 |  |
| |
Parts of the Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan will be implemented by various actors and stakeholders within the watershed. The roles these actors will play will depend upon the resources available, the planning interests of the organization, and the regulatory environment. Different actors experience different constraints and opportunities to take action to improve watershed health. The Johnson Creek Watershed Council and agencies with which it works will be among the key actors in implementing the action plan.
As a community based organization, the Johnson Creek Watershed Council recognizes the value of working in partnerships with other public and private organizations. Many organizations are actively working on Johnson Creek projects, including monitoring, restoration and enhancement, education, and land use planning. The Johnson Creek Watershed Council enjoys partnerships with many of these organizations, collaborating to increase the scope, scale, and intensity of efforts. These partnerships have provided the basis for the success of several projects in the watershed. The Johnson Creek Watershed Council occupies a particular niche among the many committed organizations and individuals in that its decisions are guided by a board of directors representing the diverse interests in the watershed; it takes the entire watershed as its focus; and in that involving the public in its activities is a fundamental part of its mission.
The Johnson Creek Watershed Council Action Plan provides a tool to assist JCWC and its partners in identifying and prioritizing projects to improve watershed health and sustainability. The JCWC and other organizations working on Johnson Creek projects may play a variety of roles in these projects, from advising on project planning and design to implementing projects from start to finish. The JCWC will utilize the Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan, together with the Johnson Creek Watershed Council’s Strategic Management Plan, to direct its programs and projects in order to have the greatest beneficial effect on watershed health.
Six local jurisdictions are located within the Johnson Creek watershed. These include: The cities of Portland, Gresham, Milwaukie, Happy Valley; Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. Portland, unincorporated Clackamas County, and Gresham contain the largest share of the watershed at 38, 24, and 23 percent respectively, and collectively account for 85 percent of the total watershed. Multnomah County, Milwaukie, and Happy Valley contain the remaining 11, 4, and 0.1 percent respectively. These percentages have provided the basis for cooperatively funded watershed-wide programs through the Johnson Creek Interjurisdictional Coordinating Committee. The most recent of such programs are the ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventories project and water quality monitoring efforts associated with the TMDL development. Several of these jurisdictions have also been able to provide financial support for the activities of the JCWC, especially programs such as Within Your Reach, the newsletter of the JCWC, the annual Watershed Wide Event, the Johnson Creek Summit, and the Springwater Festival.
Roles and opportunities for local jurisdictions and state and federal resource and regulatory agencies are numerous and varied. Local jurisdictions and resource agencies continue to implement numerous programs and activities that affect the watershed and its health including: planning; operations and maintenance; permit review and approvals; public involvement and education programs; design and construction of capital improvements, public works projects, and restoration activities; land acquisitions; and response, compliance, and monitoring programs.
As in the past, successful implementation of some Action Plan projects and programs will depend to some extent on the collaboration of JCWC partners and relevant agencies. The JCWC acknowledges the historical and ongoing programs and projects that local jurisdictions have conducted throughout the Johnson Creek watershed. Roles and involvement will vary from project to project, depending on the resources and strategies developed by individual agencies. It is hoped that this plan will provide a tool to assist in developing the resources and strategies, and in some case, in developing increased coordination. Overall, depending on the jurisdiction’s resources and plans, opportunities for project involvement will probably follow a similar structure as the JCWC.
Other stakeholders in the drainage basin include watershed residents, schools, businesses, environmental organizations, and state and federal resource and regulatory agencies. All of these groups have a significant role to play in the watershed. A few selected roles and responsibilities include: education, volunteering, stewardship, best management practices, plan and permit review, monitoring, and advocating for the health and sustainability of the watershed.
Projects identified in the Action Plan vary in detail – some are well-defined projects with concrete goals and objectives and preliminary designs. Others are more general, necessitating further review and study. For this reason, it is difficult to define precise roles for each actor or player at this juncture. This plan therefore defines a range of potential participation levels or roles for the Council and other actors or players:
Implement: In this scenario, the JCWC takes full responsibility for implementing the project, working with various partners and stakeholders as necessary and desirable. Staff and volunteers may serve as project lead, working with contractors, volunteers, and others to oversee the project from beginning to completion.
Facilitate: The JCWC works to assist others to implement the project, by recruiting volunteers and expertise, providing publicity, or connecting organizations and groups to needed resources. In many cases, the project leader or leaders may approach the JCWC to ask for assistance, though the initiative for the project comes from them.
Inspire: In certain cases, the JCWC may advocate for other organizations to engage in a project. This scenario is most likely to occur when the JCWC cannot act as the implementing organization for lack of resources, jurisdiction, property access, or other factor.
Advise and consent: In working on many projects, the project lead entity or individual may turn to the JCWC for technical assistance, feedback, or commentary. The JCWC does not play a critical role in implementing of these projects, though the Council’s participation and approval may assist in resource acquisition.
The JCWC will proactively implement projects and actions to raise awareness about the challenges and opportunities that face the Johnson Creek watershed. Strategies to achieve this outcome include:
Continue to solicit articles, develop quarterly newsletters, and disseminate public involvement and educational materials.
Identify interested riparian property owners who are looking for assistance to restore or improve their properties.
Seek additional new federal and private funding sources for the purchase of equipment and to assist in implementing volunteer projects.
Maintain a computer database of projects and GIS maps to track implementation of all JCWC projects and other significant local jurisdictional sponsored projects throughout the watershed. And, participate in OWEB’s Statewide Strategy development process and provide critical watershed information into OWEB’s future information clearinghouse process. OWEB’s clearinghouse is a common network to support the sharing of information among agencies and other users. When developed, this system is expected to promote the use of data protocols, identify critical data gaps, and incorporate new information into a statewide assessment of watershed conditions.
Prepare new educational materials to be directed at targeted landowners throughout the watershed.
Work collaboratively with local municipalities to distribute through billings and other public notice mailings.
Promote the JCWC and fill the current openings on the Board.
Implement and complete strategies and actions contained within the JCWC Strategic Plan.
Identify and prioritize key properties for acquisition based on research of water rights and cooperation with local agencies.
The JCWC will facilitate restoration projects and actions by continuing efforts
to effectively communicate and coordinate with existing partners. Strategies
to achieve this outcome include:
Continue to collaborate and strengthen existing partnerships and identify and seek out new partners including universities, business organizations, regional governments, and local neighborhood groups.
Collaborate with the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Clackamas County Soil & Water Conservation District, and the East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District to identify landowners who are willing to implement demonstration projects on their properties. Assist with sponsorship of water quality management plan implementation and water quality demonstration projects.
Continue to support local municipalities with grant applications by providing local match volunteer hours and other support for implementation of restoration projects.
The JCWC will initiate and inspire stewardship behavior projects to reach out to all residents and stakeholders throughout the Johnson Creek watershed to provide a better foundation and understanding of the key limiting factors impacting the current health and long-term sustainability of the watershed. Strategies to achieve this outcome include:
Continue to inspire and facilitate community awareness and investment by developing and hosting watershed wide events, such as Springwater Festival, and others.
Prepare an Annual State of the Watershed Report and report on implementation progress of the Action Plan.
Facilitate and assist with implementation of the Landowner participation strategies identified in this Action Plan.
Support workshops for teachers interested in developing, learning about, or implementing watershed based curriculum. Identify monitoring, volunteer, and other local projects schools can participate in.
Support workshops for landowners on innovative approaches to land conservation and watershed restoration.
The JCWC will advocate for projects that will protect watershed functions from degradation. Strategies to achieve this outcome include:
Proactively review and provide comments on draft Concept and Implementation Plans and other documents related to planning projects in the Urban Growth Boundary expansion areas.
Assist local governments by lending support for watershed friendly policies, incentives and other new programs, resolutions, and ordinances.
Actively recruit neighborhood association representatives to participate in the JCWC Land Use Advocacy Committee and provide training on reviewing land use permit applications.
Assist in actively promoting cooperative efforts between governments and groups to achieve common understanding. Advocate for more frequent and effective communication between stakeholders and facilitate information sharing.
Actions that involve private property owners and land acquisitions can be sensitive and may not fit into the project schedule. Tax incentives, technical assistance, cost sharing and collaboration with other local governments and private entities can be useful in obtaining support, assistance, and momentum. See landowner participation strategies in Chapter 6, Public Involvement and Education.
Restoration can mean the reestablishment of pre-disturbance aquatic functions
and related physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Restoration
is different than habitat creation, reclamation, or rehabilitation – it is a
holistic process not achieved through the isolated manipulation of individual
elements. Restoration can also be defined as the return of an ecosystem to
a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance. In restoration,
ecological damage to the resource is repaired. Both the structure and functions
of the ecosystems are recreated. The goal should be to emulate a natural, functioning,
self-regulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in which
it occurs (National Research Council, 1992).
The City of Portland has developed a scientific foundation for their watershed management process as part of the Framework for Integrated Management of Watershed and River Health. The goal of the Framework is to achieve watershed health while taking into account the realities of the urban area. The scientific foundation revolves around principles and guidelines that will influence the City’s watershed and habitat protection, restoration, and conservation efforts. The scientific foundation is aligned with a view that species and habitats exist in an integrated ecological system. A scientific foundation provides a consistent and clearly defined approach to restoration, where assumptions and hypotheses underly that approach so that they can be scientifically tested and refined over time (City of Portland Internal and IST Draft Framework, 2002).
The principles and guidelines that represent the City of Portland’s scientific foundation for achieving watershed and river ecosystem health are grouped into four categories: 1) primary ecological principles; 2) riverine ecology principles; 3) salmonid ecology principles; and 4) restoration guidelines. Table 25 summarizes these categories and their associated principles or guidelines. The Johnson Creek Watershed Council should also utilize these principles and guidelines in directing the implementation of this Action Plan.
Table 25. Principles and Guidelines – City of Portland’s Scientific Foundation
| Category |
Principle or Guideline |
| Primary ecological principles |
|
| Riverine ecology principles |
|
| Salmonid ecology principles |
|
| Restoration guideline |
|
Implementing strategies to carry out the Council’s Action Plan fall into several categories based on project type including: implementing projects and actions on their own; facilitating the implementation of the project, or inspiring stewardship or advocating for the project or action.
Implementing actions involves effective communication and coordination, comprehensive planning, proactive leadership, and developing partnerships. Bringing all stakeholders to the table in the beginning will facilitate consensus building. Other important tasks involve administrative, planning and design, permitting and funding, and ongoing operations, maintenance, and monitoring activities.
It is recommended that the Johnson Creek Watershed Council undertake the following strategies to assist in moving the Action Plan forward for successful implementation.
For watershed action implementation to be successful, restoration and protection actions need to be prioritized in terms of need, effectiveness, and effect on future actions and programs. Actions also need to be sequenced so that implementing one doesn’t impact the effectiveness of another. Project priorities were discussed above in Chapter 3 (Identification of High Priority Areas), Chapter 4 (Criteria Development), and Chapter 5 (Proposed Projects and Actions). Evaluating problems and opportunities, addressing limiting factors, and assessing the goals and expected benefits of potential projects established prioritization. As suggested in the City of Portland’s Framework for Integrated Management of Watershed and River Health, the following elements and their order is a matter of importance:
Protect existing populations and their habitats. Rebuilding an existing population is far more likely to be successful than reintroducing a population that has been lost.
Reconnect favorable habitats. This allows existing populations to
provide ‘colonists’ that can reestablish satellite populations in nearby
habitat where populations have been extirpated.
Identify and control sources of degradation. Causes of degradation should be identified and quantified before their impacts within the watershed are addressed.
In some cases, higher priority projects might be scheduled or completed after a lower priority project due to the following circumstances:
It is important to acknowledge that developing criteria for ranking projects (with differing goals and a wide array of objectives) fairly and consistently, even though they are grouped together, is difficult at best. All of the criteria may not be appropriate or applicable for some types of projects. A final review is appropriate using best professional judgment to allow for review and editing of the final ordering of projects.
A good case for this can be made in the Stewardship Projects where the Annual Report project was rated below both the Watershed Signage and the Car Trip Reduction Program. Although the total watershed health score for the Annual Report project was lower than these other two programs, the total social/economic score for the Annual Report project was higher than for the other two projects. As a result, one could argue based on professional judgment that an Annual Report on health indicators of the Watershed may be more important than these other two projects and thus should be rated higher.
Sequencing of projects and implementation of actions are critical for the success of the Council’s Action Plan. Sequencing projects and actions should be based on several key components including but not limited to:
Monitoring and applying adaptive management techniques is crucial to assessing trends, effectiveness, and ensuring the Action Plan continues to evolve and transform over time. The Johnson Creek watershed like all urban watersheds is a dynamic constantly changing ecosystem. The establishment of environmental baseline conditions and utilizing the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment (EDT) model will aid in assessing future conditions and allow more fine-tuning of project implementation.
Monitoring is often overlooked and usually the first item cut in Watershed Action and Management Plans at the local level when funding is limited. Monitoring plans and programs can vary in terms of purpose, goals, and objectives. Monitoring programs need to be scientifically designed and focused to provide direct evidence of the effectiveness of management actions in both the institutional and biophysical environments. Monitoring programs can be used to: 1) gathering baseline data and assess existing conditions; 2) identifying sources and cause-and-effect relationships; 3) assessing long-term trends; 4) assessing seasonal or spatial variability; 5) assessing project or BMP effectiveness, or success of restoration efforts; or 6) educate residents, stakeholders, and policymakers.
Attempting to conduct long-term monitoring programs and assess trends requires a significant commitment and investment of staff and resources. Monitoring programs can be simple and straightforward and cost-efficient such as implementation monitoring to report the success of the restoration activity. Effectiveness monitoring is more complex due to the fact that a connection needs to be made between an action and an outcome.
One outcome of the watershed assessment is the identification of missing information that can assist in forming the monitoring program for the Action Plan. Missing information (data gaps) identified in the Watershed Assessment included:
Upland habitat and wildlife resources; Monitoring is needed for watershed management and salmonid recovery efforts and is an important element of adaptive management. Monitoring usually includes collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data needed to plan, prioritize, and evaluate projects and activities related to watershed restoration and salmonid recovery. For stormwater management and land use planning, monitoring should rely on maps of drainage systems, and land uses, descriptions of watershed characteristics, collection of flow and precipitation data, and assessment of biological indicators. Monitoring programs for specific projects or actions may or many not include traditional analysis of physical, chemical, or biological constituents depending on its value for adaptive management.
Monitoring of a restoration effort should include both structural (state) and functional (process) attributes, and should generally not be restricted to one level of biological organization. Monitoring of attributes at population, community, ecosystem, and landscape levels is appropriate for restoration projects. Scientifically credible monitoring protocols and evaluation methodologies can be used to address the following three questions (Tri-County, 2001):
Implementation/compliance monitoring would confirm whether actions have been taken in the time and manner specified. Effectiveness monitoring would be conducted strategically to measure whether specific policy decisions or restoration activities are achieving specified habitat objectives. Validation/recovery monitoring would focus on whether the region’s actions, as a whole, provide a long-term trajectory to support overall recovery of salmonids.
Monitoring information can be used to evaluate actions and revise those that are not achieving desired outcomes in the expected timeframe. Such a strategic process will aid in prioritizing investments effectively and efficiently.
Tri-County (King, Snohomish, and Pierce County, WA) developed a Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal in 2001. The following discussion highlights monitoring elements from their Salmon Conservation Program. The JCWC Action Plan should develop similar monitoring elements in addition to the Monitoring Plan described below.
Direct effectiveness monitoring would measure whether specific actions are achieving the anticipated objectives. Scientifically sound studies would be designed to provide management data in the most efficient manner to expedite decision-making and salmonid recovery. Monitoring would than be designed to provide information for management decisions, but timeframes will vary by study element as required for statistical error. Participating local jurisdictions could potentially monitor their local programs and projects for effectiveness and make the results available for a watershed-wide process and cumulative effectiveness-monitoring program. Monitoring programs for effectiveness however, are complex and are a potentially far reaching effort. Multiple jurisdictions are currently partnering with DEQ and working out the dynamics of effectiveness monitoring.
Validation/recovery monitoring would focus on whether the region’s actions, taken as a whole, are on a long-term trajectory to support overall recovery of salmon. A multi-stakeholder jurisdictional group, in consultation with co-managers of the resource, would need to agree on a minimum number of indicators necessary to measure the success of the Lower Columbia and Willamette watersheds towards achieving their respective portion of the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) recovery goals. Validation/recovery monitoring would need to be conducted at the region (ESU) scale.
Developing a monitoring plan is an important component of the Watershed Action Plan. A monitoring plan describes the objectives, identifies staffing needs, equipment requirements, funding, and summarizes the monitoring details. The following five-step procedure is listed in the OWEB’s Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual:
Step 1 Goals and Objectives
The first step in developing a monitoring plan is to clearly identify the goals and objectives of the monitoring program. A statement with regards to the data gap or question to be answered should also be included. This should be followed by the parameters to be sampled; monitoring methods including field and laboratory quality assurance/quality (QA/QC) protocols if appropriate, study design, sampling locations, duration, and frequency.
Step 2 Resources
The next step is to evaluate resources needed. This includes staff or people needed, budget requirements, field equipment, laboratory analysis, and supplies.
Step 3 Monitoring Details
Next step involves identifying the monitoring details including the specific set of environmental indicators or parameters, the methodology to be utilized, the sample frequency required, and the monitoring locations.
For a water quality sampling and QA/QC program, monitoring details could also include the following elements:
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are necessary to ensure that environmental data achieve an acceptable level of quality and that the level of quality attained is documented adequately. QA/QC protocols should be followed when samples are collected in the field, shipped or delivered to laboratories, and stored or distributed within labs and during analyses. The effectiveness of any monitoring program depends on its QA/QC program. The QA/QC program provides quantitative measurements of the “goodness” of the data. For some variables, QA/QC may involve calibration of instruments with known standards. To obtain measures of accuracy and precision, QA/QC may further involve analysis of blanks, replicate samples, control samples, and spiked samples.
Step 4 Pilot Project
Conduct field reconnaissance of all monitoring sites to ensure access is obtained and secured and that conditions are safe (especially at night or during storm events) throughout the monitoring period. OWEB recommends to plan on conducting a pilot project for a short period of time or to complete a trial run prior to committing to a long-term monitoring program.
Step 5 Review and Revise
Review the data collected after a short or pilot period to determine if the information collected will answer the monitoring objectives, and that it will meet QA/QC protocols and objectives.
In addition to the prioritized data gaps listed above that should be included in any long-term monitoring program, the following three additional elements are recommended:
The EDT Model will be utilized to model additional runs to evaluate different species such as Cutthroat trout. The EDT model will also be used to assist in source area identification and restoration project effectiveness. Restoration projects can be “inserted” into the model and model attributes can be evaluated to see how effective the project would be (prior) to implementation as well as for updating the model inputs and baseline conditions (post implementation).
The Johnson Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) will be completed in December 2003. TMDL Implementation Plans will need to be developed by all jurisdictions and parties identified with load and wasteload allocations. TMDL Water Quality Management Implementation plans generally need to include:
Biological (Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrates)
Biological sampling of fish presence and use should continue as part of the
City of Portland ESA Program. Additional funding will be required to conduct
existing surveys and for any expansion. In addition, the JCWC Restoration Committee’s
use of volunteers to monitor and collect spawning surveys also needs to be coordinated
with future fishery monitoring programs.
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling should be conducted in a comprehensive program to establish a baseline throughout the watershed. Additional monitoring should be conducted annually or at least every several years.
For the purpose of tracking progress with Action Plan implementation, an annual report should document the projects implemented and the monitoring conducted annually. These annual reports should be published on the JCWC Web site. Results from the Strategic Planning process should be incorporated into the strategy for long-term monitoring and tracking of watershed health.
JCWC and the TAC acknowledge that this Watershed Action Plan is a living plan and is designed to be flexible to integrate changes, updates and additional projects in the future. This includes integrating new information in the science of watershed ecology, new information on the health of the watershed, and progress towards reaching watershed health goals and objectives.
Ultimately by implementing projects designed to address these limiting factors, watershed processes will begin to function properly. However, it is critical that projects are monitored during and after construction and that overall watershed health continue to be monitored to determine the success of projects in achieving watershed health goals. Monitoring work may lead to modification of goals, objectives, targets or benchmarks, modification of project scopes or the addition of new projects to the plan.
It may take years or decades to determine the total effect of combined protective and restorative actions. To address this challenge, the adaptive management plan must include sustained monitoring and research in collaboration with public agencies, universities, and other organizations. The Action Plan’s adaptive management process allows for new findings and knowledge to inspire adjustments to the plan to ensure its long term success. The development of the plan will incorporate ideas and input from the City of Portland’s Framework for Integrated Watershed Management, and other planning documents.
The Adaptive Management plan for the Action Plan consists of the following sequential elements adapted from the Seattle Urban Blueprint, 2001 and incorporating key concepts from the Framework Plan:
1) Assess the resource and/or the problem. New information must be incorporated into the Watershed Assessment, especially where identified data gaps have been filled. This additional information will come from several key sources:
Information that will start to become available in 2003 and 2004 includes data from TMDL development, toxic source monitoring conducted by the Interjurisdictional Coordinating Committee, and additional EDT modeling by City of Portland ESA program. In addition, implementation of projects will determine how accurate or feasible the targets and benchmarks are for each priority area.
2) Decide on the goals, policies and actions, and develop hypothesis that need testing. New information may lead to better understanding of the watershed’s processes, including limiting factors, high quality habitat areas, and areas with high restoration potential. Priority areas and criteria will be updated to reflect this information. With more information regarding source identification, projects which specifically target known sources of pollutants identified as limiting factors will become more important. These projects will be based on hypotheses about the impacts of specific areas and processes on downstream function. These hypotheses can be tested in the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model to verify their expected effectiveness in improving productivity, capacity, and diversity of fish species.
3) Implement actions and develop/conduct monitoring programs. As projects are implemented, careful record-keeping will allow correlation between stated objectives and progress on indicators. Monitoring must occur on a project by project basis, especially regarding indicators of key limiting factors.
4) Evaluate results. Detailed monitoring for specific attributes will allow the TAC to evaluate how successful the Action Plan’s approach is in improving watershed health.
5) Decide on adaptations and adjustments. After evaluating the projects and their impacts, the TAC will have the opportunity to change the priority areas, targets, benchmarks, and the objectives. The TAC will also be able to make recommendations to the committees to improve their work plans and project design to ensure objectives and benchmarks are met.
Implementation of the Action Plan will involve all stakeholder groups. The Adaptive Management Plan will be implemented by several key constituent groups including: 1) JCWC Council; 2) Action Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); 3) JCWC Committees; and 4) the public. Each group is highlighted below in terms of their general roles and responsibilities. See Chapter 7 in the Action Plan for additional details on roles and responsibilities and implementation activities. Time frames are listed generally and will be revised as necessary.
JCWC
The role of the JCWC is to facilitate the implementation of the Watershed Action Plan. Council members will ensure that JCWC Committees have the necessary information and tools needed to scope out and develop work plans for project implementation. The JCWC will review and adopt revisions to the plan proposed by the TAC. One of the first work items for the JCWC will be to promote the Action Plan and provide guidance on work plan development with the Committees.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The role of the TAC is to check on progress and propose changes to the Action Plan. The TAC will review the annual work plans of the Committee’s and new information on projects, studies, and monitoring results. The TAC will be responsible for adjusting restoration objectives, and if necessary, the targets and benchmarks. One of the first work items of the TAC will be to provide additional details on proposed projects.
JCWC Committee’s
The JCWC currently has four committees to implement projects and programs to accomplish the mission of the Council including: Administrative, Land Use Advocacy, Restoration, and Outreach.
The role of the committees is to develop work plans and implement projects to meet the targets and benchmarks set in the Action Plan. The committees will identify potential partners, and take on the appropriate role for project implementation. One of the work items for the committees will be to further refine the draft objectives, and to provide feedback to the TAC about project implementation, targets and objectives. Commitees will also liaison with other active project implementers and partners to develop new information and project proposals.
A monitoring committee needs to be established. The monitoring committee, like the other committees, will work with public agencies and the IJC on a project by project basis, identifying opportunities for collaboration and facilitation. The Monitoring committee will have many opportunities to work with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Program, and TMDL programs, and activities of the ESA Coordinators.
All Committees will designate Committee Chairs who will report to the Council on a monthly basis. Committee monthly meeting dates may need to be revised in order to submit timely monthly updates for Council review.
Public Stakeholders
The public has an important role in assisting the above-mentioned groups in implementing projects where appropriate. In addition, the public has a role in reviewing progress, and providing comments on watershed health conditions and projects to the JCWC.
Implementation Schedule
Implementation of the Action Plan is an ongoing process. Development of committee work plans should be completed within six months of completion of the Action Plan. An update of the Action Plan should occur six months later, followed by annual review and updating. Implementation schedule is listed below:
Date |
Implementation Activity |
Sep 03 |
Action Plan Completed |
Feb 04 |
Committee’s complete Work Plans |
Sep 04 |
Action Plan Revised as needed |
Annually |
Action Plan Reviewed and Revised as appropriate |
The JCWC has been successful in the recent past in obtaining outside funds and grants to hire staff, purchase equipment and office supplies, facilitate forums, conduct public and organizational meetings, develop educational programs, print materials, and implement restoration and volunteer projects. A cooperative approach with a number of partners has led to this success.
Funding opportunities are currently limited at the local and state levels. State funding has been severely reduced and in some instances eliminated for watershed councils. Federal funding opportunities and grants exist, but the competition has become more numerous and intense. Private monies from businesses and foundations need to be targeted in the future and alternative funding sources need to be explored. Listed below is a brief summary of some of the funding opportunities that presently exist. It is recommended that the JCWC develop and implement a short-term action plan to secure additional and new funding sources that are geared towards stability and sustainability.
Funding for habitat restoration projects is available through NOAA Restoration Center’s Community-based Restoration Program and its partners. There were three solicitations open in March 2003. The following were included:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Center: More information can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/ or Restoration Ecologists for Oregon are Matthew Kimble (503-872-2738) or Megan Callahan Grant (503-231-2213).
Request for Community-based Habitat Restoration proposals (American Sportfishing Association’s (ASA) FishAmerica Foundation in partnership).: Funding requests typically fall within the range of $5,000 to $30,000. For more information contact the FishAmerica Foundation at http://www.fishamerica.org.
Five Star Restoration Challenge Grants: The National Association of Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Wildlife Habitat Council, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Community-based Restoration Program within NOAA Fisheries, and other sponsors. In 2002, 52 projects received grants of on average $10,000 out of approximately 200 applications received. For more information contact EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star.
OWEB provides a funding directory on their web page. Fifteen federal and interstate sponsors are listed including: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Farm Service Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, National Forest Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. In addition, OWEB lists several categories of funding sources and their associated types of assistance including: cooperative agreement programs, cost-share programs, grants and matching grant programs, and other financial and technical assistance programs.
During May 2003, the OWEB Board funded 63 projects totaling approximately $ 5.5 million. An additional 61 projects were not funded and two projects were deferred during this most recent funding cycle.
To support community-driven initiatives that protect habitat, improve water quality, and enhance outdoor recreation, EPA awarded $15 million in grants in May 2003, to 20 watershed organizations selected as part of a new Watershed Initiative. Funds were going towards restoration and protection projects, such as stream stabilization and habitat enhancement, implementing agricultural best management practices, and working with local governments and homeowners to promote sustainable practices and strategies. Regional and national experts selected the winners from a highly competitive field of more than 176 nominations. According to EPA, the winners were chosen because they best demonstrated the ability to achieve on-the-ground environmental results in a short time frame. Each of the watershed organizations exhibited strong partnerships with a wide variety of support, showed innovation, and demonstrated compatibility with existing governmental programs. The grants ranged from $300,000 to $ 1 million. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative.
For the Sake of the Salmon (4SOS) and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) are partnering to disburse funding through a Technical Assistance Small Grant Program. Approximately $30,000 is available for distribution for each of the three grant cycles (March 3, 2003; July 1, 2003, and November 3, 2003). Individual awards will not exceed $5,000. There is no requirement for matching funds. Eligible types of technical assistance include:
Forms can be obtained on the OWEB web site at http://www.oweb.state.or.us or on the 4SOS web site at http://www.4sos.org. Contact Deb Merchant at 4SOS at 503-223-8511, ext. 6 or e-mail at dmerchant@4sos.org.
DEQ was successful in teaming with local municipalities to obtain U.S. EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Pollution Source grant to conduct a toxics monitoring program throughout Johnson Creek. Results will be used to further develop and refine the TMDL.
The Environmental Grantmaking Foundations directory is a comprehensive list of foundations that support environmental activities and programs. These foundations primarily give grants to nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations. The ninth edition (2001) profiles 900 foundations. The 2003 edition is available for $110. The directory features include: officers, directors, and key personnel, environmental programs in depth, analyses drawn from Resources for Global Sustainability (RGS) databases, and listing of recent grants. Indexes list foundations by: recipient and activity region, environmental topics and activities, emphases and limitations, and location, issues, and deadlines. For more information, contact http://www.environmentalgrants.com.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA), Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), and the State of Oregon have agreed to implement a voluntary Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to improve water quality of streams providing habitat for nine salmon and two trout species listed under the ESA. Unique state and federal partnerships will allow landowners to receive incentive payments for installing specific conservation practices. Through the CREP, farmers can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible land. The project area includes all streams in Oregon providing habitat for ESA salmon and trout species that cross agricultural lands. Goals of the Oregon Enhancement Program include:
The Oregon Enhancement Program is authorized to enroll up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffers and filter strips, plus 5,000 acres of wetlands for a total maximum acreage of 100,000. The total program cost is estimated at $250 million. Of this, CCC will provide 80 percent and the State of Oregon or other non-Federal sources will provide 20 percent of the total cost. CCC will pay applicable land rental costs, 50 percent of the cost of establishing conservation practices, and annual maintenance incentive, and a portion of the costs of providing technical assistance. The State of Oregon will pay 25 percent of the cost of establishing conservation practices, all the costs of the annual monitoring program, and a portion of the technical assistance costs.
Eligible practices include filter strips, riparian buffers, and wetland restoration. In addition to offering acreage along salmon and trout streams, applicants must satisfy basic eligibility criteria including:
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)
The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program designed to help owners of non-federal lands improve wildlife habitat on their property. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers this program and provides free technical assistance to implement wildlife habitat improvement practices to approved applicants. Project costs can be reimbursed up to 75 percent.
