick management

ii. Positive enforcement and praiseiii. Expert elicitations as data points

f. BMPs + agriculture= contract with FWP for increasing hunting big gamepermits?

g. Following up from an idea at the Oct 12 Report Back session suggest that foreach sector - identify potential riparian impacts and existing resources (carrots

and sticks) in place to address. Also use potential impacts as an education and

outreach tool to users such as landowners, developers, If have limited


11/14

resources concentrate on new or emerging sectors that dont have a history of

carrots and sticks. We heard that older/established sectors include the following

and have both voluntary and regulatory 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 fundsh. How about developing a check list for how to evaluate what a good riparian

BMP is?i. Targeted Education campaignj. Broad media outreachk. 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 problemsii. What individuals can do to prevent further damage and/or to restore

iii. Where/how to access helpn. Problemseparation and inequity of any program (regulation, voluntary

education, etc.)i. Yet

ii. And for each there must be a focal source (agency) for practitioners toapproach

potentially disturbing activities to a riparian area are categorized(forestry, agriculture, development construction, etc.)

iii. E.g. the forestry BMP/SMZ only

iv. So action might be to figure out the focal point for that the category ofactivitywho are the practitioners forced already to interact withofcourse this has the potential to lead to added apparent inequities, aperceived problem.

had a chance to succeed because

practitioners had for years, and still do, need to come to DNRC forexisting regulatory HRA program.

v. Next actioneducation first of the focal point personspublicimpressions are diverse and so are agency persons impressions.

vi. Defining problemnot as easy as one may think due to the incrediblevariability of natural systems and the ability of sites to recover on their

own. Sometimes problems are perceived when a change occurs withoutfull comprehension of natural time frames and disturbance processes. (D.J.Bakkencomments to original question posed at the session)

o. Actorsi. Problem--I am not really aware of any group that voluntarily pulled

together their own regulation/education programat least beyond asingle localized area with common experiences.


12/14

ii. Forestry againthe actor was the LegislatureLaws (the voluntary BMPand then mandatory SMZ) was forced collaborationit was then thatinterdisciplinary groups were assembled to work out a mandatedsolution. (D.J. Bakkencomments to original question posed at thesession)

p. Methodi. Depends on scalesmall local areadrainage or etc. folks with common

experience baseany concerned group working with folks involved canmake positive progresseducation related.

ii. Bigger scalestatewideface the fact that only legislatively mandatedaction will ever pull diverse interests to the table. (D.J. Bakkencomments to original question posed at the session)

2. Can you think of any creative applications for use, distribution and/or adaptationof the project report?a. Videotaping 1-2 of the best interviewees with the best stories to share about their

efforts to protect riparian areas. Use as an educational tool in a variety of venues.Unsure of funding requirements to accomplish this. Would MontanaWatercourse be an appropriate project sponsor if we could find the $$ to do it?Look to Governors Task Force or perhaps MACD for leadership.

b. Encourage MACD and individual CDs to use this information as the pulse ofthe landowners and provides support for CDs to increase their role instreamside management and protection.

c. Opportunities in legislative session.d. It will be of most interest to decision makersbecause it is so general (and some

of the practices arent tested)e. More projects that involve youth in restoration community service projects

3. Can you think of anything this project has missed entirely that should beconsidered or addressed?

a. I think we missed the opportunity to describe this project as something otherthan Riparian Protection. That is what it is, of course, but the term does not grabpeople. Unfortunately, I cant readily come up with a better phrase althoughmaybe we got one from a listening session participant: Keep It Messy. Wouldmake a good bumper sticker, or campaign slogan.

b. CARD. DNRC has a bureau that supports Conservation Districts; they shouldreceive the report and in hind sight should have been more involved in theoutreach and participation in the meetings. They could play a very importantrole in supporting what was heard and follow up steps especially in providingeducation and outreach to CD about stream mechanics and dynamics and how toassess 310 proposals.


13/14

c. Hit the agriculture. sector hardmissed development sector that has permanentimpacts

d. Below is an abstract being presented at AWRA Oct 2010. The public educationcampaign was evaluated for effectiveness. The results could provide goodinformation for future outreach endeavors.

Riparian Buffer Public Education 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 -- are impacting

the extent and health of riparian areas and water quality across Montana. The Montana

Governors 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 publics awareness of the importance of riparian vegetation. The surveys

were conducted in Gallatin County. The results of these evaluations will be presented.


14/14

e. Funding limitations, strugglesf. Hostility from certain groups. This need to be addressed head on.

4. Why are you interested in riparian protection? What do you hope to accomplishthrough riparian protection?

a. Clean water, room for floodplains to roam, and robust riparian areas safeguardhealthy aquatic and wildlife habitats. That, in turn, helps to safeguard ourquality of life and our long-term economic well-being.

b. Im interested in the education aspect.c. Protection of wildlife and wildlife habitatd. Reach more citizens with targeted messages that move them to protect/restore

these areas.

5. What favorite resources do you use or direct others to regarding riparianprotection 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 Ellisc. Montana Watercourse workshops and websited. Local FWP biologistse. Montana Watercourse Publicationsf. Stream Management GuideDNRCg. MT Audubon publicationsgreat stuff

6.

Other thoughts? Recommendations?a. We heard that the listening sessions provided quite a diverse and lengthy list ofideas and responses. How about picking 3 or 4 recommended to dos for eachsector. Ones that pass the laugh test and are just good common 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 tothink big in terms of how to get the messages out to targeted audiences.

ii. Use the language the audience knows and understands.

riparian best management practices listening session project

Documents