Chapter 6.0    PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & EDUCATION

Community investment is a cornerstone of the Johnson Creek Watershed Council’s effort to protect and enhance the Johnson Creek Watershed. The Council will be requesting investment of time and resources from community agencies and organizations as well as individuals to implement the actions identified in this plan. JCWC staff, committees and board worked with Adolfson Associates, Inc. and subcontractor Jeanne Lawson Associates, Inc. to develop a public outreach plan (see Appendix G (PDF, 15 KB)) to provide opportunities for public involvement in the development of this Action Plan.

This involvement was accomplished through five major avenues:

1. Participation of community members on the Technical Advisory Committee;
2. Stakeholder interviews;
3. Stakeholder survey;
4. Public review of action plan documents; and
5. Development of a Landowner Participation Strategy.

1)      The Technical Advisory Committee

The Technical Advisory Committee consisted of five representatives from jurisdictional stakeholders: the Cities of Gresham, Portland, and Milwaukie; and Clackamas and Multnomah Counties. These advisors provided key insights into the needs, roles, and ongoing processes of the jurisdictions, as well as critical information regarding their respective areas of the watershed. The technical capacity of these partners was also helpful in developing meaningful criteria.

This participation was complemented by participation of four watershed stakeholders, two of whom were watershed residents. These people contributed technical skills and provided a public interface with the technical advisory committee. Their participation helped shape the plan by providing project ideas, critical first hand knowledge of the watershed, and information about public support and feasibility.

2)      Online Survey

A survey instrument was developed to assess community opinion and support (see Appendix G (PDF, 15 KB)). The survey was publicized in community newspapers; on JCWC website, newsletter, and emails; on sister websites; through email listserves; by personal invitation; and by word of mouth. The survey was available from March 1 to May 1, 2003. See 5) Landowner Participation Strategy for the survey result summary.

3)      Stakeholder Interviews

In order to assess stakeholder values and interests, interviews were conducted with a small number of individual stakeholders. These interviews were designed to complement the online survey with more in-depth, qualitative information. The interviews were also intended to reach audiences less likely to participate in the online survey. Interviews were conducted with:

1. Creek-side property owners (urban/suburban Portland);
2. Small Farm owner in Sunshine Creek subwatershed (unincorporated Clackamas Co.);
3. Nursery Operations Manager in upper watershed (unincorporated Clackamas Co);
4. Creek-side property owner (unincorporated Multnomah County); and
5. Developer (Portland).

Following is a summary of their comments on major issues:

Johnson Creek Values:

1. Natural Beauty;
2. Open Space creates housing demand;
3. Opportunity/Uniqueness of urban stream;
4. Habitat elements; and
5. Education opportunities.

Problems or threats:

1. Pollution, especially horse manure;
2. Invasive Species;
3. Sediment;
4. Flow: highs and lows associated with development;
5. Forest Canopy & Shade; and
6. Erosion.

Protection or restoration measures supported (not supported):

1. Public Education;
2. Get to know people and work with them;
3. Increase awareness through signage;
4. Flood retention through rechannelization;
5. (Removal of rip-rap); and
6. (Regulations and zoning).

Funding:

1. Bond measure; and
2. Government (or city) should pay.

Volunteers:

1. Work with schools and children;
2. Neighborhood Associations;
3. Create incentives for participation;
4. Demonstration Projects; and
5. Increase awareness.

4)      Public Review of Action Plan Documents

As each element of the Action Plan has been completed in draft form, it has been made available to the Council, to jurisdictions through the TAC, and to the public at large. This process has produced useful feedback, which has been incorporated into the document. The draft action plan in its completed form will be available for review by City Council members and jurisdictions for one month, prior to one month of review by the general public. In addition, the document is intended to be a living plan that can be updated on a regular basis. To this end, the document will be turned into a series of web pages to be hosted on the JCWC website for continual review and refinement.

5)      Landowner Participation Strategy

Strategy Overview

This section outlines key elements of a strategy to engage landowners and managers in cooperatively implementing Action Plan projects. The strategy is based on the belief that landowners are the best stewards when armed with information and assistance. This belief is founded on the principle that stewardship is in their own economic and ethical interest - that a healthy, functioning system is good for the individual and for us all.

The strategic model set forth here is based on educating, encouraging and supporting private and public landowners in undertaking voluntary actions to meet action plan goals. The basic effort is to spread the idea that watershed health is good for the landowner and good for the community. Voluntary cooperation has been applied by non-profits and non-regulatory government agencies for several years with various levels of success. Some things have been learned from this experience however, voluntary cooperation is typically more time-consuming to accomplish than regulatory compliance but once underway generates a momentum of its own. It results in more broadly based, longer-term improvements without the enforcement cost and distress of regulatory control. The trick has always been how to reach out effectively to start the voluntary cooperation bandwagon.

Armed with the information and analysis contained in this Action Plan, property owners will be able to increase their understanding of and appreciation for the Johnson Creek watershed. The Action Plan itself initiates a new round of opportunities for encouraging voluntary action by explaining the benefit for the individual site and the watershed as a whole stemming from the targeted resource area projects. The landowner strategy must capitalize on the momentum and publicity generated by the technical and outreach activities associated with developing the Action Plan.

The landowner participation strategy that follows is divided into two parts. The first is a watershed scale look at key public values and concerns derived from a recent web poll conducted by JCWC and comparing those findings with other public values and behavior research undertaken in the Tualatin Basin.

In part one, the Johnson Creek general findings are assembled and interpreted providing overall communication and implementation guidance. Part two dissembles the watershed into target resource areas. Each area is briefly characterized by limiting factors, general land use and potential obstacles to implementation.  Poll results from residents of the area are also displayed and analyzed.  By combining the resource, demographic and values understandings an approach is designed to increase cooperation, connection and coordination with the target area. The strategy is customized to provide specific first steps in initiating the tipping landowners in that target area toward implementing action plan projects.

All recommendations are made with an explicit recognition of the resource limits of the Johnson Creek Watershed Council. Increasing the organization’s outreach capacity and effectiveness is part of this strategic program.

Public Values about Watershed Restoration and Health

A web-based survey was conducted during March – May 2003.  The survey attracted a total of 176 respondents. Respondents sorted themselves into self-described categories. Many identified themselves in more than one category. The survey was not a random sample nor is it statistically valid. The results, listed in Table 21, are however, quite useful and suggestive in designing an effective outreach and involvement program.

Table 21. Participant Profile

Identifier	No. Of Responses (Also Resident)
Resident of watershed	114
Farmer/Nursery	2 (1 resident)
Business	8 (7 resident)
Public Agency	22 (6 resident)
Other	Common entries: JCWC Board or member, supporter, volunteer, member of nonprofit, student, teacher, interested individual, citizen (no residents)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Johnson Creek Functions and Values

Participants were asked to rate the value of a list of watershed values based on the question, “How valuable is each of the following functions or assets of Johnson Creek to you?” See Table 22 below for the listed functions.

Respondents clearly indicated that they differentiate among functions.  Some are significantly more highly prized than others. Clean water, supporting fish, wildlife habitat, and open space received substantially higher valued ratings than the others. Wildlife habitat was rated highest followed closely by clean water. Supporting fish and open space were also notably higher prized than other functions. Flood protection, education, aesthetics are grouped together with significantly lower ranking with recreation following into the lowest ranking as the least essential and valued watershed function.

It should be noted that all the functions received positive ratings indicating that survey participants believe that the entire complex of watershed functions is important. It may also indicate that respondents understand the interconnected nature of watershed functioning.

Table 22. Values Ranking

Function	Essential	Important	Inconsequential
Wildlife Habitat	123	18
Clean Water	119	22
Support Fish	110	29	2
Open Space	102	39	1
Flood Protection	59	70	12
Education	59	77	4
Aesthetics	58	76	8
Recreation	41	84	15

Seriousness of Threat

Participants also rated a list of potential threats to Johnson Creek. Table 23 shows the resulting threat ranking.

Table 23. Perceived Threats

Threat	Serious	Moderate	Low	Not A Problem
Water Pollution	105	33	3	0
Loss of Habitat	102	34	5	0
Fish Population Decline	102	38	2	0
Loss of Wetlands	99	37	6	0
Loss of Vegetation or Increase of Invasive Plants	98	36	7	0
Loss of Wildlife	84	44	12	0
Loss of Open Space	60	69	12	1
Flooding	39	67	27	6
Limited Recreational Opportunities	10	56	59	15

Serious threats sort into 2 groups. The most serious threats in order of ranking are water pollution, fish population decline, and loss of habitat. A lower level of seriousness but still quite highly ranked are loss of wetlands, loss of vegetation or increase in invasive plants and loss of wildlife. 

Of more moderate concern is flooding with more moderate ratings than serious.  Of minimal or low concern are limited recreational opportunities. They have more low ratings than any of their other ratings and more not a problem ratings than serious ratings.

Threats seem to parallel the most highly prized values in rank order. Clean water, habitat and fish populations are the most highly prized functions as well. It is possible that the most highly prized values are automatically considered under the most threat because participants want them protected first or there may be a coincidental link between highly prized values and the threats to those values. At any rate a strong case is indicated for looking at projects that produce water quality, habitat and fish population benefits.

Further investigation about public understanding of threats is needed.  It would be useful to understand what sources of water pollution are perceived to be the prime causes of watershed threat. Among the contributors to water pollution that might be considered are industrial, residential, urban streets or agricultural sources. Public perceptions can be compared with the technical findings of the Action Plan to assess the level of match between public perception and technical understanding.

Priorities for Implementation

Participants were asked to allocate $100 among the following list of watershed improvement actions. (Table 24) Totals for all respondents indicate level of priority for the following:

Table 24. Action Priorities

Watershed Health Action	Total $	Out of $100
Clean Water	3788	27
Supporting Fish	2547	18
Wildlife Habitat	2424	17
Open Space	2057	14
Flood Protection	1524	11
Education	985	7
Recreation	542	4
Aesthetics	333	2

Ranking again reconfirms the most important, most threatened and most highly valued issues in Johnson Creek generally are clean water, fish and habitat.  Least important for allocating resources are education, recreation and aesthetics.

Flooding is consistently ranked below the middle of each of the value, threat and resource allocation ratings. Follow-up with streamside landowners might prove interesting as a comparison to these general findings.

Tualatin Basin Surveys

Recent public values and behavioral surveys were conducted by Clean Water Services in Washington County, Oregon. Johnson Creek and the Tualatin have many similar characteristics as rural-urban interface systems. The information derived from these random, statistically significant surveys is useful as a comparison to the findings from the Johnson Creek poll.

The Tualatin Basin surveys demonstrate a high level of consistency in deeply held basic values regarding watersheds. Significant support exists among the general population for clean rivers and streams. This value is most ardently reflected in residents’ desire for clean drinking water. Even in local streams that are not directly used for municipal supplies, clean water is rated as the highest value. It is interesting to note that the Tualatin survey also asked respondents to rate the sources of water pollution. Their rankings put industrial pollution way out in front followed by development and/or buildings too close to streams. There seemed to be little recognition of personal behavior and impacts on streams – like car washing, lawn and garden chemicals or pet waste. The general public, as compared to streamside residents, were more likely to indicate that run-off from farms, lawns and stormwater as serious threats.

Public values also tend to agree on the values they find least important.  Those are protecting property from flooding, increasing the water supply, healthy fish populations in local streams and adequate water in streams for fish and wildlife. All these findings are consistent with the Johnson Creek polling.

Property rights protection is an important value. It is depicted as a competing value with efforts to restore and maintain water quality.

The Tualatin Basin survey separated respondents into streamside property owners, general public and homebuilders/developers. There are some important values distinctions worth noting here.

Streamside property owners’ values:

1. Water quality is the principal issue. The value of clean drinking water and clean rivers and streams is ranked above all others associated with the Tualatin River and streams. Property owners believe these twin values have central importance to the health of the waters. When other values are paired against them – whether healthy fish populations or adequate water supply – clean water consistently leads in importance.
   
2. Protection of property rights is also key. Next to clean water, property rights protection is the most important value for the streamside owners you are targeting with this outreach. The concerns associated with this value – both positive and negative – must be addressed forthrightly.
   
3. Development and building too close to streams is viewed as a major threat. Given the disconnection found between the impact of personal behavior and threats to the waters, recognition that their own building and improvements are a potential issue may be a difficult gap to bridge.

Homebuilders and developer values were revealed through focus groups. While not as reliable as polling data, similar values to streamside property owners were identified. Specifically a high value was placed on clean rivers and streams and property rights protection. The latter was a particularly important value for this constituency. An added dynamic is the inherent skepticism this group had about the intentions and execution of watershed protection policies, no matter how well intended or explained.

Communication Lessons

1. Lead with the message that a central goal of the Action Plan is protecting and improving water quality. Arguments about conservation and restoration of water resources, meeting federal requirements, or supporting aquatic life or recreation will not garner the necessary attention of these residents.
   
2. Treat property owners and developers as partners and ensure communication values property owners’ stewardship values and ethics. Language implying yet another pronouncement about more ways to limit their use (or their own creative stewardship) of their property will be met with resistance. Arguments about compliance with federal law are not often viewed as a clarion call for property owners’ support.
   
3. Buffer zones and revegetation efforts along the affected corridors can be viewed as a threat to property rights. In addition, it will likely to be a stretch for individual streamside owners to see their own actions as part of that threat.
   
4. Flooding issues need to be addressed in a holistic watershed wide approach.

The lessons noted above should guide a re-examination of existing outreach materials – newsletters, web site and brochures. Emphasizing Action Plan implementation benefits consistent with highly held values, simplifying messages by excluding legitimate but lower valued benefits, straightforwardly addressing property rights concerns, and eliminating references to requirements are the essential elements of this recasting of the materials.

The importance of clean water and fish/wildlife habitat need to be central to all messages and communications about the Action Plan or any other JCWC activity. Promoting buy-in is a direct result of tying action plan goals to the highest values and most threatened functions.

The surveys demonstrate that arguments about conserving and restoring water or meeting government requirements do not have the power of simply demonstrating that action plan projects are aimed at achieving clean water. Protecting and cleaning up Johnson Creek is what people want to do. Streambank restoration and revegetation are most straightforwardly justified as clean water efforts regardless of their other benefits.

Implementation Lessons

1. Build partnerships around the mutual clean water desire. Local action implies addressing a local issue however. Emphasize information targeted to the individual landowner’s area rather than watershed-wide data. Use property owners’ natural desire to do the right thing in their local area. Don’t debate water quality issues. Listen to what landowners think. There is usually a clean water solution to any watershed health issue.
   
2. Look for innovators and early adopters by giving property owners there due as stewards. Find out what they are already doing. Expect creative and non-standard approaches invented by adaptive landowners. These practices might not be approved as Best Management Practices but could turn out to be the most appropriate, or most acceptable, technology for the area. Innovators and early adopters are not likely to follow the rules. They may have “the different idea” that will be more widely and/or easily adopted than the standard approach. Take what you can get even if it isn’t the Cadillac of practices.
   
3. While property owners are inclined to do the right thing for clean water, property rights arguments are powerful. Defuse these concerns by being transparent and open about them. Your non-regulatory status allows you to remove the Action Plan from that issue and focus entirely on doing what is good for the landowner and the rest of us.
   
4. Clean water is the high ground in this effort – not fish, not habitat, not recreation, not even flooding or education. While improving fisheries rated equally high as clean water as a value and perceived threat, when it comes to allocating dollars clean water is alone at the top. This discriminator clearly places achieving clean water at the top of the heap.
   
5. Flooding issues need to be addressed in a holistic watershed wide approach.

Finding Innovators and Early Adopters

The Action Plan breaks the watershed into targeted resource areas. Identifying and partnering with innovators and early adopter is important to successful implementation of Action Plan projects. Knowing the audience is key to developing an effective participation strategy. The following sections provide demographic and land use characterizations for the target areas.

General Landowner Group Area 1 – Upper Johnson Creek Main Stem

Upper Johnson Creek main stem generally includes reaches 16-23 (Main City Park in Gresham to headwater area). Resource and habitat quality is wide-ranging consisting of some of the best quality and functioning habitat (Reach 16) with multiple channel units with good complexity, large woody debris jams associated with deep pools, and backwater areas and shade cover.

The ongoing development of the lower Willamette Agricultural Water Quality Rules provides an opportunity to work with state and local regulators to increase use of best management practices on agricultural land on a semi-voluntary basis. While landowners are required to follow the Agricultural Water Quality Rules for their area, they are allowed to decide which methods to use on their property in order to be in compliance with the rules. They can voluntarily work with a local Soil & Water Conservation District to develop a “Voluntary Water Quality Plan” for their property. Property owners tend to fear/dislike regulatory approaches and are generally skeptical of government and non-profit programs.

General Landowner Group Area 2 – High Priority Restoration/Connection Areas

3A - Lower Johnson Creek (Reaches 4-5). This area is generally located from the Old Tacoma Bridge to the Johnson Creek Boulevard Bridge including Tideman Johnson Park. Land use mainly consists of residential with some commercial properties.

Potential Obstacles: Habitat diversity improvement will be difficult due to concerns about liability, erosion, and trash build up. Homes and actively used yards are very close to the creek in some parts. However, opportunities exist in large publicly owned areas such as Tideman Johnson Park, and Errol Heights Nature Preserve. Landowners are generally supportive on the south side of creek through Tideman Johnson Park reach. WPA wall considered historic cultural asset , and neighbors may be concerned about removal or alteration.

3B – Middle Johnson Creek (Reach 8, 12-14). This area is generally located between SE 82nd Avenue and I-205, and Brookside Restoration area up to SE 190th in Gresham. Land use mainly consists of residential with commercial and several industrial properties. 

Many of the same constraints will be encountered in this area as in other as noted in other urban areas. Bank erosion is prevalent here on private and public properties, both where WPA wall is absent and where it has filled in with sediment. Strongly skeptical attitudes exist in this area due to historic conflicts with City of Portland and other entities on previous public works projects. Many mature second growth trees mean high landowner valuation of natural resources.

3C – Crystal Springs Creek. Crystal Springs Creek is a major tributary of Johnson Creek located in the lower portion of the watershed. Due to its eastside location, surrounding urban development, and existing dedicated park usage, upland and riparian habitats are quite fragmented and poorly connected with nearby habitats.

Opportunities exist for capitalizing on Portland Parks/Army Corps of Engineers work on Westmoreland Park and Reed College work on Reed Canyon. Portland Parks staff have expressed interest and enthusiasm in continuing the habitat recovery projects at Eastmoreland Golf Course. Patrons and supporters of the Crystal Springs Rhododendron Gardens may become concerned about any alterations to the lake. Passage on private property will require intensive and long-term outreach campaign – resistance is notable. Support for environmental issues/quality-of-life investments is high in this area.

3D – Kelley Creek. Kelley Creek is a major tributary of Johnson Creek located in the middle sections. Land use in the Kelley Creek subwatershed is mainly residential and rural agriculture.  Pleasant Valley and Damascus urban growth developments are currently being planned for in this area of the watershed. Kelley Creek has both excellent habitat areas and very poor and degraded reaches. Kelley Creek suffers from a lack of habitat diversity to high flows and pollutant loads. Riparian areas are degraded and several water storage ponds and impassable barriers exist. The Pleasant Valley Implementation Plan is currently being drafted and individual properties have been identified for both protection and developable areas.

JCWC has been working to increase visibility and identity in this area for two years. Many landowners are familiar with the issues, though many are also threatened by urban growth and fear loss of property value due to environmental regulation.

General Landowner Group Area 3 – Water Right Holders (Watershed Wide)

This grouping of landowners consists of businesses, nurseries, and residential landowners throughout the watershed that currently have or applied for water rights. These include 32 claims and three applications for obtaining groundwater from wells that total more than 18 cubic feet per second (cfs), and 65 groundwater well permits for a total of 62 cfs; 53 permits for withdrawing surface water totaling 31 cfs; and 27 permits, applications, or certificates for storing water in ponds or reservoirs totaling more than 115 acre-feet.

Key Elements of the Landowner Strategy

1. Start small. Find those people in a target area that are the landowner leaders. Identify innovators and early adopters. Listen to what they do. Adopt those practices as your own whenever possible.  Enlist them to begin spreading the watershed health virus.
   
2. Focus on clean water. People value numerous watershed functions and are concerned about a variety of threats but clean water trumps them all when it comes to allocating resources. Make clean water a consistent part of all messages - especially in general public outreach.
   
3. Find out about streamside property owners concerns regarding flood control. Johnson Creek may be a special case that deviates some by placing a higher value on flood control among those directly impacted. Dual flood control and clean water practices may be especially attractive to these participants.
   
4. Take yourself out of the property rights debate.  Look for ways to demonstrate the value of adopting practices or changing behavior to help with water quality even if it means re-landscaping some streambank.