United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
         Office of Water
         Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/4-90-010
August 1990
vvEPA
VOLUNTEER WATER
MONITORING:
A Guide
For State
Managers
               i^y^sf?s^!0^^
                                Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
VOLUNTEER WATER
MONITORING:
A Guide
For State
               »*.*• jj*
Managers
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division (WH-553)
401 M Si SW
Washington D C 20460

-------
^ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
                                          I his document was prepared under coopera-


                                    tive agreement #0X813519-03-0 from the U.S. Envi-


                                    ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Water


                                    Regulations and Standards, Assessment and


                                    Watershed Protection Division, to the Alliance for


                                    the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Additional support was


                                    provided by Research Triangle Institute.


                                         The EPA project officers were Alice Mayio and


                                    Meg Kerr. Principal authors were Kathleen Ellett


                                    and Alice Mayio. The authors would like to thank


                                    the many reviewers who provided helpful com-


                                    ments on the content and organization of this


                                    guide; the State coordinators whose volunteer


                                    programs are described in the Appendix; and


                                    EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection,


                                    which assisted in the publication of this document.

                                    NOTICE: This  document has been reviewed
                                    in accordance with U.S. Environmental
                                    Protection Agency policy and approved for
                                    publication. Mention of trade names or
                                    commercial products does not constitute
                                    endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                                          FOREWORD
                   FOREWORD
Citizen volunteer monitoring is a relatively new development in
the water quality assessment and management field.  In a
growing number of cases, States have recognized the value of
volunteers and have begun to sponsor them in the collection
of high quality baseline and screening data.

We at EPA encourage this partnership between State agencies
and citizen volunteers. EPA has prepared this guide for State
managers because of the benefits of volunteer monitoring both
as a source of credible data and as a public education tool
that encourages a sense of stewardship for our water
resources.

This document cannot claim to be more than a guide. Specific
approaches will vary depending on the type of waters to be
assessed, the parameters to be monitored,  and the amount of
resources the State is able to commit to the program.
Nevertheless, this guide should help new programs build on
the experiences of successful, established programs and avoid
any pitfalls they may have encountered. We also hope that
this guide will help improve existing volunteer programs and
spark interest in States that have not yet made plans to work
with citizen volunteers.
                             Martha G. Prothro
                             Director, Office of Water
                             Regulations and Standards
                             U.S. EPA,
                             Washington, D.C.

-------

-------
                                                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD       	 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	7


CHAPTER 1       VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING	11
                1.1 Volunteers Monitor a Variety of Parameters	12
                1.2 Volunteers Monitor All Types of Waters	13
                1.3 Volunteers Can Collect Useful Data	15

CHAPTER 2       PLANNING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM	21
               2.1 Establish General Goals	22
               2.2 Identify Data Uses and Users	22
               2.3 Establish Quality Assurance and Control	23
               2.4 Assign Staff Responsibilities	24

CHAPTER 3       IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM	27
               3.1 Establish a Pilot Program	28
               3.2 Expand the Program 	34
               3.3 Make the Most of the Media	35
               3.4 Maintain Volunteer Interest and Motivation	36

CHAPTER 4       PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION	37
               4.1 Prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan	38
               4.2 Prepare a Data Documentation File	42
               4.3 Analyze and Present Data	,	43

CHAPTERS       COSTS AND FUNDING	49
               5.1 Program Expenses	51
               5.2 Comparison of Two State Programs	53
               5.3 Funding Options	53
               5.4 Techniques for Reducing Program Costs	54
REFERENCES      	55

APPENDIX        DESCRIPTIONS OF FIVE SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS	59
               Illinois Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program	60
               Kentucky Water Watch Volunteer Stream Sampling Project	65
               New York Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program	69
               Ohio Scenic River Volunteer Monitoring Program	73
               Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program	76
               Cover Photo: Virginia Lee and Richard Wood take water samples as part of
               Rhode Island Sea Grant's successful Pond Watchers project.
               Photo by Richard Turgeon.

               All photographs are courtesy of individual or organization listed.
               Design by TFW Design, Inc.

-------

-------
                                                                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                                                               **:**
                •':'-  iS&mr 'f- '•  •.. -Is--''-  •'"-••» W>->S=^iMr'F'1;-:-i-.-^-<-»:;•»>•-•'• car*?•£*,*i»" :  •'-" '•tJ-'S?->j8>-V-;*




                r

ipf;w:'  V-^ ;,^.t,.:3^'^'-^-.





                                                     '*iM^ v. I £^

-------
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                           itizen volunteers are becoming increas-
                    ingly involved in monitoring the quality of our
                    Nation's waters. Volunteer monitoring pro-
                    grams-both State-sponsored and private—
                    are being formed at a rapid rate throughout
                    the country. Many States that were once
MwXo courtesy of (he New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program.
Clillon Chandler (sitting)
and William Hollenbeck,
two volunteer monitors,
record results while
Jeffrey Schloss,
coordinator ol the New
Hampshire Lakes Lay
Monitoring Program,
takes oxygen readings
from different depths of
Lake Winnlpesaukee.
skeptical about using volunteer information
are becoming increasingly aware of the value
of volunteer programs, both  in  collecting
usable water  quality  information  and in
developing an educated and involved con-
stituency committed to protecting water re-
sources. Two national EPA-sponsored volun-
teer monitoring conferences, held in 1988
and 1989, have further spurred these devel-
opments; their success is testimony to the
growing interest in this field.
    EPA's involvement in volunteer monitor-
ing was sparked by two major developments.
One was the passage of the Water Quality Act
of 1987,  which provided new impetus and
funding for clean lakes and nonpoint source
assessmentandmanagementprograms, and
which recognized the National Estuary Pro-
gram (NEP). The NEP, in particular, encour-
aged public education and public participa-
tion in the identification and management of
pollution problems.  Volunteer monitoring
was recognized by EPA as an excellent way to
help implement these programs.
    Second was an EPA study of the Agency's
surface water  monitoring activities (USEPA
1987). One of the study's recommendations
was to enhance State and EPA capabilities to
identify problems,  conduct trend  assess-
ments, and characterize waters by investi-
gating the usefulness of incorporating volun-
teers into State ambient monitoring activi-
ties.
    As a result, EPA began a survey of exist-
ing volunteer monitoring programs, assess-
ing their strengths  and drawbacks. It soon
became clear that the experience of several
well-managed, State-sponsored  programs
could be of value to State  water program
managers who might be considering whether
or not to develop their own volunteer efforts
(for detailed information on five such pro-
grams, see Appendix). The recommendations
of the two national volunteer monitoring con-
ferences confirmed  this need.
    This guide for State managers was devel-
oped to meet this need. It provides an over-
view of the use of citizen volunteers in envi-
ronmental monitoring. Its basic premise is
that a well organized,  properly maintained
volunteer monitoring program can yield cred-
ible water quality data that will be useful to
the State. To help State program managers
launch and manage such a program, this
document discusses how to plan and organ-
ize projects, how to involve  the media, and
how to prepare quality assurance plans that
will ensure that data of known quality  are
produced.  In addition, data  management
considerations and approaches to data analy-
sis are discussed) as well as costs and fund-
ing issues. Examples drawn from successful
existing program^ are provided throughout
this document.
    The material in this document can be
summarized in seven "basic ingredients for
success."
I. Develop and articulate a clear purpose
for the use of the  data.
Data should be collected to  meet a specific
need or in response to a stated hypothesis.
Clear Data Quality  Objectives (DQO's) must
be identified as the first step in planning.
    The planning process should be carried
out by a committee of data  users, which
involves potential as well as identified users,
and  includes  members  of the scientific
research community,  local and regional
officials who will play a part in policy making
based on the results, and citizen leaders who
are potential volunteer monitors or represent
groups  from  which  volunteers will be
recruited.
n. Produce "data of known quality" that
meet the stated Data Quality Objectives.
The perception that good quality data cannot

-------
                                                                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
be collected by amateurs is the most common
reason  given by professional  monitoring
managers declining to take advantage of this
resource. Prepare a Quality Assurance Pro-
ject Plan (QAPJP) for the project and make
sure you adhere to its elements.

HI. Be aware that volunteer monitoring
is cost-effective but is not free.
A well-coordinated and  quality-controlled
project requires dedicated professional staff
support. One person should be  identified
whose priority responsibility is the oversight
and management of the volunteer program.
Office administration, data management, and
analytical support  must be allocated  up-
front and carried through to demonstrable
use of the data.

IV. Thoroughly train and re-train volun-
teers.
Make sure that they have the opportunity to
gain an understanding of the ecology of their
area. Volunteers should have a realistic
understanding of the program's objectives
and limits. Keep them informed and answer
their questions promptly.

V. Give the  volunteers praise and feed-
back—it's the psychological equivalent
of a salary!
Keep a direct line of communication open at
all times using the  telephone,  personal
memos, and/or some form of newsletter. Ask
their advice  on  general  administrative  is-
sues, bring them into the proofreading proc-
ess, and help them develop a sense of shared
ownership of the program. Recognize their
accomplishments through awards, letters of
appreciation, publicity, and certificates. If at
all possible,  encourage experienced volun-
teers to shoulder increased responsibilities
such as becoming team leaders or coordina-
tors, carrying out more advanced tests, or
helping with data analyses.

VI. Use the data your volunteers collect.
Nothing discourages participating volunteers
more than seeing that their data are not being
used. Simple analyses and attractive dis-
plays of high quality volunteer data should be
presented to  volunteers as well as to State
staff. This will foster continued interest in the
program and serve to educate and inform the
public about  local water quality issues.

VU. Finally,  be flexible, open, and realis-
tic with  your volunteers and yourself.
Start with a  small program you can  easily
handle. Synchronize the  monitoring period
to coincide with the period you can commit to
supporting the volunteers. When starting a
program, be frank about the chances for con-
tinued support and inform the group if re-
sources disappear. Work with the strengths
and interests of your volunteers and search
for ways to make the most of your available
resources. Talk with coordinators of similar
programs in other States to learn of new ways
to handle obstacles.

    Planning, implementing, and maintain-
ing a volunteer monitoring program requires
organization, time,  resources, and dedica-
tion. However, the payoffs can be very great.
By designing this document to discuss both
the responsibilities and the payoffs of a well
run volunteer monitoring program,  EPA is
encouraging State water quality managers to
consider how  such  a program might meet
their needs. Once managers make a decision
to proceed, this document can provide them
with a framework for setting up their own
programs.
   This document cannot say all there is to
be said; there are too many variables at work,
too many ways  a State might design its
volunteer monitoring program, depending on
its resources and needs. We hope, however,
that its message  is clear: that States should
draw  on the  enthusiasm, expertise, and
commitment of their citizens to monitor and
protect the water resources that are  so pre-
cious to us all.

-------

-------
CHAPTER 1-VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING I  11

-------
 VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING
                         this document provides State, regional,
                    and Federal program managers with a prac-
                    tical reference for developing, implementing,
                    and maintaining a surface water volunteer
                    monitoring program. Anumber of states have
                    successfully expanded ongoing monitoring
                    and  assessment activities with the assis-
                    tance of competent, trained volunteers (for
                    examples, see the Appendix). These programs
Plwto by Larry icBeouf

Save Our Streams
Coordinator Karen
Fltchock gives Virginians
a hands-on lesson In
biological monitoring
using a "kick-seine."
have demonstrated that volunteers can suc-
cessfully deliver high quality data that can be
used for surface water assessment and prob-
lem identification. Drawing on the collective
experience of these programs, this document
provides information on how to plan, fund,
and maintain a volunteer monitoring effort
that can provide credible, useful water qual-
ity data.
    This guide begins by providing an over-
view of existing volunteer monitoring efforts
and outlines how to plan a program that will
produce high quality data. It then discusses
steps  in  implementing  a program,  from
launching a pilot to maintaining volunteer
interest. Considerable focus is directed to
providing credible,  quality-controlled infor-
mation and analyzing and presenting data
provided by volunteers. This guide goes on to
discuss costs and funding issues. The  ap-
pendix describes five successful State-man-
aged or sponsored programs. For further in-
formation on additional volunteer monitor-
ing programs refer to the National Directory of
Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring
Programs (USEPA 1990).
    This document does not provide detailed
information on specific monitoring methods
that might apply to a volunteer effort. EPA
plans to address methods in separate, com-
panion handbooks for lakes and rivers.
1.1 VOLUNTEERS MONITOR A VARIETY
OF PARAMETERS
   The  experience  of  citizen monitoring
programs throughout the country proves that
volunteers can be trained to carry out a wide
variety of environmental monitoring tasks,
provided they are given the appropriate equip-
ment and instruction.  Figure 1.1 provides
examples of the range of monitoring activities
in which volunteers have proven to be suc-
cessful partners. Volunteer monitoring ac-
tivities can be placed into three general cate-
gories: visual observation,  physical and
chemical measurements, and assessments
of living resources.

Visual Observation
   Volunteers often live near the sites they
monitor, and so may have ready access to
waters inaccessible to State personnel. Their
familiarity with nearby waters also makes
volunteers uniquely qualified to make visual
observations of changes in water color follow-
ing storm events; effects of erosion and sedi-
ment control measures; general impacts of
earth disturbances during land development
for agricultural or construction purposes;
weather; land use,s; impacts of recreational
uses; and animal behavior and abundance.

Physical and Chemical Measurements
    Volunteers also often measure a wide
variety of chemical and physical parameters.
Samples are collected using standardized,
State-approved methods and equipment, and
may be analyzed in the field using specially
designed kits or sent to a  laboratory for
analysis. Among the parameters currently
being measured by volunteer groups are:
water and air temperature; water transpar-
ency; turbidity; suspended solids; salinity;
river height and flow; rain and snow amounts;
and chemical constituents such as pH, alka-
linity, dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphates,
chlorophyll, sulfates, pesticides, metals, and
hardness.

Assessments of Living Resources
    Recognizing the connection between the
quality of waters and the condition of plants
and animals in and around them, some vol-
unteer programs recruit and train citizens to
survey living resources. These surveys most
often involve evaluation of benthic macroin-
vertebrates, fish, birds, and  plants. Volun-
teers may also report on the condition offish
(noting tumors, growth abnormalities, and
lesions,  for example); the incidence of fish

-------
                                                                          VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING
kills and algae blooms; habitat condition and
availability; and the presence and concentra-
tion of fecal coliform bacteria.

1.2 VOLUNTEERS MONITOR ALL
TYPES OF WATERS
Lake Sampling
    Lakes are often intensively used for rec-
reation, and in many cases are managed by
homeowner associations. Therefore, they often
have a built-in constituency eager to partici-
pate in volunteer monitoring activities. In
fact, most successful State-managed volun-
teer monitoring programs were initially de-
veloped to enhance State lake monitoring
networks. States hoped to use volunteer-col-
lected data to extend their monitoring cover-
age, establish baseline lake trophic condi-
tions, and identify lakes experiencing water
quality problems. A secondary objective was
often to educate the public about lake ecology
and lake management and protection.
    The  basic volunteer lake  monitoring
program asks monitors to collect Secchi depth
data at one or two stations on their lake, two
to four times a month during the summer
season. Volunteers also record observations
on the week's weather, the current uses of the
lake (number of fishermen, swimmers, boat-
ers, etc.) and the apparent condition of the
lake. Data sheets are provided to list informa-
tion on water color, turbidity, odor, sus-
pended algae, other aquatic vegetation in the
lake basin and along the shore, and current
activities that could be affecting lake water
quality.
FIGURE 1.1
Volunteers monitor a
variety of parameters in
all types of waters. (The
programs listed in this
matrix are provided as
examples. For a more
comprehensive list of
existing programs, refer
to JSEPA1990.)
FIGURE 1.1 Volunteers Monitor a Variety of Parameters in All Types of Wafers
OBSERVATIONS
Physical/Chemical
Measurements in
Water Column






Microbiological
Measurements in
Water Column
Visual
Ecological
Surveys


Fish and
Shellfish
Surveys
Benthic
Macro-invertebrate
Surveys

Primary
Producer
Surveys


LAKES
IL, Volunteer Lake
Monitoring
ME Volunteer Lake
Monitoring
VT Lay Monitoring
NH Lakes Lay
Monitoring
NY Citizens Statewide
Lake Assessment
FL Lake Watch







IL Volunteer Lake
Monitoring
Wl Self-Help Lake
Monitoring
VT Lay Monitoring
FL Lake Watch
ME Volunteer Anglers
NH Lakes Lay
Monitoring




VT Lay Monitoring
NY Citizens Statewide
Lake Assessment
NH Lakes Lay Monitoring
MT Clark Fork Coalition
STREAMS/RIVERS
DE Stream Watch
KY Water Watch
MA Acid Rain
Monitoring
Ml Friends of the;
Rouge River





,MI Friends of the
Rouge River

Save Our Streams
NJ Water Watch
NC Stream Watch


ME Volunteer Anglers

Save Our Streams
OH Scenic River
Stream Quality
Monitoring




ESTUARIES
Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Montitoring
Rl Salt Pond Watchers
NC Albemarle-Pamlico
Citizen Monitoring
MD Anne Arundel Co.
Watershed
Management
FL Tampa Bay SWIM
Team
MA Falmouth Pond
Watchers
FL- Friends of Perdido
AL Bay
RI Salt Pond Watchers


Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring
Rl Salt Pond
Watchers
FL Tampa Bay SWIM
Team






Cheasapeake Bay
Citizens Monitoring
Rl Salt Pond
Watchers

NEAR COASTAL WATERS
MA Audubon Boston
Harbor
Monitoring
WA Adopt-A-Beach








Beach Debris
Cleanups



NJ Sea Grant
American Littoral
Society




NJ Sea Grant



WETLANDS
Hudson River National
Estuary Research
Reserve
MD Jug Bay Wetlands
Sanctuary








MD Jug Bay Wetlands
Sanctuary
Wl Wetlands Watch
MN Wetlands Watch








MD Jug Bay Wetlands
Sanctuary




-------
 VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING
Ifioto by Carolyn Riimery Be<2

Richard B«tz prepares to
lake a Socchl disk
reading at Devil's Lalte in
Sauk County, Wisconsin.
    Some States use volunteers to collect ad-
ditional water quality parameters that indi-
cate lake trophic status. Volunteers collect
and filter samples for chlorophyll and nutri-
ent analyses. Analytical work is usually per-
formed at State or private laboratories, al-
though some States provide volunteers with
field test kits, allowing them to do the analy-
ses onsite.
    A few States have used their volunteers
during fishery and shoreline vegetation sur-
veys. They have found that the citizens' inti-
mate knowledge of the lake and its watershed
provided useful information not generally
available during a routine assessment.

Stream and River Sampling
    Most States maintain a fixed network of
stream and river stations, sampled regularly
for chemical, physical, and biological para-
meters.  Special intensive surveys  are also
performed periodically to comprehensively
assess the water quality of a specific stretch
of river. Most States with citizen monitoring
programs prefer to use State staff for these
baseline monitoring activities;  volunteers
collect data  at secondary water quality sta-
tions to complement the State network and
may sample regularly for parameters such as
dissolved oxygen,  temperature, pH,  and
nutrients. Some States have also relied on
volunteers for comprehensive synoptic sam-
pling efforts and to provide spot checks of
specific problems in localized areas.
    Approximately 20 years ago,  the Izaak
Walton League of America developed a sim-
plified benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
methodology to  be used by volunteers to
assess  stream  water quality (Save Our
Streams). Volunteers are trained to collect
benthic macroinvertebrates and sort them
into gross taxonomic categories. The density
and diversity of the organisms can then be
used to make general statements  about the
overall water  quality of the stream. Vari-
ations on this method have been used by
several States for initial screening of water
quality. If problems are indicated, the State
then follows up with more comprehensive
biological surveys.

Estuarine Sampling
    In 1987, Congress created the National
Estuary Program (NEP) to protect and restore
water quality in the Nation's estuaries.The
NEP focuses on the development and im-
plementation of comprehensive management
plans for individual estuaries, establishing a
working partnership with Federal, State, and
local governments; academic and scientific
communities; industries  and  businesses;
public action  groups; and private citizens.
The NEP recognizes that  public  education
and involvement are essential to the success-
ful restoration  of  estuarine waters, and
strongly encourages States to incorporate
citizen monitoring programs into their over-
all control effort. Successful citizen monitor-
ing programs have been found to enhance es-
tuarine monitoring activities, increase public
understanding of the ecosystem,  and build
local  support for necessary corrective ac-
tions.
    Estuarine monitoring programs  such as
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program,
Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers, and Albe-
marle-Pamlico Citizen Monitoring Program,
use volunteers to collect physical and chemi-
cal measurements in estuaries and in tribu-
tary streams  and inlets.  Since  estuarine
drainage  systems are large and complex,
volunteers can be especially helpful in up-
stream  areas  not normally covered by the
State's  monitoring network. Basic water
quality measurements such as pH, transpar-
ency, salinity, dissolved oxygen,  and tem-
perature can provide useful information to a
comprehensive monitoring program. Trained
volunteers can also be used to assess aquatic
vegetation in the estuary, and can  provide
information on acute problems such as spills,
fish kills, and algae blooms.

-------
                                                                        VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING
 Near Coastal Water Assessments
     Historically, most States have focused
 their assessment and pollution control ac-
 tivities on fresh inland waters,  in part be-
 cause these are the most stressed and pol-
 luted of their waters, but also because inland
 waters are the easiest to monitor and man-
 age. Many States are only now beginning to
 incorporate near coastal waters into their
 assessment activities  and to  draw on  the
 assistance of volunteers in these activities.
 This new emphasis has been spurred to some
 extent by EPA's Near Coastal Waters Pro-
 gram, part of a long-range initiative by the
 Agency to restore and protect the water quality
 and natural resources of the nation's coastal
 areas.
    At this time, volunteer activity in near
 coastal waters focuses on beach cleanups. In
 cleanup activities sponsored by the Center
 for Marine Conservation (in 25 States), vol-
 unteers maintain  records  on  types  and
 amounts of debris collected. Volunteers keep
 track of 23 different kinds of plastic debris, as
 well as certain varieties of metal, glass, pa-
 per, and any stranded or entangled wildlife.
 This unique monitoring information has been
 used to obtain ratification by 42 countries of
 a treaty that prohibits  the dumping of plas-
 tics at sea by cruise ships, fishing vessels,
 and merchant and military craft.

 Wetlands
    State monitoring and assessment of wet-
 lands resources is extremely limited. Little, if
 any, water quality monitoring is conducted;
 most assessment  activities  are limited to
 evaluations of changes in wetland area and
 rates of loss.
    Volunteer monitoring activities  in wet-
 land areas are in their infancy as well. In
Anne Arundel County,  Maryland, the South
 County Creeks Commission, with technical
 assistance from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, has helped community groups learn to
recognize and identify inaccuracies and in-
completeness in the U.S. Department of the
Interior's National Wetland Inventory maps
and to make recommendations for correc-
tions (Mary McHenry 1990). Volunteers have
also been involved in marsh plant and animal
inventories at National Estuarine Research
Reserve sites (Gault, et. al. 1988).
    Volunteers can carry out qualitative
assessments  and descriptions  of physical
changes in wetlands related to the impacts of
point and nonpoint source discharges. Vol-
unteers might also be helpful in monitoring
the effectiveness of wetlands mitigation proj-
ects.

1.3 VOLUNTEERS CAN COLLECT USEFUL
DATA
    The  experience of a number of State-
managed volunteer monitoring programs
proves that volunteer-collected water quality
data can be used in many ways by States.
However, it is also evident that volunteer data
are underutilized in many States. The reason
State program managers most often cite for
not using volunteer data is lack of confidence
in data quality.
    The most common use of volunteer data
may be for screening: potential water qualify
problems identified by volunteers are relayed
to the State or other authority, which may
follow up with its own assessment or control
action.  Volunteer data are also commonly
used to provide baseline and trend informa-
tion  on  waters or  parameters otherwise
unmonitored by the State.  Of all the data
collected by volunteers, lake water quality
data appear to be the most widely used today.
This is most likely  because lake volunteer
monitoring programs are often the best es-
tablished; a few important measures of lake
       RHODE ISLAND SALT POND WATCHERS
      Several beautiful and productive shallow lagoons, locally
  known as salt ponds, lie along Rhode Island's southern shore.
  Stage September 1985, over 30 volunteers have been monltor-
 " ing water quality parameters  every other week, from May
  through October, in seven of these ponds. Data collected by the
  Pond Watchers program have been used:
      • as part of the State's water quality assessment report to
   ,-  '  USEPA;
      • by the Department of Environmental Management
        (DEM) in deciding on seasonal closure of some of the salt
        ponds to shellfishing;
      • by local municipal governments in zoning and planning
        board decisions;
     , • by the State and by municipalities in a cooperative
        effort to develop local harbor management plans and
        ordinances;
      • by the State to revise regional septic systems construc-
        tion standards and to pass legislation to develop waste
        water management districts for non-sewered areas.
      These applications of Salt Pond Watchers data have spurred
 the State DBM to agree to establish a position of State Volun-
 teer Monitoring Coordinator. This coordinator would work with
 all citizen monitoring groups to ensure that information  is
 useful for State environmental decisionmaking  (Lee and Kull-
 berg 1986).

-------
 VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING
           3f
HKKO by John Slraiubrtdse

Volunteer checks a
rain gage on the bank
of teller Kenny Lake,
an impoundment on
Conodogulnet Creek,
Pennsylvania.
qualtiy  (e.g., transparency)  can be  easily
monitored by volunteers; and lakeside home-
owners are likely to have a strong interest in
seeing that the data are used.
    Examples of howvarious State-managed
volunteer programs  use their data  are
presented below. Some of these examples are
drawn  directly  from this document's
Appendix, "Descriptions of Five Successful
Programs."

Screening for Problems
Since it was established in 1978, the New
Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
(LLMP) has been of value in helping protect
the State's water quality. Data collected by
volunteers were  instrumental  in  limiting
development that would have impaired Bea-
ver Lake in Deny, and supported a success-
ful effort to  install a sewer line around the
lake. OnLakeWinnipesaukee, volunteer data
demonstrated the adverse impact of nutrient
loading due to fertilizers used at a condomin-
ium development and changes  were made
that reduced the runoff to the lake.  Data
collected by the volunteer monitoring pro-
gram  at Baboosic Lake in Amherst helped
reroute a road expansion project that would
have run too close to the lake.  Volunteers
provided information on septic sludge buildup
around Merrimack's Naticook Lake, which
resulted in the  removal  of  the material
(Schloss 1988).

The Lake Lucille Property Owners Asso-
ciation has used three years of the New York
Citizens  Statewide  Lake  Assessment
Program's  (CSLAP) data  to document the
degradation of water quality in Lake Lucille,
a 12-acre lake in southeastern New York. The
analysis of high algae, macrophyte, and
nutrient levels, decreasing water depth, and
effects of stormwater runoff on water quality
has led the association to propose sediment
controls at upstream construction sites and
a large-scale sediment removal (dredging)
project throughout most of the lake floor. The
local town board has passed the lay monitor-
ing results to a consulting firm hired to review
these restoration efforts. The  collected data
are thought to be the most up-to-date techni-
cal information available on the water quality
of the lake (Survey 1989, Kishbaugh).

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
staff  has used  data from its Citizen Lake
Monitoring Program,  in conjunction with
State-collected  chemical data,  in a special
study resulting in a successful finding against
the J.L. Kraft Co.  Phosphorus  loads to the
Sauk River and  the downstream chain of
lakes were reduced as a result of the finding
(Bostrum 1988).

Kentucky's Division of Water used the vol-
unteer data to identify two noncomplying dis-
chargers and five stream sites where stan-
dards were exceeded. Although the State
does  not use volunteer data alone to imple-
ment enforcement actions, the citizen moni-
tors have demonstrated that they can reliably
locate water quality  problems for further
investigation by State enforcement person-
nel (Appendix, Kentucky).

Providing Baseline Data
The Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Of-
fice of Planning and Zoning sponsors a Vol-
unteer Citizen Monitoring Program as part of
its Watershed Management Program (WMP).

-------
                                                                           VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING
The data collected by the volunteers are used
in conjunction with data from two profes-
sional monitoring programs within the WMP
to provide a more complete picture of overall
water quality. These data are also valuable to
the residents of the county, since frequently
the only documented water quality informa-
tion available for the creeks in these water-
sheds comes from  volunteers.  Volunteer
data have also been used to complement data
from State and Federal monitoring programs.
These data have also been  used to demon-
strate siltation of a creek resulting from a
highway construction project and to evaluate
a stormwater management waiver request.
(Survey 1989, Haddon).

The Minnesota Citizen Lake Monitoring
Program (CLMP) was initiated to detect and
evaluate changes in lake water quality. The
data are used for trend analysis of water
quality in lakes where 10+ years of data are
available. The State staff has also used data
to help develop water quality  standards for
lakes and in preparing trophic  status reports
(Bostrum 1988).
New York's Citizens Statewide Lake As-
sessment Program (CSLAP) collects baseline
data for preparation of lake-specific manage-
ment plans, while educating lake residents
and users about lake ecology, management
practices, and data collection. The data are
used to document trends on individual lakes,
identify specific water quality problems, and
calculate trophic status to support the DEC'S
lake management recommendations to indi-
vidual lake associations (Appendix, New York).

In  Illinois'  Volunteer  Lake  Monitoring
Program, volunteers collect baseline  data
(primarily Secchi disk depth) for 150 lakes,
most of which are not monitored by State per-
sonnel. Federal,  State,  and local  agencies
refer to the  data to document water quality
impacts; select priority watersheds for Clean
Lakes  funding under Section 314(a) of the
Clean Water Act, as  well as for cost-share
funding for soil-erosion control from the U.S.
and Illinois Departments  of  Agriculture;
evaluate the effectiveness of lake protection
and management projects;  and determine
waterbody assessments for the Section 3C>5(b)
FIGURE 1.2 A-B

Comparison of chlorophyll
values (a) and Secchi
Disk readings (b) between
data collected by the New
Hampshire Lakes Lay
Monitoring Program and
the Freshwater Biology
Group (FBG) field team at
the University of New
Hampshire.
SOURCE: Schloss 1988.
                                                 '  FIGURE 12
                                       New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
                                         .  Volunteer vs. Professional Results
         (a) Chlorophyll a Results
                (b) Secchi Disk Results

       4
     '  0
                                                            10
                      2     3    4
                      Lay Monitor Collectors
                      Chlorophyll a (mg/m3)
                                                          10
                               Lay Monitor Collectors
                               Secchi Disk Depth (m)

-------
 VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONITORING;
FIGURE 1.3 A-B

Comparison of results
(or samples collected
by Massachusetts Add
Rain Monitoring (ARM)
program volunteers vs.
ARM staff (or pH (a) and
alkalinity (b).
SOURCE; Godfrey 1988.
                        FIGURE 1.3 A-B
              Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring Program
                  Volunteer vs. Professional Results
(a)pH
                         O m
                         *_ TJ
                         o> c=
                         o> 
-------
                                                                            VOLUNTEERS IN WATER MONiTORING
Dis
         20-

         18-

         16-

         14-

         12-

         10-
                                                 '  . FIGURE 1.4
                                         Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program
                                          Dissolved Ogygen vs. Date of Collection
                                    A collected by voluteers

                                    * collected by state personnel


                               AA

           • •  *
                                                                                    A    A  A
            I     I     I     I     I      I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
          JUL  AUG   SEP   OCT  NOV  DEC   JAN   FEB   MAR  APR  MAY  JON   JUL.   AUG  SEP  OCT  NOV  DEC   JAN
          1985                             1986                                                            1987
                                                      Date
shire. While the samples were taken on the
same day for the same site, they were usually
done on different vessels at slightly different
times in the day. Each point represents the
comparison of results from a single measure-
ment at a single lake site (Schloss 1988).
    Another comparison between volunteer
and professional monitoring data is shown in
Figures 1.3A and B. The two graphs give re-
sults for samples collected by Massachusetts
Acid Rain Monitoring (ARM) program volun-
teers vs. ARM staff for pH (a) and alkalinity (b)
(Godfrey 1988).
    Lastly, Figure 1.4 depicts dissolved oxy-
gen data collected by volunteers in the Che-
sapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program
plotted against data from a Virginia Water
Control Board monitoring station  about a
mile away. These plots indicate that both
data sets  represent similar water quality
conditions (Wastler  1987).
    These  and many other examples from
other programs document the fact that high
quality data can be expected from well-trained
volunteers.
FIGURE 1.4
mmt^^m^
Plot of dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the
James River over time as
collected by State and
citizen volunteers.
SOURCE: Wastler 1987.

-------

-------
CHAPTER 2— PLANNING A VOLUNTEER'MONITORING PROGRAM
                                                 *.;*#*•

-------
 PLANNING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
Volunteer monitoring
program coordinators
from around the country
exchange Ideas In a
group discussion at the
First National Workshop
on Citizen Volunteers In
Environmental Monitoring,
Narragansett, Rhode
Island. May 1988.
 Ouccessful use of volunteers depends on
understanding that citizens can be a valu-
able resource for many types of monitoring
when they are well-trained and  managed.
Citizens should not, however, be viewed as an
adjunct voluntary service of an agency; rather,
they are partners who share in environ-
mental protection. What keeps the volun-
teers together is not a single monitoring task,
but their expanded role as the guardians and
stewards of  their local natural resources.
This requires cooperation among regulators,
resource trustees, and  citizens at the local
level. Making this partnership successful is a
central challenge of all volunteer monitoring
programs.
    This chapter provides details on plan-
ning a volunteer monitoring program to aug-
ment data gathered  by other State and re-
gional surface water monitoring efforts. Plan-
ning a State-managed volunteer monitoring
program is a multi-step process. To begin,
State monitoring directors are urged to take
a careful look at their existing programs,
identify gaps in the data base, and consider
where data collected by volunteers  can be
Pfuxo by Steven Silvia
                     used to fill these gaps. This approach will
                     help establish general goals for the program
                     and identify uses and potential users of the
                     data (i.e., State, local, or Federal agencies,
                     lake associations, etc.). Next steps include
                     developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan
                     (QAPjP) to establish effective quality assur-
                     ance and control procedures and assigning
qualified State staff to implement the pro-
gram. These steps are discussed below.

2.1 ESTABLISH GENERAL GOALS
    Citizen monitoring programs are gener-
ally developed for three reasons:
    1.  To supplement water quality  data
collected by professional staff in water qual-
ity agencies and scientific institutions.
    2.  To educate the public about water
quality issues.
    3. To build a constituency of citizens to
practice sound water quality management at
a local level  and build public support for
water quality protection.
    All three goals will be achieved with a
well-organized program, but priorities should
be set so that the program can be designed to
meet a clearly stated primary goal. It is im-
portant to specify whether gathering data of
known quality takes  priority  over public
participation and education. This handbook
is directed to those States that will, in fact,
stress the collection of credible data as the
chief goal of their volunteer monitoring pro-
gram.

2.2 IDENTIFY DATA USES AND USERS
    Another initial step in planning a suc-
cessful volunteer monitoring project that will
provide credible  information is to  clearly
identify the use  to  be made of the data.
Environmental data are commonly used:
    • to establish baseline conditions (where
      no prior data exist);
    • to determine water quality trends; and
    • to identify current and emerging prob-
      lems.  .
    All prospective data users and their data
needs should be identified during the plan-
ning stages of the program. Within a State
agency, individuals potentially interested in
the citizen data can include water  quality
analysts, planners, environmental engineers,
fisheries biologists and game wardens, and/
or parks and recreation staff.  Outside the
State agency, the data may be used by uni-
versity researchers, local government plan-
ning and zoning agencies, Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, lake associations, or
Federal agencies, such as the US Geological
Survey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US En-
vironmental Protection Agency, and the US
Department of Agriculture's Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
    A committee made up of representatives
from the identified user groups—including

-------
                                                             PLANNING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
volunteers—should be convened early in the
planning stage to refine the program objec-
tives and determine if volunteers can provide
the  level of expertise required. This  early
involvement of all potential user groups is
key to ensuring the success of the volunteer
program. If State personnel have helped plan
a volunteer monitoring program, they will
support it more enthusiastically, and if vol-
unteers are  represented  in  the  planning
process, their needs and those of the State
agency will be better integrated.
    In addition, to ensure continued  and
careful data collection, it is important that
participants see the end use of the data:
    "An agency is better served by volun-
   teers who have a direct stake in what is
   being monitored, when they see them-
   selves as stewards of their particular
   area and when they benefit from their
   monitoring efforts. One of the more
   successful monitoring projects in Puget
   Sound  is  the  collection of shellfish
   (which are then examined) for red tide
   contamination. The monitors are rec-
   reational clam diggers who are anxious
   to hear the results of their monitor-
   ing—for obvious reasons!"  (Pritchard
   1988)

2.3 ESTABLISH QUALITY ASSURANCE
AND CONTROL
    Data users and water quality analysts
must have confidence in the representative-
ness, consistency, and accuracy of data col-
lected by volunteers. Effective quality assur-
ance and quality  control  (QA/QC) proce-
dures and a  clear delineation  of QA/QC
responsibilities are therefore essential to
ensure the utility of environmental monitor-
ing data.
    The USEPA QA/QC program requires
that all EPA national program offices, EPA
regional offices, and EPA laboratories partici-
pate in a centrally planned,  directed, and
coordinated  Agencywide QA/QC program.
This requirement also applies  to efforts car-
ried out by the States and interstate agencies
that are supported by EPA through grants,
contracts, or other formalized agreements.
The  EPA QA program is based upon EPA
order 5360.1, "Policy and Program Require-
ments to Implement the Quality Assurance
Program" {USEPA  1984a),  which describes
the policy, objectives, and responsibilities of
all EPA program and regional offices.
    Each office or laboratory  which gener-
ates data under EPA's QA/QC program must
implement the prescribed procedures to
ensure that precision, accuracy, complete-
ness, comparability, and representativeness
are known and documented.

Determine the Data Quality Objectives
    A full assessment  of the data quality
needed to meet the intended use should be
made before QA/QC controls are specified.
This can be done through the development of
data quality objectives  (DQO's). DQO's are
qualitative and quantitative statements de-
veloped by data users  that establish the
variability that can be tolerated by the user
and still meet the needs of the program.
Establishment of DQO's involves interaction
of program managers and their technical
staff in deciding what information is needed,
                     DEFINITIONS

        Although the terms quality assurance (QA) and qual-
    ity control (QC) are frequently used interchangeably or to-
    gether, in fact, they have different meanings.

      , QUALITY ASSURANCE is the whole system of activi-
    ties thatis carried out to provide users with data that meet
    defined standards of quality with a stated level of confi-
    dence. The QA system includes the coordinated activities
    of quality control and assessment. It is management's
    review and oversight at the planning, implementation,
    and completion stages of an environmental data collection
    activity that assures that data provided to data users are
    of the quality needed and claimed,

        QUALITY CONTROL refers to  those activities per-
    formed during environmental data collection to produce
   * data of desired quality to document that quality. It in-
   ^udes aetMtXgs' designed to ensure that no systematic
   ,_bia§ develops in the analysis system (beyond what is nor-
    mally present) that would exceed the accepted accuracy
    and precision limits of the analysis. Therefore, this proc-
    ess involves determining the "precision and accuracy" of
    the numbers. It also involves planning control procedures
    to ensure that the analysis stays "in control" and that data
    of known quality are produced.

       A third term, QUALITY ASSESSMENT, involves  a
    continuing evaluation of the performance of the people
    collecting and analyzing the data. Technicians and labo-
    ratory chemists undergo periodic inspections and "au-
    dits" to check their performance. They exchange samples
    as well as analyze split samples to make sure no errors are
   f developing.

-------
PLANNING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
                    DEFINITIONS

  ACCURACY—Degree of agreement with true value, a meas-
  ure of bias In a system (refers to equipment or procedure).

  PRECISION—Measure of mutual agreement among indi-
  vidual measurements, reproducibility (refers to person
  using the equipment).

  REPRESENTATIVENESS—Degree to which data accu-
  rately and precisely represent an environmental condition.

  COMPARABILITY—A measure of confidence with which
  one data set can be compared to another.

  COMPLETENESS—A measure of amount of valid data ob-
  tained compared  to the amount expected to be obtained.
                  why it is needed, how it will be used, how it
                  will be collected,  and any time/resource
                  constraints affecting  data collection.  It is
                  especially important to get the  formal in-
                  volvement and support of your Quality As-
                  surance Officer during the development of
                  DQO's. By involving everyone who plans to
                  use the data, as well as the groups assigned
                  to collect it, one can increase the likelihood
                  that it will  meet the  needs of the user(s).
                  USEPA (1984b) describes the process for
                  developing DQO's in more detail.

                  Develop a Quality Assurance Plan
                      USEPA order 5360.1 also requires State
                  monitoring programs supported by EPA
                  grants to prepare Quality Assurance Project
                  Plans (QAPjP). A QAPjP documents the relia-
                  bility of monitoring data by formally stating
                  the program objectives, organization, moni-
                  toring procedures, and specific QA and QC
                  activities designed to achieve the data quality
                  goals of the program. The QAPjP must de-
                  scribe the procedures that document preci-
                  sion, accuracy, and completeness of environ-
                  mental measurements and  specify  the re-
                  sulting level of confidence.
                      Information on preparing a QAPjP is
                  included in Chapter 4.1. In addition, three
                  EPA guidance documents are available to
                  assist in preparation  of the Quality Assur-
                  ance Project Plan: a general guidance docu-
                  ment (USEPA 1980), a guidance document
                  that combines a work plan with the QAPjP
                  (USEPA 1984c), and a guide for preparing
                  plans  for  the National  Estuary Program
                  (USEPA 1988).
2.4 ASSIGN STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
    It is essential to the success of a volun-
teer monitoring program that a qualified staff
person be chosen to coordinate it. That per-
son should, ideally, have a technical back-
ground and experience in recruiting, train-
ing,  and managing volunteers. The  State
coordinator should also enjoy working with
the public and have a strong commitment to
the program.  Without a coordinator with
these qualifications, the  program may en-
counter problems.
    The Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring
Program, for example, began its efforts using
staff from different State agencies to coordi-
nate monitors; lack of central coordination
proved to be a serious obstacle to the pro-
gram.  An attempt  was  made to, give 'the
program's coordination activities to a con-
tractor. This also failed because of insuffi-
cient commitment by the contracting organi-
zation. The Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring
Program concluded that one central coordi-
nator with technical expertise and personal
commitment was necessary to maintain the
program.
    Planning and implementing a successful
volunteer monitoring program is a full time
job and it should be  the coordinator's top
priority at all times (see sample job descrip-
tion on p. 25). Although exact duties may
vary between programs, in general the coor-
dinator will:
    • serve as administrator of the project;
    • recruit and train volunteer monitors;
    • receive,  store, and analyze data;
    • produce reports that summarize the
      data; and
    • carry out quality control activities.
    The  coordinator must maintain close
contact with the volunteers to ensure that the
stated QC standards of the data are met and
to be available to answer questions promptly.
After all, a large part of the volunteers' reward
for services rendered is access to the knowl-
edge of experts in the field, as well as the
perception that their concerns are being heard
by people with the ability and authority to
respond to these concerns.
    Some States have enlisted the support
and cooperation of regional and local govern-
ments to help with training volunteers and in
the coordination of the program. Illinois uses
its Regional Planning Commissions for this
purpose. Anne Arundel County, Maryland
recruits a volunteer team leader for each wa-

-------
                                                         PLANNING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
                         SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTION
                 VOLUNTEER MONITORING COORDINATOR
         The Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator has the following
         responsibilities:

         In consultation with state agency personnel and other interested
     parties, determine which watersheds and which parameters in these
     watersheds will be monitored.

         Recruit volunteers for ea,ch project. This will involve contacting
     Interested groups, elected officials, and possibly businesses and indus-
     tries in the area.

         Make arrangements for a place to conduct a training session and
     arrange a time to suit a majority of volunteer monitors. Train any vol-
     unteers who are unable to attend the training session.

         Keep in close touch with individuals at beginning of project. Answer
     any questions volunteers may have. Read over each data sheet as it
     comes in and contact any monitors who seem to be having trouble.
     Send refill reagents and replacement equipment upon request.

         If required, enter all data in a suitable computer filing system.
     Carry out documentation and verification on the data. Provide plots of
     data to monitors and to data users. Carry out preliminary data inter-
     pretation. (These data management activities may be carried out by
     other State staff or volunteers. If so, the volunteer monitoring coordina-
     tor will assume an advisory role.)

         Provide feedback to participants and data  to users. This will involve
     writing progress reports and articles for publication in the program
     newsletter.

         Plan for and carry out quality control sessions.  There should be one
     about three months after start-up of any new  project and at six month
     intervals thereafter.

         Prepare quarterly reports for the sponsoring agency.
tershed. This volunteer is responsible for the
collection and initial proofreading of data
forms and for dispensing replacement rea-
gents and equipment as needed. In New York,
some county planning offices and regional
soil and water conservation districts coordi-
nate  with local lake associations.
   In summary, it is clear that many people
from a variety of agencies and backgrounds
should be involved during the planning phase
of a State-coordinated volunteer monitoring
program. The most important planning task
they  face is to ensure  that all interested
parties—from the  State agency  program
manager to the volunteer in the field—under-
stand and agree on the goals, limits, and
needs of the program they are launching.
Only when the basic planning groundwork is
laid should the State move on to implement
its volunteer monitoring program.

-------

-------
         CHAPTER 3- IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM

s?-v": •^iJea^'1-"-^ :>*^--<"^4F:>: t^^vwi^K I
||'S^*^SeS«;«l


-------
 IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PR0GRAM
Table 3.1
Scientific Supply Houses.
A partial list of chemical
and scientific equipment
companies that currently
supply volunteer programs.
   Ihe experience of several State-managed
volunteer monitoring  programs has shown
that implementation  should begin with a
pilot project. A pilot project allows the State
to test its chosen approach—its recruitment
and training procedures, its equipment and
parameters for testing, and its data manage-
ment and analysis procedures—on a limited
scale before moving on to an expanded pro-
gram.
    This chapter will  focus on setting up a
pilot project that can serve as the starting
point for the  State's  volunteer monitoring
program. Procedures outlined in this section
apply as well  to the implementation of the
post-pilot program. This chapter will go on to
discuss how to expand the pilot project, and
provides advice on maintaining the interest
of participating volunteer monitors.

3.1 ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM
    The pilot project provides an opportunity
for the coordinator and supporting personnel
to encounter on a small scale the types of
problems they will face in setting up a state-
wide program. The average pilot project will
probably be limited in  scope  to  one large
watershed or several smaller ones.

Pick a Location
    The pilot project should begin in an area
that can be successfully monitored by volun-
teers. Factors to consider include: 1)  a real
need for water quality information from this
area, thereby ensuring the immediate use of
the data collected; 2}  a need for the type of
data that can be obtained with methods
known to be successfully tested by volun-
teers; 3) an available pool of people willing to
participate; 4) physical and  legal access to
the water.

Select Sampling Equipment
    The first step in selecting the best equip-
ment for the pilot project is  to test existing
kits and equipment,  picking those which
appear to meet program needs. These kits
and equipment  should then be tested on
water samples of known quality to determine
accuracy, precision, and ease of use. Consid-
erations in selecting a piece of equipment or
kit include the level of skill required to use it;
the cost of the kit; and any limitations the kit
may place on the data that are collected. A
partial list of chemical and equipment com-
panies that currently supply volunteer pro-
grams is presented in Table 3-1.
    Once volunteers have been recruited, ex-
tra equipment and reagents should be or-
dered to allow for breakage in transit and
addition of sites or monitors during the re-
cruitment process. Extra equipment  may
also be needed  to train  assistants and to
allow for possible loss or breakage by the
volunteers. Establish a policy to identify who
will be responsible for paying for lost or bro-
ken equipment (free replacements are prefer-
able in most circumstances).
    When the sampling equipment has been
selected and the sampling protocol has been
established, an instruction manual should
be prepared. Manuals that have been pub-
lished by other volunteer monitoring  pro-
grams may be suitable. However, it is helpful
TABLE 3-1
SCIENTIFIC SUPPLY HOUSES
~ t
PRODUCT NAME ADDRESS/PHONE NO. DESCRIPTION
LaMotte Chemical Products, Inc.
VWR Scientific.
Thomas Scientific
Milllpore Corporation
HACH Company
Fisher Scientific
PO Box 329, Chestertown, MD 21620, 1-800-344-3100.
PO Box 2643, Irving TX 75061, 1-800-527-1576.
Main Office, 609-467-2000.
Technical Services, 1-800-225-1380.
PO Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539, 1-800-525-5940.
711 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15219,1-800-225-4040
Chemical test kits for field and lab.
Scientific instruments and chemicals.
Scientific instruments and chemicals.
Specializing in bacterial testing.
Chemical test kits for field and lab.
Scientific instruments and chemicals.
This is only a partial iist of potential suppliers and does not imply endorsement by USEPA.

-------
                                                          IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
 to provide specific written information about
 the particular project. The manual should in-
 clude background information on what para-
 meters are being measured and how the data
 to be obtained relate to local water quality
 problems. It can also include step-by-step
 instructions, with illustrations, on the use of
 the sampling equipment.

 Design a Data Collection Form
    Most monitoring data, including data
 collected by volunteer programs, are stored
 and managed by computer. Data users and
 the data base manager should be involved in
 the development of the Data Collection Form
 to be sure that its information can be easily
 and accurately computerized. Consideration
 should also be given to the ease with which
 the form can be filled out and understood by
 the volunteers. Examples of Data Collection
 Forms used by existing programs are shown
 in Figures 3.1,  3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.(See Appen-
 dix for more examples.) Duplicate  forms,
 such as carbonless copies, make it possible
 for volunteers to maintain their own records.
    Recording  the "raw" numbers actually
 measured by the monitor minimizes later
 questions and confusion about the observed
 value reported. Any arithmetic should be
 carried out by the coordinator, preferably
 using a computer. As an example, see Figure
 3.3, the Severn River Data Collection Form.
 The monitor records the observed hydrome-
 ter reading and the temperature of the water
 in the jar at time of measurement. The correc-
 tion for  temperature and the  subsequent
 conversion from density to salinity are car-
 ried out using look-up tables or by computer.
 Potential errors made in the correction and
 conversion process are minimized.

 .Recruit Volunteers
    As soon  as the State coordinator has
 decided  where the  pilot  project will be
 launched and what equipment will be used,
 volunteers can be recruited. The  first step is
 to identify all organizations and  individuals
 in the area who might want to participate in
 the project. Likely groups include civic asso-
 ciations,  watershed associations,  environ-
 mental advocacy groups, commercial and
recreational users of the waterbody, govern-
 ment officials and agencies, waterfront prop-
 erty owners, and public schools, community
 colleges,  and universities. State employees
and advisors may know people who  would
like to be involved or may wish to volunteer if
they live in the  chosen watershed.
OSAVE OUR STREAMS
Stream Quality Survey
The purpose of this form isle ?«* yo» ingatnenng and H&MidtngTmpartam data about the health ot your
stream Bykeflpingaccorat8arK3consistei«recciro^ofyouroteen(ations^m3datatromyoijrinsec!courtf •<
.jyoy'eannQU'c«arKido^rmotchartgeslnw (
to trap andtdentify trie organisms "„ ~ ' ~
Stream Station
County
„ .Grouo or Individual • , , > „
'You shouid. ss^ct.artfi!eiiihere.i;
cons'isis'of oofabfe-sized stones, or-fe
Area of montfofed riffle (Should be 3
Water depth finches)
Samols number

Num
te water is not running, too last (ids
i/gar.
foot square)
iber-oi participants ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,.1.^_^.
al.dapthis3.-'6itwh9s),andthebed •
* ? •*
	 .Waier temper-aunt r«.

Time :
;-Type of test: '.'i,,:,,,-,',-,:,', maerotrtveiiebrats count, ,-,-i,-r,,,i-., chemical test tai, „.,„.„.,.., other
Water appearance: .Orforr Stability ol stream bed;
Jta_^_-,brawnjsh ,„ 	 rotten egg Bed sinksbeneathyour
.cleat 	 musky 'fe'etin;
, „,„„ ,i colored 'sheen (oily) >-,-.-. •- none i............... no spots •
"""• 	 c_' ipam. • i a (ew spois
w^^jnSky- •• stream bad coating; 	 many spots '
.•scunv __,_
. 	 «lher _
?S fian* Goverextbyetaras,
jocks andlogs fs._ 	 ^_^, 	 „„
. -Top of bank.
s 'flee* composition of riffle:
'%sift(mudj
, ,„ i:^asand'(l^S'--1M"gf3hs).
	 %8«V8lOW*- 2" stones)
	 ;%eobMas'{2^ - tO'-stones)
	 WboUidSrsi> tO'stonesj
:;{>*•: greater than. <« less than) '
-„,„ tzaakwatton league i«i wn
_^iK5Wn •
_ orange/red
Good Fair
	 _._
•fl/gae cotor:
„,„, tight greeft"
u^__^ bfQwrt coated
	 r hairy

ion Boulevard Level <& Arfingion V«

Poor
zn ]
Algas located:
, 	 „ 'f Spots

it»& 223» f?03; 5£a j^jg

MACtolNVERTEeERA
Use fetter codeft (A *t-s B-io
yakia," "
GOOD
;,„„.,„ dobsonlV farvae
j 	 „„ mayfly nyrr^hs
ie_^_ other snails
j,,,,,,, ' riffle beetiaadua
^Iiijmu ^fitcjnefly nymphs
i~t~~~~,'J water panny taiyae
„ 	 ffof letters
tE COUNT

S3, c» 100 ornwre) to record the numbarsof organisms (ourid in a "
number 61 tetter s in'each co'fcimftand; muitipty by the indicated Index •
FAIR }
C3 baelte larvae '
LZj ^"is i
trrl crane tly larvae
	 crayfish
, 	 .damsajfiy nyn^hs
IZI scads
	 :sowbugs
j__J attienx
	 _.#iQ"t fetters
times 2 »
jj,n.J index V4iu? t-
POOR
l,,,!J aqLiaife worm's
. , J blackfty iarvaa
,™J reaches'
, 	 I mfttge larvae
,„„„ i pouch srtaiis .
^ 	 :#of letters
P-,™ tlmes-l B *
L«*— J iridaxvafoe
~ r Now add together the three index vafaeav-,,-, ,-,;;,_: total indeic vafaa;
..Corrparattiis total index wiftae to ihe foitowing nombets totietetrniis the water quality o( your stream, 'Good
^wafer qoalt^ is indicated by a variely oi different i 22}
f~l Fa/rf«-«J
i"""] Good tf7 -22)
L^n Poor(
-------
 IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
Figure 3.2
(Top left) Data Postcard
used by tho Wisconsin
Self-Help Lake Monitoring
Program.
Figure 3.3
(Top right) Alliance
(or the Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring
Program Data Collection
Focm.
1, Y*u iJwutd tu
**lny«ur
th* S*t» t> r
th*»Cawt»
Mltl IK* It
I, iM^rf .ff U-
ihcuiCuyK
«.a ft. *
«'j-,
3. it (• pMilb
wtitbt* run
«f tfx Uk*»
r«
t,U,t«d
WttcrCckwtCteteonc} Ct»BJoc Gran Brawn
Flew dftk fe «*&« (hub** dacribei yo« opttuoa en bow wfcMa
dM bt« wwcr i> fot NEiuCioa «xl uidutie n^ynottKlir;
I, Bewt&d. could notb* ray sit*.
2, V^a^>^^pf3M^,n«nMfr,vbmL'it,tx>Ubit,
oWpttnt,
3. S.A^^«S«»kB«or«B(rfitfjl/&n(«indb««i«e0tdpc1
4. D«^iatwta^totto{agayBiaKofteUk«ti±K*itii!lyi«'JUe«l
b««^^«^^[«.Si^xbll^Uoi./}.
5. SviMi^mtKiA^tn^roaUtrfihel^Bc^impoMAlebeetiue
«faIpehmL
Otot CtaMtteK {tacbde wuihe; fee-on; fcwrff; tlpl Uoosw, «K.)

iv> r*c*lnd th* Ut* fa rutwr iKchl tttic r»d!n«. A>k yeumlf tt»
rilnli* miton. If da ret *ne* quMtlon: Oo*» «i« nhft« ef th* d{ie took
ufcrr, B*U « MU of It tnltr tAIM, or tfcwf It «pfMir flf«n or brmn} If
• iKtlvi of ih» pMtctrd vd « II »prxtr* iAU«, th*n th* wt*r color (*
M yw. "Ct«*r/»lu^. meet -OrMn- or "iroun" ff
I«c£fi! &K r*»dlnot i» th* " " " " " " "" ' " '
*r toot, 1* tart to Indfcit* 6, Indlcct* your eptnron of th* i»t«r qiullty.
>r*uti«. e.g. 11 1/t ft. • li««r onty to tht condition of tii* wttr
2 ft* 3 In. • II I/** • W.al " wlum, not th* wwit of wt«J« irounJ thi
>har«t(n* or olhtr* problaN. U* ir* trying
to a«t • f«l fw Jit* Midi •!«•« t« In th*
• tKtt UK tMdil dfte tilll b* «•?«•,
kiwi It 1* rtitlng (n th* tattoo
I* *ur* to clrcl* tt» ewf«t ?. tnclud* *ny rawtnti *t»ut th* HMthir, tntir
co-dtll™ (*.g. e*t») or other Infonmtton
th*t uflt help u> totter- vntenttKi the
I eUei U r*»J»«ttd only ff ibti. If you n*fd «w« poitord* «f h»«
iff ««Jf* «n th* trt*. oth*r qu*it(or>«, thli U tha b*tt plie* to
i Kiiur** mine th* I*edii dlie ipKtil Utttf ttnct th* ip*«* ti«r» (•
Uwr Un dlK M»ut * fast Into obviously United.
th* lit* Unr* you tit* trt*

RETWRH TOi .Gayla Cawpbell
•e/o Chesapeake Bay Ptogtaa '
410 Severn Av«. Suite 110
Annnp
-------
                                                             IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
     Strive to recruit volunteers from a wide
 range of backgrounds. This helps establish
 the program's credibility and ensures coop-
 eration within the community. Participant
 diversity provides the bonus of educating a
 greater variety of citizens in the community.
     Certain types of individuals  or groups
 may be more suitable than  others for your
 particular project. Both the Chesapeake Bay
 Citizen Monitoring Program and the New
 Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
 report failure in integrating students and
 youth groups into long-term monitoring
 programs because of the commitment re-
 quired and the need for summertime sam-
 pling.
     An attractive brochure or flier describing
 the overall volunteer monitoring program
 can be  an effective recruitment  tool.  This
 brochure should include information on the
 objectives of the  program—describing the
 benefit to the volunteer and to the resource—
 and should explain what will be expected of
 recruits.
    A letter giving more details about the
 pilot project should also be  developed and
 include information on:
     • proposed monitoring site locations;
    • project duration and length of commit-
       ment required of volunteers;
    • sampling frequency;
    • required equipment for volunteers (car
       or boat);
    • volunteer qualifications, if any (back-
       ground in  laboratory  techniques or
       knowledge of aquatic biology are ideal.
       However, it  should be kept in mind
       that setting specific volunteer qualifi-
       cations will limit participation in the
       program, possibly below an effective
       minimum level).
    The letter and brochure should be sent to
all identified interest groups. A short time
later, the State volunteer coordinator should
call the leaders of those groups and offer to
attend a group meeting and answer ques-
tions about the project. If possible, the coor-
dinator should develop a short slide presen-
tation that describes the program and shows
some of the sampling equipment and tech-
niques. This will make it easier for potential
volunteers to determine whether or not they
would be interested in volunteering and are
capable of carrying out the  tests.
    Followup calls to the organizations that
have been visited are essential in  enlisting
volunteers. During the call, personal ques-
tions can be answered, the degree of volun-
teer interest can be gauged, and arrange-
ments can be made for training.
    The State may wish to develop a one year,
performance-based "contract" as one way to
ensure that those who agree to participate in
the program are fully committed.

Train Volunteers
    The initial training of the volunteers is
crucial. Without such training, usable, high
quality data cannot be obtained, and volun-
teers will soon grow frustrated. A few practi-
cal considerations should be noted here:
    1. The  coordinator  should be  sure  to
    schedule the training session for a time
    when most volunteers can attend—most
    often  an evening or a weekend.
    2.  Potential  monitors should  be told
    beforehand how long  the training will
Figure 3.5
M^B^Bi
Sample Language
for Liability Waiver.
                           FIGURE 3.5

   SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR LIABILITY WAIVER
 ,  ,                        WAIVER
  In consideration of the foregoing, I, myself, my heirs, and executors do
  hereby release and discharge all Boston Harbor Monitoring Program
  supportingorganizations for all claims, damages demands, actions, and
  whatsoever in any manner arising or growing out of my participation in
  said monitoring program.

  Signature:
 Date:

 If a volunteer is under 18 years of age, a parent or guardian must sign the waiver

 SOURCE? Massachusetts Audubon Society 1986.
                       IMPORTANT NOTE-LIABILITY
    The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Water Quality Bureau
 of the Division of Environmental Quality) intends that citizen volunteers
 participating in this program are not acting On behalf of the Department
 of Health and Welfare in any official capacity. As such, it is the Depart-
 ment's intent that citizen volunteers are not authorized to be considered
 agents, employees, or authorized representatives of the Department for
 any purpose,  and that citizen volunteers are not entitled to the same
 benefits enjoyed by Department employees.
    Citizen volunteers must recognize the potential for injury to them-
 selves and their real and personal property, and to other persons and their
 real and personal property, which may result from citizen  volunteer
 activities conducted under the Citizen's Volunteer Monitoring Program.
 The Department intends that citizen volunteers expressly assume all
 risks and liability for any injuries to, or caused by,  citizen volunteers
 under this Program.
    Citizen volunteers will be instructed in proper sampling techniques
 arid handling of sample preservative acids. They will also be cautioned
 that if there is  ever any doubt, they sould give safety priority over
 sampling. Every participant will also recive a copy of this study plan and
 sampling procedures.
 SOURCE: Bellatfy 1989.

-------
 IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PRpGRAM
Figure 3.6
•••••••
Example Quality Control
Exercise. The volunteers
were divided Into two
groups to avoid
congestion at any one
station. Test solutions
were: A-Bay water,
B -vinegar and water with
pH of 4.0, C-pH 7.0 buffer
solution, D-ammonia and
water with pH of 10.
E-container ol Bay water
(or testing dissolved
oxygen (DO). F- container
of water having no
dissolved oxygen.
Q. cooler with room
temperature water and
H-teebath. J,K,L,M-
hydrometer Jars containing
water ol different salinity
values.
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring
Program.
                                      Figure 3.6
                 DIRECTIONS/FLOW DIAGRAM FOR QlMiTY ASSURANCE EXERCISE
                        Place thermometer in room temperature water bath

                       ••+   Collect and fix 2 DO samples of Solution E

                           i  Read room temperature thermometer

                               Place thermometer in ice bath
         GROUP A-pH
Test and record pH units on solutions
          A,B,C,D.
      GROUP B-Hvdrometers
Place hydrometer in Solutions J, K, L, &
   M: Record Specific Gravity and
         Temperature.
                               Complete DO test on Solution E
                                 Record value and Clean up

                            Collect and fix DO samples of Solution F
                                Group 6- Do pH as above
                                                             GROUP A-Take Hydrometer
                                                                readings as above
                                                          Complete DO test on Solution F
                                                              Record and Clean up

                                                                   BREAK

                                                           Compare data/discuss results
                           last and that they must plan to stay for
                           the entire session. The training session
                           should last no longer than four hours.
                           3. The program coordinator must have
                           adequate assistance. Nothing will dis-
                           courage volunteers more than a poorly-
                           run initial training session. Generally, a
                           1:5 trainer to volunteer ratio is needed to
                           ensure that volunteers can be closely.
                           observed and corrected as they begin
                           learning sampling techniques. Groups of
                           more than  20 people are difficult to
                           manage.
                           4. Any  onsite  (water's edge)  activities
                           should be carried out at a location similar
                           to that which the monitors will encounter
                           at their  assigned sites.
                           Atraining session agenda should include
                       the following activities:
                           1. Presentation on the goals and objectives
                       of the project, preferably by a representative
                       of the user agency or group. This presentation
                       can include why people monitor,  historical
                                             information on the watershed, the problems
                                             that led to the decision to undertake  this
                                             project, what the data will be used for,  and
                                             how the project will benefit the volunteers,
                                             the community and the State. More detailed
                                             background information can be included in
                                             the  instruction manual or  other written
                                             materials.
                                                 2. A restatement of what will be expected
                                             of the participants—how long  the training
                                             session will last and how long the project is
                                             expected to continue.
                                                 3. Distribution of all equipment and an
                                             explanation, in general terms, of its use; what
                                             would constitute abuse; what items are par-
                                             ticularly fragile; replacement policy and cost;
                                             and policy on returning the equipment at the
                                             end of the project.
                                                 4. An overview of all necessary safety
                                             requirements.  Safety measures  should be
                                             carefully explained in the written materials
                                             and should be brought to the attention of
                                             volunteers at this point, emphasizing chemi-
                                             cal emergency information. If boats are being

-------
                                                             IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
used for sampling,  volunteers should be
reminded about basic safety practices. If it is
necessary to collect liability waivers  (see
Figure 3.5), pass these out and discuss the
approach the sponsoring group or agency is
taking.
    5. An overview of the actual monitoring
procedures.  A slide show of step-by-step
procedures is very helpful.
    6. A trial run-through of the procedures.
Trainers  should first demonstrate proper
methods, then circulate among the volun-
teers as they practice what they have learned.
    7. Question and answer session.
    The Ohio Scenic River Volunteer Moni-
toring Program Coordinator recommends that
participants be given a week or so to consider
their level of commitment after  the initial
workshop. This will screen out those  who
may simply be "caught up in the moment,"
and not actually willing to make a long-term,
serfous commitment to the program (Kopec
1990).

Conduct Ongoing Quality Control
    Quality control (QC) is extremely impor-
tant in all monitoring programs and can be a
source  of criticism in programs  that use
volunteers in monitoring. The challenge for
volunteer program managers is to carry out
QC exercises that assess the precision of the
data being collected but are also fun-and
interesting for the volunteers. Experienced
volunteer coordinators recommend turning
these quality control sessions into educa-
tional and social opportunities for the volun-
teers,  while  making sure that volunteers
understand why QC is  important. Quality
control sessions can be held anywhere there
is sufficient space, light, and access to a sink
(for cleanup) and facility for safe waste dis-
posal.
    The  first QC -session  should be held
about 3-4 months after sampling begins to
make sure that  all monitors are  sampling
and analyzing in a consistent fashion, and to
answer any questions. Thereafter, two QC
sessions should  be held each year if sam-
pling goes on throughout the year. If sam-
pling is  carried  out on  a seasonal  basis,
retraining and  training sessions for  new
monitors can be held at the beginning of the
sampling period and a QC check session can
be scheduled for the middle of the season.
    Volunteers should be expected to attend
all scheduled sessions. If a volunteer cannot
attend at least one session a year, the coor-
dinator (or a trained assistant) should make
a site visit and evaluate the monitor's sam-
pling procedures.
    Quality control exercises should be as
interesting as possible. There are two basic
approaches:
    1. All attendees carry out the tests on the
same water sample with their own equipment
the way they do it at their site. They fill out
and submit a data collection form with their
results; or
    2. All attendees read and record results
from previously set up laboratory equipment
and kits similar to a classroom laboratory
practical exam.
    Data  collection forms with the results
recorded are submitted independently. The
results can than be compared to determine
bias. (See Figures 3.6 and 3.7 for examples of
protocol and instruction sheets for QC exer-
cises.)
    The results from these sessions provide a
measure  of how well  the members  of the
group perform and how precisely they meas-
                                   Figure 3.7
                                   Example Quality Control
                                   Exercise. The volunteers
                                   took readings from
                                   samples that were set up
                                   around the room. The
                                   temperature, pH, and
                                   hydrometer samples had
                                   a range of values. The
                                   dissolved oxygen sample
                                   was taken from a bucket
                                   of water collected from a
                                   nearby tidal river.
                                   SOURCE: Chesapeake
                                   Bay Citizen Monitoring
                                   Program.
                              Figure 3.7
            gUALITY CONTROL AUDIT FORM
 : DIRECTIONS:  You may take readings of the various samples in any order. This
  '           should minimize waiting.

 "TEMPERATURE: Keep the bulb of the thermometer in the water at all times so that the
 " "          readings will be consistent from one person to the next. Record
             temperature to the nearest 0.5° C.

  HYDROMETER: Record four (4) decimal places on the hydrometer readings and the
             temperature to the nearest 0.5°C.

 * pH:         Record pH to the nearest 0.5 unit.

 *- DISSOLVED   Do one titration using your own kit. When you rinse the sample
  OXYGEN:     bottle, pour the rinse water into the jar beside the bucket and be very
    '7 "•     gentle when filling the sample bottle to avoid aerating the water in
  ,  ,   r-r ,-, „ the bucket,

  SECCHI DEPTH: (Weather Permitting) Go to the place marked on pier and take reading
             with your disk.
  Temperature:
  Hydrometer:
  pH:
 Reading_
, Reading_
 Reading
  RESULTS
°C     Thermometer #_
°C     Thermometer #_
°C     Thermometer*
 Jar #1: Hydrometer reading_
 Jar #2: Hydrometer readin
 Jar 13: Hydrometer reading..

 Comparator #1
 Comparator #2	
 Comparator #3
  Dissolved Oxygen Titration:_
  Secchi depth:	
              Temperature	"C
              Temperature       °C
              Temperature	°C

             Standard Units (SU)
             Standard Units (SU)
            .Standard Units (SU)

            _ mg/l or ppm
              m

-------
 IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
                    ure  the  characteristics  and constituents
                    required.
                        Volunteers should be expected to sample
                    on a schedule agreed to when they committed
                    to participate in the  program. Sampling
                    schedules are usually missed for very basic
                    reasons—sampling equipment breaks or the
Photo bj/ CynDita Dunn.

Volunteers will count
theflshcaughllna
seine net hi a marsh
creek on Port Isobel
blind, Virginia.
monitor runs out of reagent, for example. The
coordinator should  therefore keep replace-
ment equipment and reagents on hand at all
times and send requested replacements by
return mail. The amount of reagent needed
for most tests can be anticipated and replace-
ments can be  sent before the current sup-
plies are depleted. The amount of  a given
reagent supplied at one time and the fre-
quency of its replacement will depend on the
reagent's shelf life.-
    Inclement weather, vacations, and other
personal considerations  may  also cause
volunteers  to  occasionally miss  sampling
schedules during the year. If the project's
data  quality  objectives require absolute
adherence to the sampling schedule, reliable
substitutes should be recruited. Neighbors
can plan to share a site, for instance. These
substitutes should receive the same rigorous
training as the regular volunteers and should
carry out the sampling procedures every 4-6
weeks.

Refine Program Materials
    Volunteers can provide invaluable feed-
back  on  the effectiveness of the training,
equipment, and other materials used in the
pilot project. To get such feedback, coordina-
tors should prepare  questionnaires to  be
distributed at the initial training session and
at the end of the pilot phase.
    At the end of the pilot phase, participants
can be asked to critique the entire program.
Questions that may be included are:
    • Did you find the instruction manual
      adequate? Any suggestions for improve-
      ment?
    • Did you have any trouble carrying out
      the tests? If yes, which ones and in
      what way?
    • What have you enjoyed most about
      your involvement in this project?
    • What have you enjoyed least? Sugges-
      tions for improvement?
    • Would you be willing to continue and
      for how long?
    • Did you receive enough information
      about the program to allow you to get
      maximum benefit from your participa-
      tion? What would you like to see added?
    • General suggestions for improving the
      program?
    A complete report should be prepared for
the data users and the advisory committee.
This should include the results of the pro-
gram evaluation questionnaires, a complete
listing of the data collected.time-series plots
or graphs of the data, and recommendations
for program continuance and improvement.

3.2 EXPAND THE PROGRAM
    An effective strategy for program expan-
sion will rest on the foundation laid at the
beginning of the program. Assuming the pilot
project has been successful, the expansion
will consist of branching out to more sites,
other watersheds or additional analyses. Any
problems that have been encountered during
the pilot project can be corrected before and
during program expansion.
    Planning for expansion should be based
on the results of the evaluation of the pilot
project and in consultation with the advisory
committee and data users.
    It will be necessary to identify sources of
funding and to make certain that volunteers
are available in the new locations. Essen-
tially, all the initial planning steps need to be
repeated to ensure an orderly and  timely
expansion.
    Remember that program expansion will
increase the need  for coordination, data
management,  and analysis at the project's

-------
                                                          IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
 central office. It may require additional staff
 or more of the principal staff person's time.
 Experienced volunteers may be recruited to
 assume tasks connected with the coordina-
 tion of the ongoing project (including recruit-
 ment of new volunteers) and summer interns
 may be helpful, particularly for projects that
 sample only in the summer  months. It is
 important  to bear in mind that program
 expansion brings with it the responsibility to
 maintain program continuation  at the  in-
 creased level. Volunteers are just that—vol-
 unteers. They can't always be relied upon to
 carry the  burden of program expansion.
 Contingency plans must  be  developed to
 provide personnel backups.

 3.3 MAKE THE MOST OF THE MEDIA
    There's "news" in citizen monitoring.
 These volunteer programs may not generate
 stories that play on page one or lead off the
 evening news broadcast,  but sponsoring
 organizations can still put the media to prac-
 tical use in furthering project goals.
    Publicity may be helpful  in  recruiting
 volunteers needed to start or expand a moni-
 toring program. News or feature stories about
 citizen monitoring also draw public attention
 to water quality issues and help  get across
 the idea that environmental  protection is
 everybody's job.
    It is not necessary to be a polished public
 relations professional to  be successful in
 working with the media, but it is necessary to
 take the initiative. Reporters are not likely to
 come looking for a story; a program spokes-
 person probably will have to make the first
 move. That spokesperson may be either the
 State coordinator or a dedicated volunteer.
    Before making the first move, it is impor-
 tant to take a look at the media serving the
 community. News outlets will probably in-
 clude a large metropolitan daily newspaper,
 smaller dailies, television stations, rural or
 suburban weeklies and newsletters distrib-
 uted by companies or community  groups.
These news organizations differ in their needs
 and interests, but have many similarities.
    No matter which news organization you
 are approaching, be prepared before you call
 or visit. Be able to provide concrete details
 about what citizen monitors do and where
they are doing it. Be  able to supply volun-
teers' names (be sure about the spelling) and
addresses. Ages and occupations can be of
interest, too. Have phone numbers handy in
case a reporter wants to follow up with other
participants.
 Here are some hints on getting media
 coverage:
 Metropolitan newspapers. Mass-circu-
 lation dailies are not strong on commu-
 nity news but they are always interested
 in good feature stories. If you know a
 member of the newsroom staff, that's a
 good place to start. If you don't have a
 personal contact, askfor the "news desk."
 Present the monitoring program as a do-
 it-yourself environmental project or offer
 another element of interest that may be
 the  "hook" for a feature story. Large
 papers use their own staff to write fea-
 tures  and take pictures, but they will
 need basic background information, other
 contacts, and  promising locations for
 photos.
 Television news. The "news desk" is an
 appropriate contact at television stations,
Gasper River Water
Watch Group after stream
cleanup, Bowling Green,
Kentucky.
                            Photo courtesy of Kentucky Water Watch Project
too. Stress the visual side of the story as
the basis for a news feature: scenic loca-
tions, actual monitoring operations, ar-
ticulate volunteers to explain what they
are doing. Be willing to make arrange-
ments that fit the schedule of a camera
crew.
Smaller daily or weekly newspapers.
Smaller papers, with fewer reporters, are
more receptive to articles submitted by
community groups. Remember that local
papers want local news. Include as many
names as reasonable. Stress the "grass
roots" elements of the monitoring proj-
ect. Provide photographs if available.
Newsletters. Organizational or corpo-
rate newsletters can be the channel of
choice when you want to reach a specific
audience with a specific message, i.e., to
entice additional volunteers into a moni-
toring program. Tell the newsletter editor
why his or her help is needed, and pro-

-------
IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
                      vide the item you'd like printed. Keep it
                      short unless the editor invites a longer
                      submission. Include a name and phone
                      number where readers can call for more
                      information.

                   3.4MAINTA[NVOLUNTEERINTERESTAND
                   MOTIVATION
                      Once good volunteers are recruited and
                   trained, the program  manager must work
                   hard to keep the volunteers  interested and
                   enthusiastic about their sampling efforts. An
                   example provided by  the Kentucky Water
                   Watch illustrates this point.
                      In a 1986 pilot study,  the Kentucky
                   program compared the performance of two
                   groups, one which  had actively requested
                   monitoring duties and one which had been
                   asked to participate. The groups were pro-
                   vided with varying levels of support based on
                   their initial interest in monitoring. The group
                   that  had requested monitoring duties re-
                   ceived little contact following training, lost
                   interest rapidly, and did not submit data. In
                   contrast, the group that had been recruited
                   was telephoned at least once each month to
                   acknowledge receipt of sampling results and
                   to discuss the data; this goup submitted data
                   for ten of the twelve sampling periods.
                      Successful monitoring programs devote
                   significant resources to activities designed to
                   motivate their volunteers. For example:
                       1. Send volunteers regular data reports.
                   Data received from volunteers should  be
                   reviewed and entered into a data base  as
                   quickly as  possible. At least twice a year,
                   volunteers  should be  sent data summaries
                   and time series plots showing their data and
                   data collected by nearby volunteers. The data
                   should be checked for errors  and volunteers
                   should provide the manager with informa-
                   tion  on missing data points or misrepre-
                   sented data.
                       2. Keep volunteers informed about  all
                   uses of their data. Volunteers should know
                   ahead of time how their data will be used. If
                   they are contributing to a long-term data
                   base, prepare annual data summaries show-
                   ing the current condition of the waterbody
                   compared to  its previous condition.  If the
                   data are used for acute problem identifica-
                   tion, send the volunteers information on areas
                   where problems have been found. Explain
                   how the volunteer data helped identify the
                   water quality issue. If the data are being used
                   to supplement the State 305(b) report (as,  for
                   example, in Rhode Island, Minnesota and Il-
                   linois), send volunteers copies of the report,
or sections pertinent to their waterbody.
    3. Prepare a regular newsletter. Volun-
teers need to be contacted regularly, so it is
better to prepare an informal newsletter that
can be sent out often, rather than a more time
consuming, slick publication. The newsletter
should contain information on new or changed
sampling techniques, articles on the ecology
of the study area, and particularly interesting
interim results.  The volunteers  should  be
encouraged  to submit articles, and can" be.
recruited for editing and layout.
    4. Be easily accessible for questions and
requests. Give volunteers a phone number
where they can always leave a message (use
the State "Hot-line" if one exists, or install an
answering machine on a local line). Respond
to calls promptly; provide volunteers with the
information  they request. Do  not give the
volunteers  the  bureaucratic  run-around
("Who you really need to talk to is	").
    5. Provide volunteers with educational
opportunities. Be available to speak at civic
organizations when requested. Provide vol-
unteers with meetings and regular work-
shops where guest speakers  can explain
environmental sampling techniques or pro-
vide information on environmental policies
pertinent  to the sampling effort. Potluck
dinners and picnics are nice ways to get
volunteers to meet and interact with  each
other.
    6. Keep  the local media informed of the
goals and findings of the monitoring effort.
Prepare news releases  covering major pro-
gram activities such as  annual meetings,
annual training retreats, or the expansion of
the program to a new watershed. Encourage
media coverage of all activities but be sure to
keep the  tone  of the articles upbeat and
positive. The media provide visibility for  re-
cruiting new volunteers and  lobbying  for
increased funding.  Volunteers also like to
see their efforts appreciated by the local com-
munity.
    7. Recognize the volunteers' efforts. Define
the most appropriate recognition techniques
for your volunteers and your program. Some
programs provide volunteers with awards for
continued dedication to the sampling effort,
while other  programs find that awards and
souvenirs are not appropriate to  their
participants.
    8. Provide volunteers opportunities to
"grow" with  the program through additional
training, learning opportunities, and chang-i
ing responsibilities.

-------

                   j, #**(.* **
                  -H<.j



                  ^%
              j^^l&^£X,j£,
t%W!?iiP«f*?lL»  <•*», *»**•;• infer.* ^f\, jatv
         !•
         »*••

                                                      CHAPTER 4 - PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION


                                                  ri-   *  '"*«ii
                                                                               'A Tl   a. % A.

                                                                                                    dMSSjt .
                                                                                  LtfT>J
                                                       «5i*:

                                                    —  ^~'
                                                                                    -«,i*

-------
PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
                    Respite the performance of many success-
                  ful volunteer monitoring programs, there is
                  still some  skepticism in the scientific and
                  technical community that volunteers can
                  make positive contributions to environmental
                  data bases. An important element in over-
                  coming this skepticism is to demonstrate
                  that volunteer monitors can provide credible
                  information.
                       To ensure that credible data are collected
                  and used, it is necessary that data be quality
                  assured and adequately documented. This
                  chapter provides "how-to" information for
                  preparing a Quality Assurance Project Plan
                  (QAPjP) and for providing data documenta-
                  tion. A QAPjP states the program objectives,
                  organization, monitoring procedures, and
                  specific quality assurance and quality control
                  activities designed to achieve the data quality
                  goals of the program.
                       A Data Documentation Form should be
                  filed with the data base. This form provides
                  details about why, where, how and under
                  what circumstances the data were collected.
                  Elements that should be included in such a
                  form are discussed in Section 4.2.
                       This chapter also includes a discussion
                  of data analysis and presentation methods
                  that have been successfully used by existing
                  volunteer monitoring programs.

                  4.1 PREPARE  A  QUALITY  ASSURANCE
                  PROJECT PLAN
                       Careful thought given to preparing and
                  implementing a thorough Quality Assurance
                   Project Plan (QAPjP) will ensure that quality
                   data are provided by the volunteer monitor-
                   ing program. The QAPjP format includes 16
                   elements,  discussed below. If a particular
                   element is not relevant to  the project, a brief
                   explanation of why it is not relevant should be
                   included.  (For detailed guidance on QAPjP
                   preparation, referto USEPA 1980b andUSEPA
                   1988.)
                   1. Title Page. The title page should include
                   names of the project officer, the immediate
                   supervisor,  the  funding  organization and
                   anyone else who has major responsibility for
                   the project.
                   2. Table of Contents is  a listing of the in-
                   cluded elements and appendices.
                   3. Project Description. The purpose of the
                   project should be clearly stated. This identi-
                   fied purpose, which sets the pace for all that
                   follows, should address questions such as:
                   "Will these data be used and, if so, by whom?
                   Have the data users evaluated the proposed
sampling schemes, study designs, and ana-
lytical schemes to establish their relevance to
the quality required by these  users? How
have the needs of the data users been trans-
lated into the study design in the broadest
sense?"
    Ageneral description ofthe project should
be provided in this section, including  the
experimental design. Describe exactly what
will be sampled with an explanation of how
the decision was made. Site locations should
be identified by latitude and longitude. It may
be  difficult to predetermine site locations
until all volunteers are recruited.  In that
case, state any site selection criteria that will
be used and explain the general type of site
that will be sought.
4. Project Organization and Responsibil-
ity . State the identified structure or organi-
zation responsible for the implementation of
the program. A flow chart may be helpful
here. Identify individuals responsible for the
following as appropriate to the project's stated
objectives:
    • Overall QA/QC
    • Sampling and sampling QC
    • Analytical work and analytical QC
    • Data processing and data processing
      QC
    • Data review
    • Program reviews
    Determine  what qualifications are re-
quired for participants,  if any, and what
provisions will be made for initial and routine
training.
5. QA Objectives. For each major measure-
ment parameter,  list the QA objectives  (de-
rived from the  Data Quality Objectives) for
precision, accuracy, representativeness, com-
pleteness, and comparability. The program
should be set up to produce data that are "in
control" and "of known quality," i.e. data for
which the accuracy, bias and precision have
been determined.
    The QA objectives can be summarized in
a table as shown in Table 4-1.
6.  Sampling Procedures.  Decide  which
parameters can be monitored by volunteers.
Existing programs ,have demonstrated  that
most parameters, including those requiring
complicated sampling procedures,  can be
accurately monitored  by volunteers if the
recruitment process targets citizens with the
appropriate level of expertise (see New York
program profile in the Appendix). The overall
program goal will determine whether

-------
                                                                            PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
TABLE4.1 t \
• '• . PRECISION AMD ACCURACY OBJECTIVES
PARAMETER
Temperature
pH
Salinity
Dissolved
Oxygen
Limit of
Visibility
METHOD/RANGE
Thermometer
-5.0° to +45°
Color Comparator
Wide-Range
Narrow-Range
Hydrometer
Micro Winkler
Titration
Secchi
Disk Depth
UNITS
°C
Standard
pH units
parts per
thousand 0/00
mg/l
meters
SENSITIVITY*
0.5°C
0.5 units
0.1
0.1 0/00
0,1 mg/l
0.05m -
PRECISION
±1.0
±0.6
?**
±1.0
±0.9
NA
ACCURACY
±0.5
' ±0.4
±0.2
±0.82
±0,3***
NA
CALIBRATION ,
with NBS Certified
Thermometers •
Orion Field ,
pH Meter
Beckman
pH Meter
Certified Salinity
Hydrometer Set
Standard
Winkler & Y.S.I. DO
Meter
NA
Note: The criteria used to judge completeness of data are addressed in.Section 5. ;
'Determined by the increments measurable with the, stated method reflecting estimation where allowed. ' '
"Lack of sufficient data at present. ' ' '
"'Paired t analysis (<*=0.05, 3 d.f ,} of the standard deviation of the mean difference between 4 paired determinations. ' Sring pr^ram ^ C"iz
-------
PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
                  and precision of monitoring equipment and
                  protocol by comparing the results obtained
                  with volunteer equipment to the data gener-
                  ated by standard laboratory equipment. De-
                  termine what calibration needs to be done on
                  the lab and field equipment. Maintain log
                  books or data sheets of calibration activities.
                  Keep a good record of equipment mainte-
                  nance and repairs. State what standards or
                  reference materials will be used in the project's
                  quality  control program.
                  9. Analytical Procedures. Be sure to docu-
                  ment any analytical procedures. Describe the
                  chemistry  of non-standard methods  used
                  and reference the method number and book
                  for accepted standard methods used.
                      If samples are sent to a State laboratory
                  for analysis,  a processing protocol must be
                  designed to avoid contamination and delays
                  which  could alter  laboratory results. The
                  protocol should specify how samples will be
                  preserved and packaged for transport to the
  The following data management recommendations were
  made by Illinois Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program staff
  based on seven years of experience refining their data man-
  agement system:

     • Organize data by waterbody identification numbers as-
  signed for 305(b) assessments rather than by inconsistent lake
  names.

     • Avoid the use of separate data coding procedures by de-
  veloping PC software with data entry screens similar to the data
  forms submitted by volunteers.

     • Enter the data into a PC system with editing capabilities
  to facilitate corrections.

     • Develop a program to upload the data from the PC file
  into STORET. Within STORET, statistical analysis can be per-
  formed with packages such as SAS (Statistical Analysis Sys-
  tem).

     • Store the data under a unique STORET agency code to
  distinguish the data collected by volunteers from the data col-
  lected by STATE personnel.

     • Two phases to data verification are recommended. First,
  the entered data must be  checked against the volunteer data
  sheets. Then the data should be plotted to detect outliers,
  which often indicate recording errors such as reporting meas-
  urements in incorrect units, or assigning a measurement to the
  wrong  sampling site.  Volunteers should keep separate  log
  sheets for reference to resolve questions about data.
  (Survey 1989. Bums)
lab; which days of the week to sample (to
enable the samples to arrive at the lab before
ice packs lose their effectiveness); and labo-
ratory procedures for labeling and storing
samples, and for recording data. Existing
programs  (New York  and Illinois) provide
volunteers with pre-labeled sample vials
containing preservatives and rely upon ice
packs to refrigerate samples in the mail dur-
ing transport to the lab. Laboratory analysis
procedures should  follow standard, EPA-
approved methodologies such as Standard
Methods for Water and Wastewater Treat-
ment (APHA, AWWA & WPCF 1985) or Hand-
book/or Analytical Quality Control in Water
and Wastewater Laboratories (USEPA1979).

1O.  Data Reduction, Validation,  and
Reporting. This element addresses the ac-
tivities involved in an overall data manage-
ment plan.
    Prepare standard data sheets that can be
folded into thirds and mailed  without an
envelope,  or on self-addressed  post cards.
Include the mailing address of the program
coordinator on the data sheet, and decide if
the data should be mailed into the central
office as soon as it is collected, or all together
at the end of the sampling season. Proce-
dures for logging-in the data as it arrives at
the central office must also be developed, so
that delinquent volunteers can be identified
and contacted to improve performance.
    Data  management software must  be
installed and tes\ted prior to  program
implementation to avoid the time-consuming
process of switching from a manual to a
computerized data management system. The
software should be capable of performing the
selected statistical analyses, and of producing
graphs, charts, and tables to  ease report
writing and reduce staff  workloads. Most
State-managed volunteer programs use some
type of spreadsheet (e.g.Lotus) or a data base
manager (e.g. dBASE) to store and manipulate
their data.
    When the coordinator (or other person
responsible for data management) receives a
data report from the volunteer monitor, the
data should be processed using procedures
developed and agreed upon during the plan-
ning stages of the project. Critical steps in-
clude the following:
     a. As soon as possible after receipt, screen
the data sheet thoroughly, checking for er-
rors in identification numbers, decimal place-
ment, dates, time, units reported, illegible
handwriting in comment  section, etc. The

-------
                                                                          PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
 volunteer monitor should be contacted by
 phone or letter to straighten out any prob-
 lems noted at this point while the information
 is still fresh in his or her mind. The volunteer
 monitor should be contacted if there are data
 gaps or if scheduled sampling times appear
 to have been missed. Every attempt should
 be made to screen out inaccurate data before
 they are entered into the computer data base.
 This step will also help the coordinator keep
 track of volunteer participation.
    b. Submit the edited forms for data entry.
    c. Carry out data verification on the com-
 puterized data. Data should be printed out in
 list form and in plots. The list should be
 checked against the original data sheets;
 plots should be examined for outliers so that
 simple recording mistakes (such as assign-
 ing data to the incorrect sampling site, re-
 porting incorrect units, or improperly placing
 decimals) can be identified.
    d. Submit corrections to data entry staff.
 After corrections are entered, a second ex-
 amination should  be made to verify that
 corrections were completed.
    e. Declare the data to be "clean" or veri-
 fied  and transmit to the data user, EPA's
 water quality information system (STORED,
 or other designated data base. Large com-
 puter data sets can be run through range
 checks  to  help identify inaccuracies and
 anomalies  that should be  checked against
 the original data sheets. Data  entry errors
 should be corrected. Inaccurate data;should
 be expunged from the data base. Inaccurate
 data are values that are simply not believ-
 able, such as a salinity recording of 322.0
 parts per thousand or a water temperature of
 209.0 degrees C.
    Anomalies, on the other hand, are true
 data which depart from the "typical" and
 therefore fall outside acceptable limits of
 defined range checks. In some cases,  the
 anomaly may be understood in combination '
with data recorded in another data set. Ex- '
 amples of anomalous data are an extremely
high concentration of dissolved oxygen in
warm water  during an algal bloom or an
atypical Secchi measurement due to floods or
heavy rains (USEPA 1989).

 11. Internal  Quality  Control Checks. The
approach to quality control will depend on
the type of project and parameters being
tested. A variety of QC activities can be
carried out at retraining and QC sessions.
(Refer to Chapter 3, "Conduct Ongoing Qual-
ity Control..")
    Ways to assure the quality of the data set
include running duplicate samples, sending
samples with parameter values unknown to
the monitors  and/or the laboratory,  and
using two methods to test the same parame-
ter.

12. Performance and  System Audits. A
systems audit consists of an evaluation of all
components of the measurement system—
the equipment, personnel,  and procedures—
to determine their proper selection and use.
Such an audit includes a careful evaluation
of both field and laboratory quality control
procedures. An audit should be performed
prior to or shortly after the proj ect begins and
periodically thereafter during the lifetime of
the project. This should include a review of
the program as a whole and the work of the
individuals performing the sample collection
and analysis.
   These activities are basically the same as
the internal QC checks detailed in the previ-
ous section. It is a good idea to bring in an
outside auditor (this might be the EPA Re-
gional  Quality Assurance  Officer (QAO) or
State QAO) at least once a year to take a fresh
look at your QC protocol and performance.
  Photo by John Bildoh!
Quality Control is an
important part of all
monitoring programs.
Volunteer monitors on
the Patuxent River in
Maryland get together
twice a year to compare
techniques and results.

-------
 PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
Trustom Pond Is one
ol several ecologically
fragile salt ponds found
along Rhode Island's
southern coast. Citizen
monitoring of bacteria In
these Ponds helped the
State close the pond to
shelinshing..
13. Preventive Maintenance. The following
types of preventive maintenance items should
be addressed in a QA plan:
    a.  a schedule of important preventive
    maintenance tasks that must be carried
    out to minimize gaps in the data. This
    might include backup monitors when
    people are ill or on vacation.
    b. the supply of equipment and reagents
    to  be kept on hand with a schedule for
    issuing fresh chemicals periodically.
    c.  assignment of an assistant (who can
    be a volunteer) to contact monitors who
    do not submit data sheets on time.
 Itttto by Jon Bootliroyd
                     14. Specific Routine Procedures Used To
                     Assess Data Precision, Accuracy, and Com-
                     pleteness.  The routine procedures used
                     should be included in the QA Plan. These
                    . procedures should include the equations to
                     calculate precision and accuracy and the
                     methods used to cany out any calibration
                     and comparability studies.
15. Corrective  Action. Corrective action
procedures include the following elements:
    a. the predetermined limits for data ac-
    ceptability beyond which corrective ac-
    tion is required.
    b. procedures foir corrective action  (i.e.,
    decision to throw out data, definition of
    outliers).
    c. identity of the individual responsible
    for initiating the  corrective action  and
    then approving it.
16. Quality Assurance Reports. The QAPjP
should provide  a mechanism for periodic
reporting to the  data user,  and  the
individual(s) responsible for preparing these
reports should be identified. As a minimum,
these reports should include:
    a. periodic assessment of data accuracy,
    precision, and completeness.
    b. results of any QC sessions and audits.
    c. significant QA problems and recom-
    mended solutions.
    In summary,  quality assurance  and
quality control should be a continuous proc-
ess  implemented throughout the entire
monitoring program.  As with  any scientific
endeavor, quality must be assured before the
results can be accepted. Quality assurance is
accomplished through establishment of thor-
ough participant training, protocol guide-
lines, comprehensive field and lab data docu-
mentation and management, verification of
data reproducibiliiy, and instrument calibra-
tion.

4.2 PREPARE A DATA DOCUMENTATION
FILE
    Careful and thorough documentation of
the data base ensures that it can be used with
confidence and  is especially critical for vol-
unteer monitoring  programs. Any water
quality data collected by volunteers may be
used by a State in its surface water assess-
ment reports to USEPA. Therefore, the codes
used in data entry .and storage  should be
compatible with those used in STORET or in
other relevant data sets. Data that will be
entered  into a State (or other formal)  data
base should be accompanied by appropriate
documentation.
     Elements that should be included in a
data documentation file include:
     a. Data set name, project title, name(s) of
     the individual(s) responsible for the data
     collection, name of collecting organiza-
     tion, and program sponsor.

-------
                                                                          PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
     b. A statement of the purpose of the data
     collection and, when available,  the re-
     sults and conclusions. This element can
     be designed to capture all other docu-
     mentation that cannot be placed in other
     fields, such as  key equations used to
     generate reported values.
     c. A description of the type of observation
     stations (buoy, pier, shore, boat)  includ-
     ing the number of stations or sites and
     number of observations.
     d.  Period of record (year/month/day)
     and hour (if applicable) of first and last
     observation. Length of record showing
     any breaks in the  records of data col-
     lected over a period of time. If significant,
     specify when variables were  added or
     dropped.
     e. A list of geographic place names, geo-
     graphic codes (Eco-Region codes, USGS,
     Hydrologic unit codes, STORET codes,
     State codes). Include the latitude/longi-
     tude coordinates of the study and the
     station names,  identification number,
     and description of location and grid loca-
     tors of individual sites/stations.
     f. The sampling schedule for data col-
     lected with regular periodicity.
     g. A list of the water quality indicators/
     parameters, the methods used to meas-
     ure them and their USEPA method iden-
     tification codes. This should be followed
     by a description of the method. Be sure to
     include units of measurement and detec-
     tion limits. Include information.on preci-
     sion, accuracy, and replicate sampling, if
     available.
     h. Any special quality assurance and
     quality control procedures used during
     data collection,  analysis,  and/or key-
    punching (USEPA 1989).

4.3 ANALYZE AND PRESENT DATA
    It is essential that volunteer monitoring
program managers include provision for data
analysis and reporting in their initial project
planning. Enough staff  time must be com-
mitted in advance to carry out these impor-
tant elements of the overall program,  avoid-
ing the "let's just get the data now and figure
out how to analyze it later" attitude. It is also
important to ensure that any  information
released to the public is absolutely accurate,
especially where a State-administered pro-
gram is involved. Misinformation and invalid
data interpretation can be very damaging to
the program.
     Data analysis and reporting need not be
 overly sophisticated. In fact, selecting a level
 of interpretation appropriate to the problem
 at hand is a sign of good management. The
 ideas below are presented at increasing levels
 of sophistication and are intended to give an
 overview of the ways data collected by volun-
 teers have been and are being analyzed.
     The monitoring objectives established at
 the outset of a volunteer program will deter-
 mine the types of data analysis that should
 be performed. Thorough analysis of the col-
 lected data requires staff time and resources,
 and should always be included in the initial
 program planning. Remember that volun-
 teers need to see their data being used. A
 volunteer program will only succeed if the
 data are evaluated, interpreted, and relayed
 back to the citizen volunteers.
     Since many volunteer  programs are
 designed to collect long-term, baseline water
 quality information, in-depth interpretation
 of the data must wait until the program has
 been active for several years. However, each
 year's data should be plotted, reviewed, and
 discussed for the benefit of the volunteers.
     State volunteer program managers must
 be prepared to present data to both in-house
 technical staff and non-technical volunteers.
 The  two  audiences require  very  different
 presentation styles.
     The purpose of this section  is to intro-
 duce new volunteer program managers to
 effective  data presentation techniques di-
 rected at the lay volunteers. Examples of
 these techniques, drawn from existing volun-
 teer programs,  are discussed below.

 Maps
     It is always useful to develop maps of the
 watersheds and waterbodies included in your
 samplingprogram. The maps can be copies of
 USGS, State,  or county maps,  or  can be
 drawn by hand. The maps should display the
 physical characteristics of thewaterbody (and
 watershed, in some cases) and  should be
 kept up to date with the location of sampling
 stations.  Include stations sampled by other
 groups and agencies as well as the stations
 managed by the volunteer program. Stations
 should be numbered and clearly  defined on
 the map or in a separate index.
   These maps will be used throughout the
 monitoring effort. They will help the coordi-
 nator locate new sampling sites, and can be
used in publications summarizing the re-
 sults of the sampling program. Maps also aid
the person responsible for analyzing the col-

-------
  PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
Rgure 4.1
Maps showing tha
location o! water
chemistry and bacteria
collection stations on
Point Judith Pond,
Rhode Island Salt Pond
V/ttchcre Volunteer
Monitoring Program.
SOURCE: Lee and
Kuliberg 1985.
           FIGURE 4.1
Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers Program
        .Point Judith Pond  ,
                                            Water Chemistry Station
                                            Bacteria Station

                        lected data, providing information on station
                        characteristics  that may influence water
                        quality.
                            In 1985, the University of Rhode Island
                        Sea Grant program began a volunteer moni-
                   toring project on several of its shallow la-
                   goons, known as salt ponds, which lie along
                   the State's southern shore. (Further details
                   of this program are in Chapter 1.) Figure 4.1
                   displays a series of maps graphically depict-

-------
                                                                                    PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
Ing sampling stations for chemistry and bac-
teria in one of these ponds, Point Judith.
    . Ohio's Department of Natural Resources,
Division of  Natural  Areas and  Preserves,
sponsors a stream monitoring program (see
Appendix)  using volunteers to  collect  and
analyze macroinvertebrate populations col-
lected  with  a  simplified "kick seine" tech-
nique.  Maps are effectively used (see Figure
4.2) in the program's annual reports to dis-
play the location  of  sites sampled by both
volunteers and the State.

Graphs
     Most successful volunteer programs find
that simple graphs showing the variation of
measured water quality parameters over time
and space are informative and easy for the
citizen volunteers to  interpret. Graphs  also
help the volunteer program manager verify
the incoming data, and often suggest meth-
ods for a more thorough analysis.
     Volunteer  lake monitoring program re-
ports often summarize Secchi depth data in
plots using a graphic disk as  illustrated in
Figure  4.3. Plots provide a quick view of the
variation of Secchi depth over the sampling
period and are easily understood by technical
as well as non-technical  audiences.
     River monitoring data  can be visually
interpreted  using graphs  showing water
                   FIGURE 4.2
        Ohio Stream Quality Monitoring Program
          Big and Little Darby Creek Stations
                                  BIG DARBY CHEEK
                                  2 7  Sierra Club Cent Oho Chap,
                                     Columbus Audubon Society
                                  37  Sierra Club, Cent Ohio Chap
                                  17,5 $iewa Club, Cent Ohio Criap
                                  003 ODNR(DNAP)
        II v  •     ^**\        *   t*vai VWUM \yivr*t /
        Union CO.	V-,	r__\   21(J50DNR{DNAP)
                                  269 Brave Clly St. Citizens, Our Lady of
                                     Perpetual Help School! limbertates
                                  311 ttlliard Elementary, Grove City H S,
                                     Batelte-DartyMetroParK
                                  32.0 WestlandHS Batelte Darby Metropark
                                  36.0 OONR'pttPf:
                                  378 GSA—Camp Ken Joctely
                                  434 Milliard High School
                                  55.6,:Marysvite High:School.
tlTTLEDABBYCREEK
37 Central Ohio Anglers & Hunters Club
61 Wesl3etfeFsonWiQ.fi School
'8ff West Jefferson High School
145 ODNF)(£*iAP)
    Franklin Co.
203  PickawayCo,
0-1
-10 -
: ; Water Depti) {ft.) •
:•';:•.;';•'••£;'•:•• ;:'
-30 -
•40-
F1GURE4.3 '
Wisconsin Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program
' Devil's Lake— Sauk County
Secchi Disk Depth-1986












-











APR I MAY




























JUN
JUL I AUG
Date




I





_ -


SEP





















OCT








NOV





;


.!
I
                                                                                                        FIGURE 4.2
                                                                                                        ••^^^•i
                                                                                                        Ohio Stream Quality
                                                                                                        Monitoring Stations on
                                                                                                        Big Darby Creek and
                                                                                                        Little Darby Creek.
                                                                                                        Location of stations
                                                                                                        sampled by volunteers
                                                                                                        and State employees
                                                                                                        are shown.
                                                                                                        SOURCE: Lewis and
                                                                                                        Kopec 1986.
                                                                                                        FIGURE 4.3
                                                                                                        Plot of Seech! disk data
                                                                                                        for Devil's Lake, Sauk
                                                                                                        County, Wisconsin.
                                                                                                        Wisconsin Self-Help Lake
                                                                                                        Monitoring Program.
                                                                                                        Graphic presentation
                                                                                                        of the Secchi disk data
                                                                                                        depicts a disk being
                                                                                                        lowered into the water
                                                                                                        column.
                                                                                                        SOURCE: Rumery1987.

-------
 PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
                             FIGURE 4.4
            Kentucky Water Watch Stream Monitoring Program
                          Pond Creek Basin
                         pH on 30 August 1987
                                                              SITE?
     |  UPSTREAM
                                 quality on the y-axis and river miles on the x-
                                 axis. If the river is affected by pollution, these
                                 plots often suggest where the impact is oc-
                                 curring and show whether the river is recov-
                                 ering. The  plots also allow volunteers to
                                 examine how their data relate to other data
                                 collected by the program. Figure 4.4 shows
                                 pH data collected by Kentucky's Water Watch
                                 volunteers  in the Pond Creek Basin (Cooke
                                 1988). The graph effectively displays the vari-
                                 ation of pH along the creek, clearly displaying
                                 the zone of degradation.

                                 Charts
                                      Bar charts  can be used to display the
                                 spatial or temporal changes in data. Volun-
                                 teers for Michigan's Tip of the Mitt Watershed
                                 Council Volunteer Lake Monitoring program
                                 measure Secchi disk depth and take samples
                                 for  chlorophyll analysis  throughout the
                                 summer. These data are used to calculate an
                                 average trophic state number for each lake. A
                                 bar chart  is used  in the prograrrfs  1986
                                 Water Quality Report to summarize the vari-
F1GURE4.4
pHol water at seven sites
in the Pond Creek Basin
sampled on 30 August
1937 by volunteers In the
Kentucky Water Watch
Stream Monitoring
Program.
SOURCE: Cooke 1988.
FIGURE 4.5
mmmmmmm
Trophic Status Index ol
Crooked Lake In northern
Michigan from 1974 to
1986. Data was collected
by volunteers participating
In the Inland Lake Sell-
Kelp Program, Michigan
Department of Natural
Resources and the Tip of
the Milt Watershed
Council's Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program.
SOURCE McUnnon 1986.
                           FIGURE 4.5
            Michigan Inland Lake Self-Help Program and Tip of the
         Mitt Watershed Council's Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
            ;     Trophic Status Index of Crooked Lake
                                                                                               Eutrophic
74
77   78   79   80
81   82   83   84   85   86

     Year

-------
                                                                                 PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
                                         FIGURE 4.6
                           Kentucky Water Watch Stream Monitoring Program
                                  PROJECT EXPENSE BUDGET
                                        Printing
                          Telephone/Office  $1,000
                             Overhead
                              $2,000
               Salary Allocation
                   $8,000
                                                            Testing Equipment
                                                                $6,500
                                          TOTAL
                                          $20,000
                                 PROJECT FUNDS BY SOURCE
                                     Private
           Travel
           $2,500
             State Funds
                                                              106 G. Federal
                                                            Public Participation
                                                205 J Federal
                                            Water Quality Planning
                                                  FIGURE 4.6
                                                  ••^^••i
                                                  Charts show the
                                                  expenses by category
                                                  and the funding sources
                                                  for the Kentucky Water
                                                  Watch Stream Monitoring
                                                  Program.
                                                  SOURCE: Cooke 1988.
ation in trophic state over time (Figure 4.5).
    Pie charts are easy to construct,  and
effectively summarize information about the
volunteer monitoring program. Pie charts
have been used by Kentucky's Water Watch
program to summarize funding sources and
project expenditures (Figure 4.6). The charts
are simple  and easy  to interpret and are
suitable for both technical and lay audi-
ences. The  Illinois Lakes Lay Monitoring
program manager uses volunteer-collected
Secchi depth data to calculate Trophic State
Indices  (TSI), and has effectively summa-
rized that data using a pie chart (Figure 4.7).

Box Plots
    Although not currently used by any vol-
unteer programs that were reviewed for this

-------
 PROVIDING CREDIBLE INFORMATION
                              FIGURE 4.7
                    Illinois Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
                 Trophic State Indices of Illinois Lakes in 1986
                 70 and above
                   (18.9%)
                                      Less than 50
                                         (11%)
              60to<70
               (38.5%)
                                                   50 to<60
                                                    (31.5%)
FIGURE 4.7
•••••••
Trophic Slate Indices tor
Illinois lakes In 1966.
Summary of trophic state
Indices was based on
Sccchl depth data
collected by volunteers
participating In the
tllinoli Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program.
SOURCE; Hawes1987.
 FIGURE 4.8
 •••••••
 Box Plot Construction.
 These steps may be
 followed to construct a
 box plot (or a set of data
 on a single variable.
 Adapted from Reckhcw
 and Chapla 1983.
                                                   document, the  box plot can summarize a
                                                   large amount of information about a set of
                                                   data and is becoming a professional standard
                                                   for describing data. The box plot  can be
                                                   useful for technical audiences interested in
                                                   interpreting the data but can also be readily
                                                   explained to a lay person [Tukey (1977) and
                                                   McGill, et al.  (1978)]. The box plot (see Fig.
                                                   4.8) is constructed from the order statistics,
                                                   and visually displays the data's median, vari-
                                                   ability, and skew. It also provides informa-
                                                   tion on the  size of the data set  and the
                                                   statistical significance of differences between
                                                   medians.  The box  plot is an informative
                                                   method for graphical presentation and  com-
                                                   parison of one or more sets of data on the
                                                   same variable.
     The steps below, described in Reckhow and Chapia (i'Sfeji, may be followed to construct a box plot for a
set of data on a single variable:
     1. Order the data from the lowest to highest.
     2. Plot the lowest and highest values on the graph as short horizontal lines. These are the extreme values
       of the data set and represent the data range.
     3. Determine the 75 percent value (upper quartile) and 25 percent value (lower quartlle) of the data set.
       These values define the interquartile range and represent the location of trie top and bottom lines of
       the box. Using vertical lines, connect the highest value with the upper quartile and! the lowest value
       with the lower quartile.
     4. Plot the median as a dashed horizontal line within the box.
     5. Select a scale so the width of the box represents the sample size, or the size of the data set Used to
       construct each box. For example, the box width that describes a data set of 20 values can be displayed
       twice as wide as a data set of 10 values. Alternatively, the width may be set as proportional to the
       square root of the sample size. (Any proportional scheme can be used as long as it is consistently
       applied.
     6. Determine the height of the notch (in the box at the median) based on the statistical significance of the
       median:
                                    median ±1.7(1.251/1.35 n)

                           where l=upper quartile-lower quartile
                                n=number of values in the data set
     With this mathematical definition of the notch heights, the notch in the box provides an approximate 95%
     confidence interval for comparison of box medians. Therefore, when the notches for any two boxes
     overlap in a vertical sense, these medians are not significantly different at about the 95% level.

                                       	Maximum Value
                           Notch j
                           Height!
	Upper Quartile —
	Median
                                        	.	Lower Quartile _
                                        	.	Minimum Value
i   Range
! Interquartile
                                                                n = sample size

-------
                  CHAPTER 5 - COSTS AND FUNDING
.-X*
                   Jim
                                        >-*;
                                            •«*«
                                                  83fc*w»ii*

-------
 COSTS AND FUNDING
Carroll Curtis and Peyton
Robertson measure the
pHot the Mattaponl River
In Virginia.
   Ihe experience of many State-managed
volunteer monitoring programs has shown
that citizen monitoring is cost-effective but
not free. It is a common misconception that
citizen monitoring programs only require
start-up funding and then become self-suffi-
cient. In fact, the withdrawal ;of funding after
one or two years is  the most commonly
reported reason for failure of volunteer proj-
ects.
    Successful programs require staff dedi-
cated to  ongoing efforts'.to motivate volun-
teers and ensure that data quality goals are
met year in and year out. Prior to implement-
ing any volunteer monitoring program, States
should review and adjust program objectives
Pliofo by Cynl/ita Dunn
                    so they can be achieved with the available
                    resources.
                        This chapter outlines various categories
                    of expenses and the range of costs associated
                    with different types of volunteer programs.
                    The chapter concludes with a discussion of
                    options for funding a citizen'monitoring pro-
                    gram and techniques for reducing program
                    costs.

                    5.1 PROGRAM EXPENSES
                        A recent compilation of costs associated
                    with citizen monitoring programs has been
                    developed by  the Chesapeake Bay Citizens
                    Monitoring Program (Ellett 1988). This com-
                    plete list of costs includes the following cate-
                    gories, many of which are "hidden" in other
program areas in State sponsored programs:
    • Staff salaries and fringe benefits
    • Office overhead, including phone us-
      age, postage, and duplicating
    • Travel expenses to train volunteers,
      perform quality assurance checks, and
      promote the program
    • Equipment, including replacing lost or
      broken equipment, and refilling chemi-
      cal supplies
    • Laboratory analysis
    • Data management, including data en-
      try, storage, and retrieval
    • Data analysis, including costs of statis-
      tical packages such as SAS
    • Printing costs for annual reports and
      newsletters
    • Other activities, such as conferences
    Nine States with volunteer monitoring
 programs were surveyed to assess the real
 costs of  these programs.  The results are
 summarized  in Table 5-1. Total program
 budgets range from $15,000 to $127,000
 with the majority of volunteer programs having
 annual budgets between  $20,000 and
 $50,OOO.The broad range of budget estimates
 reflects differences  in program scope, pa-
 rameter selection, and administrative needs.
, Since it is often difficult to separate expenses
 associated with a volunteer, monitoring pro-
 gram from other State program expenses, the
 figures in Table 5-1 are "best guess" esti-
 mates.  Each State surveyed also had a unique
 methodology  for estimating  costs. For ex-
 ample, Illinois explicitly includes overhead
 costs of 62% on staff salaries, while many
 programs do not include overhead costs and
 thus appear less expensive to operate. Keep-
 ing these limitations in mind,  the  budget
 estimates provide a range of potential pro-
 gram costs.
    The following paragraphs address each
 of the cost categories outlined in Table 5-1.

 Staff Costs
     Staff salaries are generally  the  single
 most expensive item in volunteer monitoring
 program budgets. At least one full-time coor-
 dinator is recommended to start a program,
 and additional part-time personnel may be
 required during'the sampling. Additional staff
 costs, such as employee benefits and office
 overhead, are often overlooked but should be
 recognized. Staffing requirements vary de-
 pending on the program size and the number
 and complexity of monitoring  parameters

-------
                                                                     COSTS AND FUNDING
    &  i
Si
o
o

•MM


o
If
its
                                   g
              ."I:
                   g
                        f»T   to"
                                                             g
                                                             o
                                                             m
       ol
       g °>
       is
       g
       il
       eo"co
                                                                          a
                                                 O     O     «

                                                 g.     g.     g

                                                 01     in     5 'oS  O •
CO fc- w in  O
             «

                •

                     31

                                          :§ §
                                          •II
                   HI
                   OQ E .0
                                                «-e    «
                                                ._ Q. a>  —
                               f
                   if
                   o i.

                   Ii
 ,-s.
«S
Is
                                                So   El    EC?
                                                >* aL   O e-    o >k
                                                2> 5-   E §    £S
                                                A&   ^3.    sag.
                                                       fe
                                                 DC

                                                 O
                                                                   1
                                                                      to
                                                                      S

-------
that are selected. Obviously, small programs
require less administration to coordinate
volunteers, and less clerical staff to enter
data and type reports. Parameter selection
has a more subtle impact on staff needs. For
example,  programs that limit volunteer
monitoring to Secchi disk measurements often
do not require hands-on training by profes-
sional staff.

Equipment and Laboratory Expenses
    Parameter selection determines equip-
ment and laboratory costs. Some parameters
do not require laboratory analysis and the
equipment needed to measure them is inex-
pensive. For example, a Secchi disk can be
purchased for approximately  $20 or con-
structed by the volunteers. Providing stan-
dardized disks to the volunteers ensures
quality control, saves time, and minimizes
volunteer frustration. However, several low-
budget programs do require the volunteers to
construct their own disks or purchase the
disks.
    Biological parameters, such as benthic
macroinvertebrates,  can also be measured
with a minimal equipment cost. The  equip-
ment required to monitor benthic macroin-
vertebrate communities in Ohio's Scenic
Rivers volunteer monitoring program includes
a four-by-four foot nylon mesh net, plastic
containers,  hand lens, thermometer,  and
identification  sheet. Equipment  costs are
further reduced by  constructing the seine
nets with defective hoe handles donated by a
local industry. Species identification  is per-
formed onsite, thereby eliminating labora-
tory expenses. Ohio's annual  expenditures
for equipment,  used for replacing broken
equipment  and constructing  new nets,  is
approximately $2,000.
    In contrast, monitoring  for chemical
parameters requires either relatively  expen-
sive onsite test kits  or laboratory analyses.
Two test kits capable of sampling stream
chemistry for one year have been priced at.
$165 and $295 (1988). The Kentucky citizen
monitoring program solicited bids from chemi-
cal testing companies and selected a test kit
that measures dissolved oxygen, nitrate-ni-
trogen, ortho-phosphate, pH, and chlorides
monthly, at an annual cost of $165 per kit.
The Delta  Laboratories, Inc.  offers a kit
equipped to perform 50 repetitions of the
above tests plus hardness, turbidity and
screening for heavy metals for $295 (Delta
Laboratories, Inc. 1987). If volunteers work-
ing with the Delta Laboratories kit suspect
metal or pesticide pollution in their water-
body, samples can be preserved for analysis
by the Laboratories at no additional cost.
    In some programs, the cost of test kits is
passed  on to  volunteers. One-third of the
participants in Kentucky's program purchase
their test kits, reducing the annual equip-
ment costs from $9,405 to $6,500. In Ohio,
beyond the initial free provision of one or two
nets and kits, participants often purchase
additional equipment at $25 per set.
    Laboratory analysis of chemical parame-
ters is also expensive and includes additional
costs for postage and  chemicals required to
preserve samples. For example, the New York
program spends approximately $40,000
annually for  laboratory analyses of total
phosphorus,  nitrate nitrogen, chlorophyll,
color, alkalinity, pH, and conductivity on 53
lakes. Mailing the samples to the labs costs
an additional $100 per lake. The Illinois
program adds $20,000 to their annual budget
for chemical analyses at 100 sites on 50
lakes. Thus, laboratory analysis costs alone
can exceed the total  program budgets of
many State citizen monitoring programs, and
can only be undertaken by well-funded pro-
grams.

Data Management Costs
     Computer facilities are often necessary
to manage and analyze the data collected by
the volunteers, compare volunteer data with
other data bases such as STORET, and pre-
pare reports.  In addition to  hardware and
software costs,  the budget should include
staff time to enter, review, edit, and analyze
data. These costs are difficult to assess be-
cause most existing programs rely on support
services within the State agency to perform
these tasks.

Printing and Postage Expenses
     Several thousand dollars should be
budgeted for printing and mailing newslet-
ters and annual reports which inform the
volunteers and other State personnel about
the accomplishments of the program. Costs
will depend upon the size and format of the
publications and their frequency. Other costs
associated with rewarding  and  educating
volunteers may include organizing annual
conventions for citizen monitors and provid-
ing rewards such as plaques, hats, T-shirts,
lapel pins, and certificates.

 Travel Expenses
     Citizen monitoring personnel often travel

-------
                                                                                      COSTS AND FUNDING
 extensively during the sampling season to
 train volunteers and perform quality control
 checks. The geographical size of the  State,
 the number of staff and volunteers, and the
 emphasis placed upon personal contact with
 volunteers influence  travel expenses. Ohio
 spends about $4,000  annually  on travel;
 each group is trained onsite, and the pro-
 gram coordinator travels frequently to pro-
 mote the program. Other agencies report
 travel expenses between $2,000 and $3,000.

 5.2 COMPARISON OF TWO STATE
 PROGRAMS
    The Michigan Self-Help Lake Monitoring
 program is a low-cost monitoring program
 with an annual budget of $15,000. The pro-
 gram has generated fourteen years worth of
 Secchi  disk data  utilized by the Michigan
 Department of Natural Resources to  docu-.
 ment long-term lake quality trends and re-
 sponses to lake management actions. Equip-
 ment costs, laboratory costs, and  travel
 expenses are eliminated by limiting monitor-
 ing to Secchi disk depth and requiring the
 volunteers to construct their own disks.
 Staffing needs are reduced by restricting
 training to  written instructions  and tele-
 phone conversations. Costs are further mini-
 mized by hiring a college studentintern during
 the summer to perform data entry,  print
 computer-generated reports, and send out
 mailings. Of the staff time spent on the citizen
 monitoring program annually (approximately
 1 /3 full time equivalent), half of the hours are
 allocated to the student intern. The Michigan
 Department of Natural Resources estimates
 that duplicating volunteer monitoring efforts
 using State employees would increase the
 State's  overall monitoring costs by about
 $85,000 annually.
    In contrast,  the Illinois Volunteer Lake
 Monitoring Program has an annual budget of
 $127,000 and employs a large staff (totalling
 2.3 FTE at a cost of about $63,000) to enhance
 personal contact between State personnel
 and volunteers. Illinois personnel individually
 train  volunteers, perform follow-up visits,
 organize  an  annual conference, write
 newsletters, prepare educational materials,
 provide  technical assistance, and produce a
 seven-volume  annual report that includes
 statistical analyses of volunteer data.
    Overhead costs, which include employee
benefits, travel expenses, office expenses,
printing and postage, are  estimated  as a
percentage of staff costs. Therefore, the larger
Illinois  staff generates a larger overhead
 expense estimate. The Illinois program also
 includes chemical monitoring at 100 sites on
 50 lakes (at an annual cost of $20,000) and,
 unlike the Michigan program, provides Sec-
 chi disks to volunteers.

 5.3 FUNDING OPTIONS
    There are three principal sources of
 funding for State-managed volunteer moni-
 toring programs: federal grants, State funds,
 and private in-kind contributions. These
 sources are also available to private groups.
 Each of these are discussed below.
Volunteers keep records
on the types of debris
found on the Texas coast.
                             Photo courtesy of the Center for Marine Conservation.
Federal Grants
    States may use grant monies awarded
under Sections 104(b)(3) (Research Grants);
106 (Grants for Pollution Control Programs);
205(j) (Grants for Water Quality Management
Planning); 314 (Clean Lakes Program); 319
(Nonpoint Source  Management Programs);
and 32O(g) (National Estuary Program) of the
Water Quality Act of 1987 to initiate citizen
monitoring programs. Some of these funds
may also be available to public or nonprofit
private agencies and organizations.
    Estuaries  designated in the National
Estuary Program (NEP) of the Water Quality

-------
COSTS AND FUNDING
                  Act of 1987 are eligible for combined Federal
                  and State funds to support research and
                  public participation projects that can include
                  volunteer monitoring. The Pamlico-Tar River
                  Foundation has been funded to develop such
                  a program under the Albemarle-Pamlico
                  Estuarine Study in North Carolina.
                      Federal funding for volunteer monitoring
                  programs on coastal waters can be routed to
                  State universities from the National Oceano-
                  graphic and Atmospheric Administration
                   (NOAA) Sea Grant Program and the Coastal
                  Zone Management Program  (CZMP). The
                  Rhode  Island Salt Pond Watchers and the
                  New Jersey Marine Recreational Program are
                   examples of volunteer monitoring programs
                   administered by State universities receiving
                   Sea  Grant Extension Funds.  The Chesap-
                   eake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program  is
                   expanding its activities and exploring the
                   feasibility of using volunteers to monitor
                   nonpoint source pollution abatement efforts
                   with funding from NOAA CZMP.
                       Unusual avenues to obtain Federal funds
                   should not be overlooked, although they may
                   be of only short-term value. For example, an
                   Ohio Soil and Water Conservation District
                   secured funds  to use for young people to
                   collect water quality information using vol-
                   unteer monitoring program methods through'
                   the Federal Job Partnership Training Act.

                   State Funding Sources
                       General State revenues have been used
                   to establish programs  such as New York's
                   Statewide Lake Assessment  Program. De-
                   pending upon State laws, funding from gen-
                   eral State revenues may require approval
                   from the State Legislature. This can  delay
                   program implementation, as was the case in
                   New York.  However,  the authorization of
                   general revenues in 1987 provided a man-
                   date to the New York Department of Environ-
                   mental Conservation to set up a lay monitor-
                   ing  program and a position for  a program
                   coordinator. General revenues may be sup-
                   plemented  with  innovative State funding
                   sources such as Wisconsin's tax on motor-
                   boat fuels and Ohio's State tax return check-
                   off for natural resources programs.
                        State agencies or legislative bodies may
                   distribute funds to local governments or
                   agencies to  implement volunteer monitoring
                   programs. This approach has been used in
                   Washington State where Public Involvement
                    and Education (P.I.E.) grants have been used
                    to fund the Puget Sound Water  Quality
                   Authority's volunteer monitoring program.
State agencies may also provide funding to
private organizations to administer citizen
monitoring programs. Delaware, for example,
supports the Delaware Stream Watch Pro-
gram by providing funds to the Delaware
Nature Society that originated from indus-
trial fines.

Private Funding Sources
    In some cases, individuals or organiza-
tions participating in a citizen monitoring
program have successfully  solicited funds,
in-kind services, and equipment from private
sources. Non-profit organizations can obtain
funding through dues and contributions from
corporate members. A group of Rhode Island
Salt Pond Watchers obtained a grant from
IBM to pay for the chemical analyses of water
samples. Other private contributions include
defective hoe handles donated from a local
industry to the Ohio Scenic River Program to
construct seine nets, and boat auction regis-
tration fees donated to the  New Jersey pro-
gram by a boating association. In addition to
their donated time, most volunteers provide
in-kind contributions of their boating equip-
ment and fuel,  and  many also purchase
monitoring equipment, thereby  reducing
program equipment costs.
     No individual source of funding is guar-
anteed to  persist  and sustain a volunteer
monitoring program.  Therefore, long-term
program stability depends upon a diversity of
funding sources. Program  planners should
investigate all potential sources of funding
and cost saving measures.

5.4 TECHNIQUES FOR REDUCING PRO-
GRAM COSTS
     Most  cost saying  techniques involve
reducing staff costs, the largest single pro-
gram expense. Statf costs can be minimized
by hiring summer college  interns  to assist
 program directors in writing reports, training
volunteers, and entering data. (Interns gen-
 erally receive a lower salary and are exempt
 from benefits.)
     Volunteers  themselves can sometimes
 perform a variety of administrative tasks to
 supplement State personnel.  For  example,
 volunteers may be available to enter data,
 prepare statistical summaries, prepare graph-
 ics and articles for newsletters, or organize
 events. Identifying volunteer talents, and tap-
 ping into them, will both reduce the workload
 of the paid staff and help ensure that volun-
 teers enjoy their duties.

-------
REFERENCES


-------
REFERENCES:
                  American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution
                     Control Federation (APHA, AWWA, & WPCF). 1985.  Standard Methods for the Examination
                     o/Water and Wastewater. 16th ed. American Public Health Association. Washington, DC.

                  Armitage.T., E. Baptiste and K. Ellett. 1989. "Citizen Volunteer Monitoring, aToolforEstuarine
                     Management." Coastal Zone '89, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
                     Management. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. l.pp 887-898.

                  Bostrom, J. 1988. "Preventing the Undoing of Minnesota's Lakes." Presented at the 1st National
                     Monitoring Workshop on Citizen Volunteers in Environmental Monitoring, Narragansett, RI.
                     May 1988.

                  Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program (CBCMP).  1987. Quality Assurance ProjectPlanfor
                     the Citizen Monitoring Project, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,  Inc.  (formerly Citizens
                     Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.) Annapolis, MD.

                  Cooke, K.   1988. "Kentucky Water Watch Stream Monitoring Project."  Presented at the 1st
                     National Monitoring Workshop  on Citizen Volunteers in Environmental Monitoring, Narra-
                     gansett, RI. May 1988.

                  Delta Laboratories, Inc. 1987.  "Adopt-A-Stream" program brochure. Rochester, NY.

                  Ellett, K. 1988. An Introduction to Water Quality Monitoring Using Volunteers: A Handbook for
                     Coordinators. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Baltimore, MD.

                   Gault,  C.,  H.  Budd, G. Campbell, and J. Morris. 1988. Jug Bay Wetlands  Sanctuary, 1988
                     Research Report. Anne Arundel County Recreation and Parks, Lothian, MD.

                   Godfrey, P.G. 1988. The Massachusetts  Acid Rain  Monitoring Project: Focus on Quality
                     Control." Presented at the 1st National Workshop on Citizen Volunteers in Environmental
                     Monitoring, Narragansett, RI. May 1988.

                   Hawes, J.B. 1987. Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, 1986: Volume 1: Statewide Summary
                     Report IEPA/WPC/87-007a. Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Pro-
                     tection Agency, Springfield, IL.

                   Lee, V. and P. Kullberg.  1986. "Salt Pond Watchers: Rhode Island's Experiment in Citizen
                     Monitoring." Presented at the 10th National Conference of the Coastal Society Estuarine and
                     Coastal Management: Tools of the Trade, New Orleans, October 1986.

                   Lewis, S. and J. Kopec. 1986. Ohio Scenic Rivers  Stream Quality 'Monitoring Program 1986
                     Results. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas, and Preserves,
                     Scenic Rivers Section. Columbus, OH.

                   Massachusetts Audubon Society: Boston. 1986. "Boston Harbor Monitoring"  program bro-
                      chure. Boston, MA.

                   McGill, R., J.W. Tukey and W. A. Larsen, 1978. "Variations of Box Plots." American Statistician.
                      32:12-16.

                   McHenry.M. 1990. Personal Communication. South County Creeks Commission, Anne Arundel
                      County, MD.

                   McLennan, R. 1986. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, "Volunteer Lake Monitoring 1986Water
                      Quality Report-Crooked Lake." Conway, MI.

                   Pritchard, K. 1988. "Identifying Useful Information: What Information is Needed and How Can
                      ItBe Used?" Presented at the 1st National Workshop on "Citizen Volunteers in Environmental
                      Monitoring," Narragansett, RI. May 1988.

-------
                                                                                         REFERENCES
Reckhow, K.H. and L/C. Chapia. 1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake Management. Volume
   1: Data Analysis of Empirical Methods. Butterworth Pub., Waburn MA.

Rumeiy, C. 1987. Wisconsin Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program Data Summary for 1986. PUBL-
   WR-156 87. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

Save Our Streams—A Citizen Action Program, Information Packet. Izaak Walton League Of
   America, Arlington, VA.

Schloss, Jeff. 1988. "The New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program." Presented at the 1st
   National Workshop on Citizen Volunteers in Environmental Monitoring, Narragansett, RI.
   May 1988.

Survey  Information 1989. Compiled by K. Ellett, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.,
   Annapolis, MD.

   Bellatty, J.  Citizen's Volunteer Monitoring Program,  Idaho Department of Health and
   Welfare,  Boise, Idaho.

   Bostrom, J. Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul,
   MN.

   Burns, A. Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. Illinois  Environmental Protection Agency,
   Springfield, IL.

   Haddon, Patricia. Anne Arundel County Volunteer Monitoring Program. Office of Planning
   and Zoning, Annapolis, MD.

   Kishbaugh, S. New York Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program. New York  State
   Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

   Kopec, J. Ohio Scenic Rivers Stream Quality Monitoring Program, Ohio Department of
   Natural Resources. Columbus, OH.

   Pearsall, W.  Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. Maine Department of Environmental
   Protection, Augusta, ME.

   Schloss, J. New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program, University of New Hampshire,
   Durham, NH.

Tukey, J.W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1979. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control
   in. Water and Wastewater Laboratories. EPA 600/4-79-019. Washington D.C.:USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Guidelines and Specifications for Prepar-
   ing Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAMS-OO5/80. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1984a. Policy and Program Requirements to
   Implement the Quality Assurance Program. EPA Order 5360.1. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA). 1984b.  The Development of Data Quality
   Objectives. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1984c. Guidance for Preparation of Combined
   Work/Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Monitoring. OWRS QA-1. Washing-
   ton, D.C.: USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1987. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework
  for Change. Washington, D.C.: Offices of Water and of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.

-------
REFERENCES
                  U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. Guide for Preparation of Quality Assur-
                     ance Project Plans for the National Estuarine Program. Interim Final. EPA 556/2-88-001.
                     Washington, D.C.: Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Water Quality Data Management Plan,
                     Revision 1. Prepared by Computer Sciences Corporation. CBP/TRS 31/89. Chesapeake Bay
                     Program, Reg III, USEPA.

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. National Directory of Citizen Volunteer
                     Environmental Monitoring Programs. Washington, D.C: Office of Water and the University of
                     Rhode Island. EPA 503/9-90-004.

                  Wastler, A. 1987. Preliminary Review of Citizens Monitoring Program Data. Memo to Director
                     of the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, USEPA Reg. Ill, Annapolis, MD.

                  Wisconsin Self-Help Lake Monitoring Handbook. 1989. Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
                     sources, Lake Management Program. Madison, WI.

-------
APPENDIX

-------
 ILLINOIS'VOLUNTEER LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
START-UPDATE
1981

SAMPLING SITES
150 Lakes, 450 sites
(1988)

PARAMETERS
Secchi disk depth, total
depth, and field observa-
tions on all lakes; sus-
pended solids and nutri-
ents are monitored on a
subsetol30-5b(100 sites)
lakes annually.

SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
Twice a month between
May and October (solids
and'nutrients sampled
once a month on selected
lakes).

NO. VOLUNTEERS
Approximately 200 annu-
ally (total participation be-
tweon1981and1987was
750)

ADMINISTRATION
Administered by the Illi-
nois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's Lakes
Program. The Statewide
VLMPCoordinatorissup-
ported by Lakes Program
staH, three  Areawide
Planning Commissions
and three part-time em-
ployees from the IGPA's
Office of Community
Regulations. Funded with
Federal grants and Slate
matching funds.

STATE CONTACT
Amy Bums, Lakes Pro-
gram, Division of Waler
and Pollution Control, Illi-
nois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 2200
Churchill Road, Spring-
field, 162706(217) 782-
3362
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
    In 1981, the Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (IEPA) initiated one of the first
comprehensive citizen monitoring programs.
The Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
(VLMP) was designed to educate the public
about local lake 'quality and management
options,  and supplement IEPA data collec-
tion on Illinois' lakes. The volunteers collect
baseline data (primarily Secchi disk depth)
for 150 lakes, most of which are not moni-
tored by State personnel. Federal, State, and
local agencies refer to the data to document
water quality impacts; select priority water-
sheds for Clean lakes funding under Section
314(a) of the Clean Water Act, as well as for
cost-share funding for soil-erosion control
from the U.S. and Illinois Departments of Ag-
riculture; evaluate the effectiveness of lake
protection and management projects; and
determine waterbody assessments for the
Section 305(b) water quality report. Lakes
monitored by volunteers are considered to be
"evaluated" in 305(b) assessments; only lakes
sampled for physical, chemical, or biological
data by State agency personnel are consid-
ered to be "monitored."
     In addition to supplementing data collec-
tion, the VLMP has acted as a catalyst for
local lake protection and restoration efforts;
virtually all VLMP lakes have had lake protec-
tion and management measures implemented
following participation in the program.

VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND
TRAINING
     Initially, 200 lake associations were tar-
geted for volunteer recruitment in a 1979
pilot study. The thirty-one volunteers that
responded received written instructions
describing construction and use of a Secchi
disk; only two lake clubs participated for the
 entire sampling season. In response to the
pilot study results, the program was adver-
 tised to a broader audience through State
 agency newsletters and private newspapers,
 and the program protocol was modified to
 encourage volunteer involvement. The VLMP
 was structured to encourage personal con-
 tact between the staff and volunteers. The
 staff began training volunteers individually
 and distributed standardized Secchi disks;
 conferences,  reports, and newsletters were
 developed to inform volunteers about their
 contribution to lake management, and to
 provide incentives for continued participa-
 tion.
     New volunteers are individually trained
at their lake by a member of the VLMP staff.
While visiting three sites on the lake, the
volunteer is instructed in the proper proce-
dure for using the Secchi disk, recording field
observations, and completing the monitor-
ing form. Secchi disks with calibrated nylon
ropes, fact  sheets, instructions, reporting
forms, and  postage-paid return envelopes
are distributed at the training session. The
volunteers are expected to have a boat, an
anchor and the necessary safety equipment.
    As a result of the program's emphasis on
personal contact with volunteers, most par-
ticipants  reapply to the VLMP annually,
thereby reducing the need to recruit new
volunteers. Currently, the program operates
at maximum capacity and recruitment is
targeted for special lake studies identified by
the IEPA. In 1987, public water supply op-
erators, State park personnel, and Soil and
Water Conservation District employees were
enlisted, but the primary recruitment drive is
aimed at former volunteers. Reapplication is
encouraged by mailing letters and registra-
tion forms to all former volunteers in late
winter or early spring.
    Detailed monitoring instructions  and
data sheets are mailed to returning volun-
teers in the spring. It is a VLMP goal to carry
out a quality control and retraining visit each
year the volunteer returns to the program. In
practice, follow-up visits have not been pos-
sible except in the three State regions  ad-
ministered  by Areawide Planning Commis-
sions. Limited retraining in the other three
State regions occurred primarily in 1987, six
years after program Inception.

SAMPLING PROTOCOL
     Three monitoring stations are  usually
 established by IEPA on each lake: one over
 the deepest portion of the lake near the dam
 (most Illinois lakes are impoundments), one
 at mid-lake (medium depth), and one in the
 lake headwaters (shallow depth). The num-
 ber of sampling sites will vary depending
 upon lake size and configuration. VLMP
 participants measure total depth and Secchi
 disk depth at each station twice a month
 between May and October, for a total of 12
 sampling periods. In addition to the  depth
 data, the participants record field observa-
 tions of current weather conditions, the pre-
 vious week's precipitation, as well as qualita-
 tive assessments of water color, amount of
 suspended sediment, suspended algae, and
 aquatic plants (see Figure 1). Volunteers re-
 turn the forms to IEPA in addressed, post-

-------
                                                                                           ILLINOIS' VOLUNTEER LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
                                                                           FIGURE 1
                                            Illinois Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program Data Reporting Form
                        SECOHiMONITOmNG "•
             ILLINOIS ENVIHOfJMENtALPROTK^I^ AGENCY
                VOLUNTEER LAKE jidNiTOBiNd PROGRAM
                                      ra^'.^Afaiiuentaittat'Uf'omftrtKfnthMiisp^ndid:



                                               COLUMN 3

SITE/*!
TJnwt
TnUi'Depth
Seectii Dlic Depth-
sn-E #2
Timo
Total Depth
SwcM pise Dt'ptH
.SITS #3
Total fiepth
Se«Hi Diit Doptb
SSKSSSffiti^^

)«;&«!* AW «t»«)
ftooloacst ilSFooV
!toclossjtJheht=

.IClVcle AM o^ PH)
.(to closest 1/aftwtt
'Ilo.croMit'iritljJ'

(CifclCAMOTTM*
(to closest 1/2 fcflt.t
IW clotujst mchi
Sfc,^M.Mm-l,W**f-«-«.


^ ,
                          8J«WloS^9lS^
                                                                                             *  Hght fntn
                                                                                                               6  tieB;'t.row
W«ni.«tS«opteSlte ffc»

aqmnc ytii* it'thn «mplB «ll»*i  _,	  „.„„  „_
                                                                                                arvt ih»ubn>*nt      fj  gdjijft
                                                                                           y7  dfflUmiihjiMo'Btsjni      t%.  Olhtf'«Btti^'
                                                                                           .  AljM 1h* tnwuot ot mapCRdtd
                                                                                                                   - SHORE OBSERVA-JIONS
                                                                                            rf«u»t!t Wwjj laifa«r>l-iwiir»i
                                                                                                                                       ptPfKdiWtnt . .  ,  ,  .
                                                                                                                                                      Sitrt  iliel.  Silt a
                                                                                                                                           .    ,

t=l
-------
ILLINOIS' VOLUNTEER LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
                   age-paid envelopes immediately after sam-
                   pling.
                      Some  selected volunteers also  collect
                   water samples at selected stations on 30-50
                   lakes once per month from May to October.
                   The criteria for selecting these lakes include:
                   where IEPA needs data; public ownership or
                   access; proven volunteer reliability at the
                   lake; lake size; amount of lake use; and level
                   of public  concern. Sampling consists of
                   immersing a one-quart bottle with nitric acid
                   preservative for nutrient analysis, then filling
                   the large bottle again to provide a suspended
                   solids sample. The bottles are immediately
                   placed in a cooler with a 48-hour ice pack and
                   mailed to the IEPA laboratory. At the labora-
                   tory, samples are analyzed for total and vola-
                   tile suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen,
                   nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen, and total phospho-
                   rus.

                   DATA MANAGEMENT
                      Information from the data forms submit-
                   ted by volunteers is entered into a PC data
                   management system as soon as possible
                   following arrival at the IEPA. This procedure
                   serves three purposes:  1) check-in of forms
                   and  tracking of volunteer participation; 2)
                   entry of Secchi  disk data and  qualitative
                   information into a data base for graphical
                   and tabular outputs; and 3) preparation tor
                   data entry into STORET. Coding is not neces-
                   sary because the data entry screen mimics
                   the data sheet submitted by the volunteers.
                      Verification consists of two phases.  First,
                   the data are printed  in tabular form and
                   checked  against  the original  data  sheets.
                   Second.the data are plotted and examined for
                   outliers so that simple recording mistakes,
                   such as assigning data  to the incorrect
                   sampling  site or reporting Secchi depth in
                   feet  instead  of inches, can be identified.
                   Questionnaire data are discussed with the
                   volunteers who keep a separate log sheet at
                   home to further document procedures.
                       Following verification, the  data are
                   uploaded to STORET using a program writ-
                   ten by State personnel. VLMP data are stored
                   in a unique  file to distinguish them from
                   lEPA-collected data. Statistical analyses
                   performed using STORET and SAS include
                   calculation of the minimum, maximum, and
                   mean Secchi disk  depth;  calculation of a
                   Carlson Trophic State Index; and analysis of
                   Tukey's Multiple Range Test to compare year-
                   to-year changes in mean Secchi disk depth.
                   The  IEPA staff all examine within-lake vari-
                   ation in clarity by comparing Secchi  depth
data from the three sites on each lake. Obser-
vational data is used in the interpretation of
clarity data.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
    Within the Illinois EPA,  the VLMP is
located in the Lakes Program Subunit of'the
Division  of Water Pollution Control's Plan-
ning Section. A Statewide VLMP Coordinator
administers all aspects of the VLMP, includ-
ing the acquisition and distribution of equip-
ment, preparation of the annual summary
reports and newsletters, and  the coordina-
tion of training, data management, and labo-
ratory  analysis. The  Statewide VLMP
Coordinator's  responsibilities also include
technical assistance regarding lake ecology,
monitoring, and  management;  conference
planning; and preparation of information/
education materials.
    Other Lakes Program personnel assist
with various aspects of the program such as
data review, report preparation, computer
programming, technical assistance, and in-
formation/education.
    Three of the six State VLMP regions have
Areawide Planning Commissions (designated
under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act);
IEPA contracts with these Commissions to
administer the VLMP and provide' lake man-
agement technical assistance and informa-
tion/education in their regions. The Area-
wide VLMP Coordinators are responsible for
training volunteers, managing data, prepar-
ing regional reports and  newsletters,  and
providing lake management technical assis-
tance. In the  remaining regions, the IEPA
Office of Community Relations assists with
volunteer training, follow-up  visits, and re-
port writing.

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION
    To  recognize volunteer  commitment,
citizen monitors receive awards based upon
the number of completed sampling periods
and seasons.  The awards include a thank
you letter and a certificate of appreciation
signed by the IEPA Director, cloth emblems,
engraved wooden plaques, and lapel pins.
The awards are presented during the VLMP
 session  of the  Illinois  Lake Management
Association (ILMA) Conference held annually
in the spring.
    The purpose of the VLMP session is to
 retrain returning volunteers  and recognize
 outstanding volunteers.  Participants ex-
 change  information among themselves, at-
 tend retraining sessions, and meet with VLMP

-------
                                                            ILLINOIS' VOLUNTEER LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
                                           F1QURE2
                           ' Annual Budget and Funding Sources for Illinois' VLMP

   A, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency - funded with Clean Water Act
   (CWA) Section 106 funds and State matching funds.
       1. Lakes Program Staff (3 persons to|alling O.75 FTE), Responsible
       for Statewide program administration, coordination, and supervi-
       sion; provide lake management technical conference, and informa-
       tion/education assistance; data management; preparation of annual
       State summary and three regional report volumes; and editing the
       newsletter.                            ,                  '
       2. Clerical and summer staff (3 persons totalling 0.5 FTE). Perform
       data management, mailings.and assist with report preparation.
       3. Community Relations Coordinators (3 persons totalling 0.3 FTE).
       Make training and follow-up visits on 65 lakes; assist with report and
       newsletter writing.
       4. Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring - chemical analysis. Lab
       analysis at $50 per sample for total phosphorus, nitrate-fnitrite-
       nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, total and volatile suspended solids.
       5. Annual Illinois Lake Management Association and VLMP Confer-
       ence.

   B. Areawide Planning Commissions - funded by CWA .Section 205(J).
       1. Areawide Planning Commission personnel and overhead (3 per-
       sons totalling 0.75 FTE). Responsible for program administration,
       training and follow-up visits, and data management/or 75 lakes; lake
       management technical  assistance, conference planning, and infor-
       mation/education; and preparation of 3 regional reports.

       ANNUAL BUDGET
   C. One-time Equipment Costs - purchased with CWA Section 205
       0) funds.

       1. Two hundred Secchi  disks with calibrated ropes, at $20 each.

       TOTAL BUDGET
       (does not include equipment costs)
                            $30,OOO*
                            $12,000*
                            $15,000*
                            $20,000
                            $i,otio
                            $45,000*
                            $123,000



                            $4,000

                            $127,000
   * Includes 44.2% indirect costs which cover printing, telephone, copying, and office space; and
   18% for fringe benefits, travel, and supplies.
staff to discuss concerns. Volunteers may
participate in a panel discussion describing
how VLMP data have been used to promote
local lake protection and management. Hold-
ing the VLMP conference in conjunction with
the ILMA Conference allows the volunteers to
discuss their concerns with lake manage-
ment professionals, and increases their
exposure to broader lake management is-
sues.
   The Illinois program places emphasis on
writing reports which present the VLMP data
in a professional format.  A statewide sum-
mary report is published annually with six
companion regional reports containing indi-
vidual lake data analyses and lake manage-
 ment recommendations. The report is dis-
 tributed to Federal, State and local agencies,
.-libraries, and individual volunteers. Four
 newsletters are mailed to volunteers during
 the monitoring season, featuring important
 pointers  regarding monitoring techniques
 and educational information on lake condi-
 tions and management. Volunteers who
 perform consistent sampling also receive a
 report analyzing the results of their sampling
 and  suggesting applicable lake protection
 and  restoration  strategies. These  reports
 inform the volunteers, as well as other State
 agencies  and local lake management au-
 thorities, of the value of the VLMP  data. A
 considerable amount of staff time is also
                                               Figure 2
                                               ^^^M
                                               The annual budget and
                                               funding sources for
                                               Illinois' Volunteer Lake
                                               Monitoring Program.

-------
ILLINOIS' VOLUNTEER LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
                  devoted to technical assistance and educa-
                  tional activities associated 'with the VLMP.

                  PROGRAM EXPENSE AND FUNDING
                      The Illinois Citizen monitoring program
                  is funded through Clean Abater Act Section
                   106 and 205(j) grants and State matching
                  funds. The annual program budget (shown in
                  Figure 2) accounts fully for  all overhead
                  expenses, such as travel costs, office ex-
                  penses, staffbeneflts, printing, and supplies.
                  The annual budget includes $30,000  for
                  Lake's program staff and overhead; $45,000
                   distributed  to  three  Areawide Planning
                   Commissions; $15,000 for IEPA Community
                   Relations Coordinators; $12,000 for clerical
                   assistance with data entry, mailings, and
                   report preparation;  $20,000 for laboratory
                   analyses; and $1,000 to host the VLMP con-
                   ference. Two hundred Secchi disks were
                   purchased for a one-time cost of $4,000.
SELECTED PROGRAM MATERIALS
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, 1987;
  Volume I: Statewide Summary Report. Illi-
  nois' Environmental Protection Agency, Di-
  vision of Water Pollution Control.

Summary ofRlinois' Volunteer Lake Monitor-
  ing Program. Illinois Environmental Pro-
  tection Agency, Division of Water Pollution
  Control. 6 pages.

Lakes Program Summary. Illinois Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Division ofWater
  Pollution  Control. 4 pages.

-------
                                            KENTUCKY'S WATER WATCH JVOLUNTEER STREAM SAMPLING PROJECT
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
    The Kentucky Water Watch Volunteer
Stream Sampling Project (VSSP), one compo-
nent of the State's Water Watch public par-
ticipation program, is designed to achieve the
following goals:
     1. To  generate data for the Kentucky
Division of Water on stream segments not
included in the existing Kentucky Ambient
Water Quality Monitoring Network;
    2. To enable community groups to ac-
quire local water quality data;
    3. To educate the public about the condi-
tion and importance  of Kentucky's water
resources.

    The primary objective is to produce high
quality data which can be used by both State
personnel  and local community groups. To
meet this objective, the project has focused
on recruiting volunteers with scientific or
technical backgrounds,  thereby enhancing
data quality, but restricting public participa-
tion. To date, the  State has found the data
capable of detecting acute water quality prob-
lems in stream segments not included in the
Ambient Monitoring Network. During the
project's initial year (July 1987-July  1988),
the Division of Water used the volunteer data
to identify two  noncomplying dischargers
and five stream sites where standards were
exceeded. Although the State does not use
volunteer data alone to implement enforce-
ment actions, the  citizen monitors have
demonstrated that they can reliably locate
water quality problems for further investiga-
tion by State enforcement personnel.
    The State enters the citizen data into a
unique file on the State Prime Interagency
Data Base with the intention of documenting
baseline conditions and long-term  water
quality trends in the future. The data are not
entered into STORET or incorporated into the
State's 305(b) reporting process at this time.
    Independently, the volunteer groups use
their data  to document and publicize local
water quality conditions, under the condition
that they specify the data origins and limita-
tions. Currently, the VSSP is expanding public
participation to school  groups. The data
submitted by the school groups are less ac-
curate and consistent than data collected by
other groups; therefore, these data are kept
in a separate file to prevent deterioration of
the existing data base quality.  The primary
objective continues to be the establishment
of a reliable data base for State and public
use.
THE PILOT STUDY
    The VSSP is an offshoot of the Kentucky
Water Watch Program, a public participation
program initiated by the Division of Water in
 1985. The principal  objectives  of this pro-
gram are to promote community awareness
of water  quality issues and to encourage
individual responsibility for the protection of
water resources. Under the program, citizens
form Water Watch groups to "adopt" a stream
or lake  (i.e. take responsibility for informing
the State of water quality issues relevant to
their waterbody and initiating protection ef-
forts) . Over the last three years, groups in this
program have organized stream rehabilita-
tion projects, developed educational presen-
tations, and  performed  simple biological
surveys to characterize water quality in some
adopted waterbodies.
    In  1986,  several Water Watch groups
expressed a desire to undertake systematic
chemical monitoring of their adopted streams.
The Division of Water (DOW) tested citizen
monitoring as  a means of acquiring  addi-
tional data on a disputed stream, Rock Creek.
The pilot study compared the performance of
an  existing Water Watch group and the
McCreary County Hiking club, solicited spe-
cifically to sample Rock Creek.  Each group
received varying  levels of support from the
Water Watch coordinator based upon their
initial interest in monitoring. The existing
Water Watch groups received little contact
following training because they had requested
monitoring responsibilities; this group's
motivation rapidly deteriorated and the group
did not  submit data. In contrast, the McCre-
ary County Hiking Club was telephoned at
least once each month to acknowledge re-
ceipt of sampling results  and discuss the
data. The phone conversations informed the
volunteers that State personnel had exam-
ined the data, and provided the volunteers
with an opportunity to resolve monitoring
protocol problems. As a result of the interest
expressed by the DOW, the hiking club sub-
mitted data for ten of the twelve  sampling
periods during the year-long pilot study. On
the basis of the hiking club results, the pilot
study was considered a conditional success,
and additional groups were contacted to ini-
tiate the VSSP.

VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND
TRAINING
    Scientifically trained volunteers from the
existing Water Watch network were recruited
to implement the full-scale VSSP. Sampling
START-UP DATE
1987

SAMPLING SITES
7 Rivers, 57 sites (1988)

PARAMETERS
Onsite chemical analysis
of dissolved oxygen, pH,
nitrate, phosphate, iron,
chlorides, and tempera-
ture.

SAMPLING FREQ.
One survey per month,
year round.

NO. VOLUNTEERS
Over 100 volunteers in 31
sampling groups.

ADMINISTRATION
Administered by the Ken-
tucky Division of Water's
Water Watch  Program.
The Water Watch Coordi-
nator manages the moni-
toring project under the su-
pervision of acommission
of State agency directors.
Federal Clean Water Act
grants and general State
revenues fund the pro-
gram.

STATE CONTACT:
Ken Cooke, Kentucky
Water Watch, Division of
Water, Kentucky Natural
Resources and  Environ-
mental Protection Cabi-
net, 18  Reilly Road,
Frankfort, KY 40601 (502)
564-3410

-------
KENTUCKY'^ WATER WATCH VOLUNTEER STREAM SAMPLING PROJECT
                   applications were sent out to targeted groups
                   on the Water Watch Newsletter mailing list,
                   including university and community college
                   science departments, environmental engi-
                   neers at private industries, existing Water
                   Watch groups,  and high school teachers.
                   Groups lacking technical expertise, such as
                   school students, were not solicited.  High
                   standards for volunteer selection were set -
                   one member of each group had to have at
                   least a college degree minor in a  science-
                   related field. Respondents were evaluated
                   with a point system favoring groups with
                   technical and scientific  experience, groups
                   with previous volunteer service in the Water
                   Watch Program, and groups In close proxim-
                   ity to priority streams. Priority streams were
                   those not sampled in the State-staffed Ambi-
                   ent Water Quality Monitoring Network or the
                   Stream Use Designation Study.  The State
                   selected a volunteer pool that includes pro-
                   fessional biologists, chemists, engineers and
                   lab technicians, as well  as property owners
                   along priority streams.
                      The selected volunteer groups signed a
                   contract  to collect  monthly samples at a
                   minimum of two sites between July 1987 and
                   July 1988. Groups failing to submit data for
                   80% of the contracted sampling periods were
                   considered for removal  from the program.
                   Each group appointed a group supervisor
                   from its membership to organize sampling
                   trips and act as group liaison with the pro-
                   gram staff.
                       Prior to monitoring,  volunteers received
                   two hours of onsite training with the project
                   coordinator. At this time, chemical test kits,
                   written instructions describing procedures
                   and data analysis, and reporting forms, were
                   distributed. In addition to performing the
                   chemical tests under the coordinator's su-
                   pervision, the volunteers were required to at-
                   tend a follow-up session on interpreting and
                   publicizing sampling results.
                       In response to  the  pilot study results,
                   monthly phone calls were made to all group
                   supervisors to encourage volunteer commit-
                   ment and enthusiasm for the program. Other
                   motivational strategies included publicizing
                   enforcement action initiated with volunteer
                   data, acknowledging participation with cer-
                   tificates, and distributing caps with the proj-
                   ect logo to volunteers. The personal contact
                   between State staff and volunteers, in con-
                   junction with the publicity from successful
                   enforcement actions, are credited with sus-
                   taining public interest in the VSSP. Approxi-
                   mately 70% of the volunteer  groups have
applied to continue sampling for a second
year, and a surplus of Water Watch groups
are available to replace  the three groups
asked to leave the program because of incon-
sistent monitoring.

SAMPLING PROTOCOL
    Monitoring parameters were selected by
sending a questionnaire to water quality
specialists within the State Division of Water
(DOW), and several specialists at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service  and the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey. Each professional was asked
to rank the ten most important factors affect-
ing Kentucky waters. The most important
factor received ten points, the next factor was
assigned nine points,  and so on. Based on
this point  system, the  three parameters
ranked as most important were dissolved
oxygen, pH, and conductivity. The DOW then
determined the availability and cost of tests
to monitor these parameters and requested
bids from several chemical companies for
appropriate monitoring equipment.  Of the
top three parameters, conductivity was elimi-
nated from consideration by the high cost of
conductivity meters.
    Two versions of the  test kit were ap-
proved for  use by volunteer monitoring
groups.  In  urban and agricultural areas,
volunteers  sampled for  dissolved oxygen,
pH, temperature, nitrate-nitrogen, ortho-
phosphate, and chlorides. In mountain and
coal-field locations, sulfate and iron were
sampled instead of nutrients. Subsequently
(after quality control checks revealed serious
problems), the sulfate test was discouraged
and the DOW disregarded the sulfate data.
The test kits perform with an overall preci-
sion of ± 20% and, it should be noted, are not
EPA approved. However,  the dissolved oxy-
gen test (the azide modification of the Win-
kler Method), performed  with a variance of
±0.2 ppm (within 5%) in five quality control
checks comparing test kit results and dis-
solved oxygen meter results.
    In 1988, 31 volunteer groups monitored
57 stream sites monthly with the chemical
test kits. The test kits were distributed with-
out charge to groups sampling priority wa-
ters designated by the DOW. Volunteer groups
sampling non-priority streams, as well as
school groups (approximately 30% of sam-
pling groups) were required to purchase test
kits from DOW for $165 per kit.
    The reliability of the volunteer data is
assured in  a three-pronged quality control
program. First, individual accountability is

-------
                                            KENTUCKY'S WATER WATCH [VOLUNTEER STREAM SAMPLING PROJECT    67
 assigned to the group's supervisor who must
 sign each reporting form. In the second phase,
 groups periodically receive blank samples of
 deionized water and standard solutions pre-
 pared at the State lab. The groups test the
 samples and report their results back to the
 DOW. These standard tests alerted the DOW
 to a problem with the sulfate test. Volunteers
 were reporting concentrations of 200 ppm in
 deionized blanks due to contamination from
 barium chloride buildup on the test kit test
 tubes. The sulfate test results were dropped
 based upon the quality control results. Al-
 though  some groups continue to  sample
 sulfates, the  data is not accepted  by the
 DOW. Field tests are'the third component of
 the quality control program.  Periodically,
 State personnel accompany volunteers and
 compare the results of volunteer test kits
 with State equipment results.

 DATA MANAGEMENT
     Each volunteer group supervisor sends
 one copy of the data forms to the DOW and
 maintains a separate copy for his or her own
 use. The program coordinator examines the
 data for unusual values and  phones the
 volunteers to verify questionable results. The
 data, including verified outliers, are entered
 onto a Xerox 8010 Work Station with word
 processing and graphic capabilities to gener-
 ate public reports. The Work Station data
 analysis capabilities are restricted to plotting
 simple graphs and sorting the data by high
 and low data values. To perform more so-
 phisticated  analysis, the data  are entered
 onto the State Prime Interagency Data Base,
 a mainframe system with access to Statisti-
 cal Analysis System (SAS), then downloaded
 to an IBM PC Symphony Software spread
 sheet. Outliers are excluded from the main-
 frame data base, and the volunteer data are
 stored in a unique mainframe file to  distin-
 guish them from data coUected by State
 employees.
    Currently, the data are insufficient  to
 detect water quality trends, but correlations
 between high  nutrient concentrations and
 low dissolved oxygen levels have been identi-
 fied  on individual streams.  In the future,
 time series regression analysis will be em-
 ployed to statistically document trends.
    The citizen monitoring results are pub-
lished in regular reports and distributed to
interested groups as well as the State Biologi-
cal Staff and DOW Field Offices. Volunteer
groups are encouraged to share their infor-
mation with the local community as long as
 the limitations of the data are clearly stated
 (i.e., not officially sanctioned by the State).
 Several monitoring groups independently plot
 and publicize their sampling results by print-
 ing the data in their club  newsletters or
 posting the results in public locations includ-
 ing classrooms and a post office.

 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
 AND BUDGET
     The VSSP is managed by the Water Watch
 Program Coordinator under the supervision
 of the Quality Control Committee. The Com-
 mittee is comprised of supervisors from the
 State agencies affected by the citizen moni-
 toring project, including the monitoring and
 enforcement branches. The  Committee set
 the project guidelines to ensure that the
 program would be integrated into the existing
 State agency workload and would produce
 reliable  data. The  coordinator's duties in-
 clude selecting the monitoring groups, con-
 ducting training sessions, maintaining con-
 tact with the volunteers, setting up the qual-
 ity control tests, writing reports, and manag-
 ing interagency use of the volunteer data. The
 coordinator developed a network of college
 professors,  called Expert Advisors, to field
 questions from the volunteers. Each moni-
 toring group has a volunteer supervisor who
 maintains contact with the coordinator.
     Costs of the VSSP are  approximately
 30% of the total Water Watch Program budget,
 or $20,000 annually.  Of this,  the largest
 expenditure is  the coordinator's  salary,
 $8,000, which amounts to at least 1/3 FTE.
 An allocation of $2,500 pays for the extensive
 travel required of the coordinator (about 750
 miles  per week). Supply costs  have been
 limited because nearly a third of the volun-
 teer groups purchase the test kits; during the
 flrstyear, expenditures on supplies amounted
 to about $6,500. Printing and overhead costs
 are estimated to be $3,000.
    The source of funding for the VSSP is
 approximately as follows: 30 percent from
 Section 106(g) grants and 25 percent from
 Section 205(j) Federal  Water Quality Plan-
 ning grants under the  Clean  Water Act; 30
 percent from State funds; and  15 percent
 from private sources. The grants are  com-
 bined into one public participation fund which
 is  accessed for the VSSP.

BENEFITS FROM THE VOLUNTEER
STREAM SAMPLING PROJECT
    In addition to providing background data
for future trend analysis, the VSSP has iden-

-------
KENTUCKY'S^ WATER WATCH VOLUNTEER STREAM SAMPLING PROJECT
                  tified specific water quality problems at five
                  sites during the first year. Remedial actions
                  have already been implemented at two sites—
                  a dairy farm and a factory manufacturing
                  jeans. Volunteers also discovered two aban-
                  doned mines and sent the information to the
                  State Division of Abandoned Lands for fur-
                  ther action.
                      The remedial action at the jeans factory
                  resulted almost entirely from volunteer efforts.
                  The monitors, including a lab technician and
                  a school teacher, detected phosphorus
                  concentrations 30 times the State standard
                  of 0.5 ppm. The VSSP coordinator felt the
                  results were  reliable  based upon the
                  volunteers' expertise and the consistency of
                  the sampling results. The volunteers were
                  encouraged to continue sampling upstream
                  until they located a potential source of the
                  phosphorus, which led them to a wastewater
                  treatment plant. The volunteers visited the
                  plant operator who admitted the problem
                  came from a jeans factory not following
                  pretreatment guidelines. Subsequently, the
                   factory cooperated with State officials and
                   installed  equipment  to  improve  its
                   pretreatment of wastewater.
                       In the case of the dairy, citizen sampling
                   indicated low dissolved oxygen concentra-
                   tion in a creek. The volunteer went upstream
                   and witnessed a milky discharge from a dairy
                   plant. The DPW enforcement  branch was
                   notified and inspected  the plant but could
                   not locate a discharge. The volunteer contin-
                   ued to casually monitor the plant and ob-
                   served that the discharge only occurred in
                   mid-afternoon. The enforcement branch was
                   again notified, and with more specific infor-
                   mation was able to inspect the plant  at the
                   appropriate time.
                       The results from the VSSP's first year
                   generate a sense of power and participation
                   for the volunteers and the public. The reap-
                   plication rate suggests that the project has
                   been successful in maintaining public inter-
                   est and support. While the public appears to
                   perceive the VSSP as successful,  the State
                   Standards and Specifications Group within
                   the DPW still perceives the project with skep-
                   ticism, despite efforts to integrate the pro-
                    gram into the existing agency structure and
                   workload.
SELECTED PROGRAM MATERIALS
Kentucky Water WatchStreamMonitoringProj-
   ect Training Material for Volunteer Moni-
   toring Teams. Kentucky Natural Resources
   and Environmental  Protection Cabinet,
   Division of Water. 1988. 28 pages.

Kentucky Water WatchStreamMonitoring Proj-
   ect Report to  Citizen's Monitoring Work-
   shop, May 1988 - Volunteers Monitor Ken-
   tucky Water. Kentucky Natural Resources
   And  Environmental  Protection Cabinet,
   Division of Water. 1988. 38 pages.

Water Watch Adopt-a-Stream Program: Pro-
   gram Overview. Kentucky Natural Re-
   sources and  Environmental Protection
   Cabinet, Division of Water. Undated.  12
   pages.

A Field. Guide to Kentucky Rivers and Streams.
   Kentucky Natural Resources  and Envi-
   ronmental Protection Cabinet, Division of
   Water. 1985 (revised May 1986). 114pages.

-------
                                                  NEW YORK CITIZEN STATEWIDE LAKE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
    The Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment
Program (CSLAP) is a cooperative effort devel-
oped by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the
New York Federation of Lake Associations,
Inc. (FOLA), a coalition of lake researchers,
landowners, and interested citizens commit-
ted to  promoting lakes  research and ex-
changing lake management information. The
program is designed to collect baseline data
for preparation of lake-specific management
plans, while educating lake residents  and
users about lake ecology, management prac-
tices, and data collection. The data are used
to document trends on individual lakes, iden-
tify specific water quality problems, and cal-
culate trophic status to support the DEC's
lake management recommendations to indi-
vidual lake associations.
    The CSLAP supplements DEC's Lake
Classification and Inventory Survey (LCI),
the State-staffed program that monitors New
York's lakes. Generally, DEC  staff  sample
less than 5% of the State's 7000 lakes each
year, and regular monitoring is restricted to
special study lakes. By employing the same
equipmentand procedures as DEC, the CSLAP
volunteers can expand the number of lakes
monitored and increase sampling frequency.
To date, the DEC has not incorporated the
CSLAP data into  the State 305(b)  Report
because most of the lakes monitored by vol-
unteers are not included in the "problem"
waterbodies that are covered in the 305(b)
Report. However, DEC has used CSLAP data
to determine the effect of onsite wastewater
systems at several lakes and to make prelimi-
nary assessments of lake water quality for
the 1990 305(b) report.
    In addition to generating baseline lake
quality data, the CSLAP  facilitates the ex-
change of information  between  lake resi-
dents and State personnel. In 1988, the DEC
distributed a user survey to approximately
5,000 members of lake associations partici-
pating in the CSLAP. The questionnaire was
designed to evaluate public perceptions  of
lake water quality, sources of degradation,
and management strategies for maintaining
or improving water quality. The survey should
determine if lake users perceive the water
quality problems detected  by monitoring,
and therefore are willing to cooperate with
DEC management plans and provide finan-
cial assistance  for implementing protection
efforts. The questionnaire may also identify
localized, episodic water quality problems
not detected by regular sampling. The DEC
intends  to  use the  information to direct
additional monitoring and research projects.

PARAMETER SELECTION
    Parameters were selected for inclusion in
the CSLAP from a list of nine standard water
quality parameters monitored in State-staffed
programs. The selection criteria included ease
of data collection, cost of analysis and equip-
ment, and value of the information obtained.
Total-phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen,  chloro-
phyll, "true" color, conductivity,  pH, tem-
perature, and Secchi disk transparency were
chosen for the first sampling season, 1986.
Laboratory costs prohibited the inclusion of
informative  but less  essential parameters,
such as dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and
the dissolved states  of phosphorus. When
possible, less expensive  surrogate parame-
ters were substituted; for  example, "true"
color analysis was selected to provide a rough
measure of DOC.
    In 1987 the program purchased two DO-
meters and  found that each meter could be
shared by up to six  lake associations. DO
testing became an optional activity in 1988
for a subset of the CSLAP lakes. Other analy-
ses, such as macrophyte identification and
precipitation and water level monitoring, have
been added to the  monitoring  regime to
address specific public concerns and fill DEC
information gaps.

VOLUNTEER TRAINING AND
RECRUITMENT
    All CSLAP participants must be mem-
bers of a lake  association that is affiliated
with  and recommended by the  New York
Federation of Lake Associations (FOLA). DEC
and FOLA work together to choose new lakes.
The selected lake associations confirm their
interest in the program and commit a team of
at least two  primary and  two secondary vol-
unteers to  attend  training. Following the
initial year of the program (1986), a surplus
of lake associations have sought admission
into the CSLAP, and active recruitment has
not been necessary.
    CSLAP personnel train each group enter-
ing the program onsite during a  3-4 hour
session. The training session includes  an
introduction and explanation of the program,
equipment distribution, instruction on sample
collection and processing techniques, and a
question-and-answer session. The volunteers
also receive  written instructions describing
sampling and mailing procedures. The CSLAP
START-UP DATE
1986

SAMPLING SITES
75 Lakes (1990)

PARAMETERS
Secchi disk depth, lake
level, precipitation, dis-
solved oxygen, macro-
phytes; volunteers also
collect, process, and mail
watersamplestotheState
Department of Health
laboratory for analysis of
nutrients, chlorophyll,
color, pH, and conductiv-
ity.

SAMPLING FREQ.
Weekly samples between
June and October.

NO. VOLUNTEERS
Approximately 280

ADMINISTRATION
Jointly administered by
the New York State De-
partment of Environ-
mental Conservation and
the New York Federation
of Lake Associations, Inc.
Funded primarily with
State general revenues.

STATE CONTACT
Scott Kishbaugh, New
York Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation,
Bureau of Technical Serv-
ices and Research, Room
301, 50 Wolf Road,  Al-
bany, NY 12233-3502
(518) 457-7470

-------
 NEW YORK CITIZEN STATEWIDE LAKE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM




TABLE 1



i
; • CSLAP Quality Control Data from 1987 '
Lake Name

Glen Lake

Loon Lake

i Crooked Lake

Lake Moraine

: PatoniaLake

Tuscarora
Lake
; ConesusLake

Cuba Lake

RndteyLake


Silver Lake

Wolf Lake

Sacandaga
Lake
Brant Lake


•


Date

7/3
716
8/10
8/10
8/2
8/2
7/29
7/29
8/4
8/4
8/2
8/2
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
7/30
7/3.0
10/1
10/1
an
8/1
8/8
8/8
7/11
7/10
7/5
7/6
8/10
8/10
9/14
9/15
Sample
Type
CSLAP
LCI
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
CSLAP
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
LCI
CSLAP
DEC
CSLAP
LCI
Total P
{mg/l)
0.010
0.012
0.009
0.007
0.011
0.012
0.017
0.012
0.008
0.006
0.013
0.011
0.010
0.011
0.019
0.013
0.047
0.056
0.049
0.036
0.056
0.052
0.018
0.017
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.007
N03
(fng/l)
<.02
<.02
<.02
NA
<.02
NA
0.28
0.27
<.02
NA
NA
<.02
<.02
NA
<.02
<.02
<,02
NA
0.04
0.04
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
0.03-
0.08
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
NA
<.02
SpCond
( p,mho/cm)
262
250
81
81
148
136
237
236
. 63
. 63
165
165
. 336
336
: 119
118
209
210
215
210
278
271
"'-." 36
36
43
43
73
•57-
77
138
75
55
pH

8.02
7.90
7.43
7.19
8.32
8.49
8.31
8,02
6.83
7,02
7.86
7.41
8.17
8.07-
7.14
7,18
7.29
7.38
7.76
7.64
7.44
7.45
5,58
-6.57
-6.97
7.25
7.42
7.50
7.25
3.72
7.07
7.25 -
Color
(ptu)
10
16
21
17
12
10
2
7
6
5
6
12
5
6
9
.NA
11
12
11
12
11
9
13
17
15
19
16
16
11
10
6
4
Chi a .
(n-g/i) 1
8.3
NA |
2,1 i
5.9
7.3
NA •
6.3 \
5.5
3.0
3.3 !
3.4
2.1
3.9 i
2.1 j
24.4
17.0 !
62.2
73.3
73.2
49,6 *
151 !
144
29.6
31.8 ,
13.7 :
15.8 j
4.4 ;
4.5
4.4
5.7
5.2 I
3.5 '
TABLE 1
New Ywk Citizen
Statewide Lake Assess-
ment Program (CSLAP)
quality control data from
1987. Comparison of data
collected by CSLAP
volunteers and Depart-
ment ol Environmental
Conservation (DEC)
stall and by Lake
Classification and
Inventory (LCI) personnel
during 1986 and 1907.
staff perform quality  assurance follow-up •
visits at least once during the sampling sea-
son, during which any continuing sampling
problems may be resolved.

SAMPLING PROTOCOL
    CSLAP participants measure Secchi disk
transparency and collect water samples be-
tween June and October. During the initial
sampling season on each CSLAP lake, one
site is  sampled weekly; if the data indicate
little variation from week to week, sampling
frequency is reduced in subsequent seasons
to minimize laboratory costs. The sampling
site is established over the'deepest portion of
the lake by constructing transects connect-
ing permanent shoreline landmarks. Volun-
teers collect samples with a Kemmerer bottle
lowered to a depth of 1.5 meters and transfer
a sample into a collapsible (acclimated) poly-
ethylene container. Air and water tempera-
tures and weather conditions are recorded.
On shore, the volunteers prepare the samples
for shipment to the New York State Depart-
ment of Health (DOH) laboratory: phospho-
rus samples are placed in bottles containing
sulfuric acid preservative; a "true" color
sample is filtered through a millipore mem-
brane filter; a chlorophyll sample is acquired
by passing 25 ml of lake water through a
membrane filter coated with a magnesium
carbonate suspension and placing the filter
in a borosilicate vial filled with a solution of
methanol and chloroform; and the unpreser-
ved pH/specific conductivity and nitrogen
samples are bottled.

-------
                                                    NEW YORK CITIZEN STATEWIDE LAKE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
    The samples are placed in a styrofoam
packing crate with two 72-hour ice packs and
the sample identification forms, then mailed
to the DOH laboratory with prepaid postage
labels. DOH returns the crates to the volun-
teers with new vials prepared with the pre-
servatives. Each volunteer rotates  three
packing crates and their ice packs with the
lab to avoid problems arising from postal
delays in returning the crates.
    Following the completion  of one sam-
pling season, volunteers may expand moni-
toring activities by collecting hydrology data
with  rainfall and staff gages, determining
dissolved oxygen profiles with a Nester per-
manent membrane DO meter, or collecting
aquatic vegetation. For this last activity, DEC
staff designed a macrophyte sampling proto-
col in response to frequent complaints about
aquatic weeds. The protocol consists of drag-
ging a weighted rake fitted with a steal collar
and retrieval lines across the lake bottom for
a fixed distance, at three depths related to
water transparency. This protocol is followed
at several sites throughout the littoral zone.
Individual genera are tagged, placed in plas-
tic bags, and mailed to the DEC for species
identification and archiving. During the first
year  of macrophyte  sampling (1987),  the
volunteers collected  25 plant species on 10
lakes, including most of the significant spe-
cies identified by an independent  compre-
hensive macrophyte survey of Babcock Lake.
The protocol is not intended to identify every
plant species present,  but the preliminary
results suggest that the macrophyte proce-
dures can provide a reliable profile of the
significant  species  present,  their  growth
patterns,  and relationship to lake.clarity.
    The program staff perform quality con-
trol checks during two follow-up visits to
each lake during the sampling season. The
coordinators observe the volunteers'  tech-
nique  to  ensure consistency,  then collect
samples from the same location at roughly
the same time. The samples collected by the
volunteers and the staff are analyzed by the
DOH  laboratory and the results are  com-
pared. Concurrent sampling by volunteers
and other DEC survey  teams also serve as
quality control checks.  Comparison of data
collected by CSLAP volunteers and staff, and
Lake Classification and Inventory (LCI) per-
sonnel during 1986 and 1987 (Table 1), indi-
cate only slight variation. Many of the ob-
served differences can be inherently attrib-
uted to equipment and procedures. Discrep-
ancies in the pH values are thought to be due
                             FIGURE1
                          Sampling Record

                            SECTION 1
   LAKE NAME
                                                 DATE
   SAMPLERS)
   SOUNDING DEPTH (See Reverse Side)
                            SECTIONS
   SECCHI DISK
   Reading (1) _
   Reading (2)~ _
                                 (on bottom?)
                                - , ,D
                                     P
                            SECTIONS
  TIME
DAM
PPM
                                AIR TEMPERATURE
  WATER SAMPLE PEPTH
                WATER TEMPERATURE
                         "   SECTION 4
             Check all conditions present two or more days in a week
                    (you can check more than one box).
   Today   Wind    Past Week

  D '     Calm   "' 'D
  D     Moderate     P
  g      Windy      Q ,  \
           Sky
  P "    'dear   '" D         _____
  P     Pt. Cloudy     P         _____
  P     Overcast     P         .	
  P   "   Rainy      P   '      Initials.
                Comments
                Unusual weather conditions or pollution
                problems this past week, observations
                during today's sampling, deviations
                (distance and direction) from the primary
                sampling site, etc.
 to carbon dioxide contamination and biologi-
 cal activity in the sample during transport to.
 the DOH laboratory.
    The excellent quality control results have
 enabled the CSLAP program coordinator to
 promote the program as a reliable source of
 lake quality data to other State Agency per-
 sonnel. As a result, annual funding from the
, State of New York has been increased and the
 program continues to expand; the number of
 monitored lakes has increased from 25 in
 1986 to 61 in 1989. Aquatic weed sampling
 was added to the program in 1987, dissolved
 oxygen monitoring became optional during
 the  1988  sampling season, and acid  rain
 monitoring began in 1989.

 DATA MANAGEMENT
    A Sampling Record (Figure  1) is com-
 pleted for every sampling period, and mailed
 to the DEC either directly or via the DOH. The
 recorded  information and data  from DOH
                               RGURE1
                               New York Citizen
                               Statewide Lake
                               Assessment Program
                               Sampling Record Form.

-------
NEW YORK CITIZEN STATEWIDE LAKE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
                  sample analysis are entered into a dBASE-III
                  management system on a personal computer
                  at the  DEC.  Statistical analysis,  tables,
                  graphs, (using Microsoft Chart) and report
                  texts (using Wordstar 2000) are prepared on
                  the  personal computer.  Survey forms are
                  entered on Excel. At this time the database is
                  insufficient to detect trends; therefore, analy-
                  sis is limited to descriptive statistics, includ-
                  ing minimum, maximum, and mean values
                  of nutrients, chlorophyll, and Secchi disk
                  depth. A Carlson Trophic State is assigned to
                  each lakebased upon the mean values. State-
                  wide correlation between chlorophyll, phos-
                  phorus, and Secchi disk depth are also as-
                  sessed.
                       Program results are highlighted in an
                  annual report  that includes a summary of
                  information collected at each monitoring site.
                  Program results are also publicized in the
                  FOLA newsletter, at FOLA conferences, and
                  at lake association meetings.

                  PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
                       The CSLAP is jointly administered by one
                  full-time program coordinator designated by
                  the  DEC,  and one part-time coordinator
                  appointed  by  the  FOLA.  The  DEC
                  responsibilities  include preparing the
                  sampling  protocol,   contacting   the
                  participating lake associations, purchasing
                  and distributing  equipment, training
                  volunteers, coordinating analytical services
                  with the DOH, managing data, implementing
                  the  quality assurance plan, and compiling
                  the  annual report. The  FOLA Coordinator
                   assists in recruiting  lake associations,
                  volunteer training and maintaining contact
                  with volunteers,  and presenting program
                   results in newsletter articles and at lake
                   association meetings. The FOLA Scientific
                   Advisory Board reviews  the CSLAP annual
                   report and provides technical assistance on
                   program revisions. The DOH performs all
                   analytical services;  their responsibilities
                   include  sample receipt  and  in-house
                   preservation,  internal  quality control of
                   samples and processing paperwork, returning
                   mailers and supplies to the volunteers and
                   compilation of laboratory [reports.
                       The 1988 CSLAP budget  of  roughly
                   $110,000  consists of $85,000 secured from
                   the DEC operating budget, and $25-30,000
                   provided by the Finger Lakes Association to
                   fund the addition of 19 lakes to the program.
                   (The Finger Lakes Association is a coalition of
                   counties that acquired Local Assistance funds
                   from the State Budget  to perform aquatic
vegetation studies in the Finger Lakes Dis-
trict.) Program funds are allocated as follows:
$45,000 to pay the salaries of the DEC Pro-
gram Coordinator and the FOLA Coordinator;
$6,100 for materials for returning volun-
teers; $41,000 for laboratory analysis; $5,500
to mail samples to the DOH laboratory; $2,500
to purchase dissolved oxygen meters; and
approximately $10,000 for other expenses
including printing reports and  office over-
head.
    Lake monitoring costs decline sharply
following the initial year; the equipment and
most of the materials are reused and the
sampling frequency may be reduced if the
first year's data  indicates little weekly vari-
ation. As a result, laboratory analysis costs
for an individual lake may drop from $1100
during the first sampling season, to $500 in
subsequentyears. Similarly, equipment costs
may decline from $450 to $75.


SELECTED PROGRAM MATERIALS
Annual Report 1987: New York State Citizens
   Statewide Lake Assessment Program. New
   York State Department of Environmental
   Conservation, Division  of Water.  1988.
   431 pages.

Citizens Statewide Lake AssessmentProgram
   Sampling Protocol State of New York De-
   partment of Environmental Conservation,
   Division of Water, and the Federation of
   Lake Associations, Inc. 1988. 36 pages.
   This instruction manual describes basic
   water sampling procedures for CSLAP par-
   ticipants.

New York Citizens Statewide Lake Assess-
   ment Program (CSLAP) User Survey. New
   York State Department of Environmental
   Conservation, Division of Water, and the
   Federation of Lake Associations, Inc. 1988.
   10 pages.

 CSLAP Vegetation Survey Protocol. New York
   State  Department of Environmental
   Conservation, Division of Water. Undated.
   2 pages.

-------
                                                      OHIO'S SCENIC RIVER VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
    Ohio's Scenic River Stream  Quality
Monitoring Program has two primary objec-
tives. The first is to educate citizens about the
importance of  stream biology, particularly
macroinvertebrates, as a measure of stream
quality. The second is to develop and main-
tain a base of information to evaluate long
term changes in river quality. The program
centers around the hands-on involvement of
citizens in the collection and identification of
benthic macroinvertebrates as well as the
calculation of a simple stream quality index
value. The biomonitoring procedures, which
can be quickly and  easily performed, are
within the understanding of individuals in
nearly any age  group, and, as such, are not
designed to pinpoint  subtle shifts in water
quality.
    Unlike many other programs, the Ohio
citizen monitoring effort is administered by a
State agency that does not regulate water
quality. The program is managed by the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources  (ODNR),
Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, as a
component of Ohio's Scenic River Program.
Monitoring results are shared periodically
with the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA), the agency empowered to
regulate water quality, as well as local health
departments. The Agency may investigate
sites where severe degradation is indicated.

VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND
TRAINING
    Ohio  Scenic  River staff  maintain  an
aggressive volunteer recruitment effort that
includes Statewide newspaper advertising,
television spots, and  direct mailings.  Cur-
rently, close to  5,000  volunteers participate
in 150 monitoring groups. Program person-
nel constantly  work to expand the partici-
pant pool by working with numerous organi-
zations, including garden clubs, Big Brothers
and Sisters, Grange associations, conserva-
tion groups, wastewater treatment plant
operators, and schools. Numerous organiza-
tions have incorporated environmental pro-
tection  into their goals, and welcome the
opportunity to participate in the  stream
monitoring program.  At the present time,
volunteer interest exceeds the capacity of the
program, primarily because the program is
restricted to the ten State-designated Scenic
Rivers.  Budgetary limitations on staff time
and equipment acquisition also are a limiting
factor regarding program expansion.
    Ohio's citizen monitoring program began
its sixth year in 1989 and includes 150 sites
on the ten State-designated Scenic Rivers.
Each monitoring group is assigned one or
more sampling locations. A member of the
Scenic River Program staff spends several
hours training each group  in  the proper
sampling technique and identification proce-
dures.
    Since the inception  of the program in
1983, approximately 50% of the original vol-
unteers are still involved in the  program. A
number of those seasonal volunteers are now
beginning to request additional responsibili-
ties. As aresult, State staff are considering an
expansion of the program to include some
chemical monitoring. John Kopec,  the pro-
gram supervisor, believes that volunteer tasks
must increase somewhat in complexity and
number to maintain volunteer interest.

SAMPLING PROTOCOL
    Ohio's volunteer monitoring program was
adapted  from procedures outlined in the
national Izaak Walton League's Save Our
Streams Program. Various techniques  were
tested and modified to develop an approach
that is easy to learn and which  may  be
implemented by a wide range of age groups.
    Each volunteer group is supplied with a
net, a manual that describes sampling meth-
ods, identification sheet of macroinvertebrate
taxa,  and a set of forms for recording obser-
vations and analyses. Using the information
they  have collected,  volunteers develop a
qualitative index of stream quality based on
the overall diversity of indicator species col-
lected. This index was cooperatively devel-
oped by the OEPA and the Ohio Scenic Rivers
Program.
    The volunteers perform the "kick seine"
technique described in the program hand-
book. The seine net is stretched across the
downstream edge of a riffle area measuring
approximately 3 feet by 3 feet. The monitors
pick up all stream bed materials two inches
or larger in the sample area and brush aquatic
insects and other organisms into the seine
net. Then a volunteer thoroughly kicks up
the bottom substrate to dislodge burrowing
organisms. The captured organisms are iden-
tified and the volunteers calculate a cumula-
tive index value based upon the variety of
collected taxa indicating excellent, good, fair,
or poor stream quality (Figure 1). Groups are
encouraged to collect more than  one sample
at a site and consolidate  the results. If poor
water quality is  indicated, the volunteers
may work upstream in search of a source,
START-UP DATE
1983

SAMPLING SITES
10 Rivers, 150 sites
(1989)

PARAMETERS
Biological monitoring
(benthic macroinverte-
brates}

SAMPLING FREQ.
2 to 5 surveys annually
between April and Octo-
ber

NO. VOLUNTEERS
Approximately 5000

ADMINISTRATION
Administered by the State
Scenic Rivers Program
and funded through a
State tax refund check-off
and general revenues.
Several State and  re-
gional staff devote part of
their time to the program,
along with part-time sea-
sonal employees.

STATE CONTACT
John Kopec, Ohio Depart-
ment  of  Natural Re-
sources, Scenic Rivers
Section, Fountain Square
Columbus, OH 43224
(614) 265-6458

-------
 OHIO'S SCENIC RIVER VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
FIGURE 1
•••^H
Ohio Scenic River Stream
Quality Monitoring
Program Stream Ounlity
Assessment Form.
although  time constraints  usually prevent
this procedure. All results are recorded on an
assessment form and mailed either to the
regional stream monitoring coordinator or
the Scenic River Program Central Office.
    Most  groups sample between two and
five times  a year, primarily between April and
October when river flow and temperature
conditions are conducive to  sampling. Al-
though a standard monitoring schedule has
not been implemented for the program as a
whole,  priority stations have been estab-
lished which are sampled at least three times
a year  with one sample performed by the
Scenic Rivers Program staff. Priority stations
are selected to correspond with OEPA sites,
to monitor upstream and downstream of
point source discharges, to provide for easy
access  and accommodations, and to evenly
distribute sampling stations along each Sce-
nic River. Additional quality control meas-
ures have not been formalized, but ad hoc
-STATION
       STRiEAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT FORM
               STREAM Olentanqy River:
                                              SAMPLE"*  1
               TOWNSHIP/CITY  Delaware
                                       DATE 5-1-8
"INDIVIDUALS   The OHvtr Bailey Group
                                         NO. OF PARTICIPANTS
 KSCR1IE WATER COHDITIONS (COLOR, ODOR, BEDGROVTTHS,
      SCUM, ETC.)
  Slightly Budiy; heavy battoa growth.
  Ha odor.
                  HACH KIT RESULTS (1f used) AND
                  OTHER OBSERVATIONS
                             lUSE BACK OF FORM IF NECESSARY!
WIDTH OF RIFFLE «0'
1*T£R DEPTH •' to 10"
TATER TEMP. (*F) JJ 	
BED COMPOSITION OF RIFFLE (*)
SILT UJ SAND LJ GRAVEL
COBBLES (2"- 10') GO BOULDERS (> 10")
MACRO IN VERTEBRATE
TALLY
ESTIMATED COUNT
LETTER CODE
W- 2") D
~ii~\
A « 1 to 9
B - 10 to 99
C » 100 or more
      GOPITAtt
                           6KXP2TAXA
                                      LEfM
                                       CUE
                                              GTOUP3TAXA
              TAXA
          (Omul
        INDEX VALUE 3
                          .FLY MYHPHS
                          R.Y NYMPHS
                          Fit LARVAE
                       lEEUE LARVAE
                      CRAYFISH
                      SC1HK
                      CLAH
       KUWER OF TAXA
         (timu)
       INDEX VALUE 2
                                          KIDSE LARVAE
                                          K1DGE
                                          POUCH
                                          LEECHES.
                                              SNAILS
DUMBER OF TAXA
   ttiwaj
 IHOEX VALUE 1
         CUMUUTIYE
         IHOa VALUE
        ____
      STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT

      EXCELLEHT (> 22) Ml     GOOD (17-22) I  I

      FAIR (11-16)   D     POOR (< II) O
  PLEASE SEHO THI? F0)9( TO:
                        Hr* Oohn S. .^)Dec, Planning Supervisor
                        Division of Natural Areas and Preserves
                        Ohio Scantc Rivers. Program
                        1889 ppuntaln Square Court
                        Colustus, Ohio ' 43224     Phone: (614) 265-6458
comparisons of volunteer and OEPA data are
performed whenever possible. For example,
citizen monitors and OEPApersonnel sampled
side by side downstream from an industrial
operation that was permitted to release a
large  volume of waste  (prior to  closing) in
1987. The two data sets compared favorably.
    To date, the citizen monitoring data has
revealed only a few instances of poor stream
quality (septic tank failures,  sewage treat-
ment plant overflows, and an industrial waste
discharge were suspected sources). However,
this is understandable as the program is
limited to designated Scenic Rivers which by
definition possess a high water quality rat-
ing. Nevertheless, the primary objective of
the program is being  fulfilled:  to develop
awareness, understanding and appreciation
of stream ecology, while permitting the aver-
age citizen hands-on involvement with stream
resource protection.

DATA MANAGEMENT
    The information from data sheets  sub-
mitted to ODNR is entered into a computer
data base for use in the preparation of reports
and possibly trend analysis in the future. The
stored data include the estimated count cate-
gory  for each species  identified,  the  total1
number of taxa collected, the Cumulative
Index Value, and the Stream Quality Rating
for eacri sampling period at each site (Figure
1). Statistical analysis is not performed be-
cause the data lack the technical refinement
necessary to analyze benthic macroinverte-
brate population fluctuations. Trends may
be revealed after a sufficient data base has
been acquired. Raw data indicating unusual
water quality conditions are shared with the
OEPA,  who determines if the  conditions
warrant further investigation.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
    The citizen  monitoring program is run
largely by ODNR personnel as a component of
the State Scenic Rivers Program in the Divi-
sion  of Natural Areas and Preserves. The
Scenic River Program Planning Supervisor
coordinates the program and is responsible
for interagency coordination and communi-
cation with the federal government, manag-
ing the program funds, setting program poli-
cies,  and writing the annual reports. The
planning supervisor oversees four seasonal
employees who work approximately 20 hours
a week between April and October, training
and maintaining contact with the volunteers.
Additional assistance  is given by a staff of

-------
                                                     OHIO'S SCENIC RIVER VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
four Scenic River regional coordinators.
    An annual report describing the citizen
monitoring results is mailed to key members
of each participating organization, and let-
ters of recognition are also sent to volunteers.
While the Ohio program does not produce a
regular volunteer  newsletter, local media
coverage of volunteer projects  is  actively
pursued to provide additional recognition for
the participants.
    The Scenic River Program staff are inves-
tigating expansion of the volunteer monitor-
ing program through assistance to Ohio Soil
and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD's).
Six SWCD's are currently involved with lo-
cally administering stream quality monitor-
ing. The current program supervisor  envi-
sions the Scenic River Program maintaining
its monitoring program on Scenic Rivers, but
also training other agencies to expand citizen
monitoring to streams outside of the Scenic
River Program's jurisdiction.
    The citizen monitoring program is pri-
marily funded with general  State revenues
and a natural areas State income tax refund
check-off program. The 1988 budget totalled
approximately $55,000. Costs for the pro-
gram are distributed as follows: the Scenic
River planning supervisor allocates approxi-
mately 50% of his time to  the volunteer
monitoring program, at a cost of approxi-
mately $15,000. Four regional Scenic River
Coordinators spend  10-15% of their time
between April and October assisting the vol-
unteer program at a cost of approximately
$16,000. Four part-time  seasonal  stream
monitoring coordinators are paid $18,000.
Four thousand dollars are allocated for travel
expenses. Overhead office and report print-
ing costs are not included  in the budget.
Annual equipment costs average $2,000. The
tax-refund monies support the salaries and
travel expenses of the seasonal stream moni-
toring coordinators. All other expenses are
funded by general State revenues, and occa-
sional donations.
SELECTED PROGRAM MATERIALS
Stream Quality Monitoring: A Citizen Action
  Program. Ohio Department of Natural Re-
  sources, Division  of Natural Areas and
  Preserves. Undated. 20 pages .This instruc-
  tion manual covers basic sampling meth-
  ods and provides a  taxonomic  key to
  stream-dwelling macroinvertebrates.

Ohio Scenic Rivers Stream. Quality Monitoring
  Program: AnnualReport 1989 Results. Ohio
  Department of Natural Resources, Division
  of Natural Areas and Preserves. 58 pages.

-------
 CHESAPEAKE BAY CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM
START-UP DATE
1985

SAMPLING SITES
10 Rivers, 60+ sites
(1989)

PARAMETERS
TIDAL AREAS: Air and
water temperature, Sec-
chi disk depth and total
depth, salinity, pH, dis-
solved oxygen, ammonia,
precipitation, field obser-
vations of v/ater condi-
tions and color, weather,
general condition of site.
NONTOAL AREAS: Air
and water temperature,
turbidity, river height, pre-
cipitation, nitrate, dis-
solved oxygen, field ob-
servations.

SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
Weekly year round=

NO. VOLUNTEERS
60+—some sites are
shared by1-3 volunteers.

ADMINISTRATION
Administered by the Alli-
ance for the Chesapeake
Bay, Inc. (ACB) under the
guidance of the Monitor-
ing Subcommittee to the
Implementation Commit-
tee of the Chesapeake
Bay Program. Funded
with grants from USEPA,
Region III and  NOAA,
Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program grants to
the states of Virginia and
Maryland. Private dona-
tions have provided funds
for dissolved oxygen kits.

PROGRAM
CONTACTS
Kathleen Eliett. Citizen
Monitoring Director and
Gayla Campbell, Mary-
land Citizen Monitoring
Coordinator, ACB, 410
Severn Avenue, Suite
110, Annapolis,  MD
21403. (301) 266-6873.
Billy Mills, Virginia Citizen
Monitoring Coordinator,
ACB, P.O. Box 1981
Richmond, VA 23216
804-775-0951.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
    The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
Inc. (ACB) began a pilot water quality testing
project for volunteers in July 1985 as one of
the activities funded under its Chesapeake
Bay Program public participation grant from
USEPA. The project was designed to answer
four questions which were addressed in the
"Chesapeake  Bay  Citizen Monitoring Pro-
gram Report, July  1985 - October 1988":
    1. Can citizens collect water quality data
thatmeetrigorous quality cpntrol standards?
    2. Do data collected at nearshore loca-
tions reflect water quality in the river gener-
ally? Such shallow,  nearshore waters are
increasingly recognized for their importance
as living resources habitats.
    3. What are the most reliable sampling
procedures,  reporting formats,  and data
management systems for a volunteer pro-
gram?
    4. Is it feasible to include  a permanent.
Bay-wide citizen monitoring network among
the long-term Bay management strategies of
the State and Federal governments?
    A major objective of this program was to
demonstrate that citizen volunteers can col-
lect water quality  data that meet rigorous
quality control standards. Data collected by
volunteers were compared to data collected
by  State agency staff at nearby monitoring
stations. Figure 1.4, Chapter  1, shows dis-
solved oxygen concentrations in surface water
samples at a volunteer-monitored, nearshore
site and at a Virginia Water Control Board
monitoring station located in the mid-chan-
nel of the river about one mile apart. Inspec-
tion of the data plots indicated that both the
volunteer-collected data and the State moni-
toring data represent similar  water quality
conditions (Wastler 1987).
     Based on method comparisons and data
results, the Implementation  Committee of
the Chesapeake Bay Program endorsed the
incremental expansion of the Citizen Moni-
toring Program. The Committee has instructed
its relevant subcommittees to report on ways
citizen monitoring data can be used to pro-
vide a better understanding of the status of
the quality of the nearshore habitat.
     A preliminary comparison of data col-
lected from all the volunteer monitored sites
and  by State agency staff indicated that
patterns of differences  between the citizen
monitoring sites and state  monitoring sta-
tions occurred frequently enough to suggest
thattheymayreflectactualconditions  (Ellett,
et  al. 1989). A more thorough analysis of
nearshore water quality compared to mid-
channel water quality in tidal tributaries is
planned. The data will also be used in the
verification of an interpolation model of water
quality in major tributaries to the Bay.
    The data can also be  used to look at
correlations between certain measured vari-
ables, such as low dissolved oxygen, and the
frequency of observed events, such as fish
kills and algae blooms. It should be possible
to identify which sites provide for particular
living resources habitats and attempt to link
their character with water quality indicators.
It would also be useful to evaluate the feasi-
bility of using the citizen monitoring data set
to determine  the data collection frequency
optimal for time series of water quality indi-
cators.

VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT
AND TRAINING
    Whenever possible, volunteers are sought
who live on or near the water. Recruitment
letters are sent to individuals and organiza-
tions that have an interest in water quality or
in monitoring. This includes The Sierra Club,
The Audubon Society, The League of Women
Voters, Soil Conservation District Commit-
tees, river basin  and civic associations,
maritime businesses, etc. An effort is made to
involve different user groups, such as com-
mercial and recreational fisherman, marina
owners, boating clubs, etc. Extensive follow-
up by telephone is necessary to find people
who are willing to participate.
    The volunteers initially attend a 3-hour
training session. These sessions include the
viewing of an introductory slide show and
explanation of the need for  the data to be
collected. This is followed by a demonstration
of the test procedures.
    Two  quality control  (QC) sessions per
year are conducted by the monitoring coordi-
nator.  QC  sessions follow  two basic ap-
proaches: 1) volunteers test the same water
with their equipment in the  way they do it
onsite; 2) volunteers read/record laboratory
standards. Their  results then  provide a
measure of how well they perform as a group
and how precisely they measure the water
quality indicators being tested.

SAMPLING PROTOCOL
     Sites were not preselected for this volun-
tary program.  However,  State monitoring
program  coordinators in Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania were consulted to deter-
mine suitable locations. The  following crite-

-------
                                                            CHESAPEAKE BAY CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM
ria were used to select sites:
    1. stations should be equally divided in
lower estuarine, riverine-estuarine transi-
tion and tidal fresh zones of tidal rivers;
    2. stations should be located above and
below the mouth of any significant tributary
running into the river;
    3. stations  should be  above and below
major construction  sites  and  wastewater
treatment plants;
   , 4. stations should be near a farm or
animal holding facility that is instituting best
management practices;
    5. several stations should be nearshore
opposite a State water  quality  monitoring
station to allow for more direct comparison of
data sets.
    Data quality is a key aspect of the Che-
sapeake Bay Program. A Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPjP) was  prepared for the
volunteer program  and accepted  by the
Chesapeake Bay Program Quality Assurance
Officer (QAO) (CBCMP 1987). Initial testing of
volunteer methods was conducted at the EPA
Central Regional Laboratory, Annapolis, MD
under the supervision of the CBP QAO and
various other chemists and technicians. The
selected tests were written up in a "Citizen
Monitoring Manual" specifically designed for
this program (Ellett 1986).
    Instruments and methods were chosen
based on simplicity of use, cost, and accu-
racy. Every possible effort was made to use
methods that were comparable to those
employed by the CBP Monitoring Program.
Where methods were necessarily different,
methods comparison tests were performed
and the degree of comparability was deter-
mined. The  units reported are the same as
those used in the CBP Monitoring Program.
    Volunteer monitors  collect data  and
samples once a week year round. Surface
water samples are obtained in a bucket from
the water's edge, a dock or pier and, in a few
instances, from a boat.
    In the standard tidal  waters program,
five water quality parameters are measured
at each site: water and air temperature; pH
using color comparator kits; Secchi disk depth
and water depth; salinity using hydrometers;
and dissolved oxygen (DO) using micro-Win-
kler titration kits (two samples are titrated at
each sampling time). Color comparator kits
are used to test for ammonia in the tidal fresh
zone of the James River in Virginia. The water
chemistry kits  used in this program are
manufactured by LaMotte Chemical Prod-
ucts, Inc.
    Monitors  report weekly accumulated
rainfall if they can install a rain gage near the
site. Rain gages are not installed at sites that
are not on private property because they
might be vandalized. In addition, information
on weather and general observations about
the site (live or dead organisms, debris, oil
slicks, ice, odor, water color, anything un-
usual) are recorded on  a  Data Collection
Form and sent to the project coordinator.
    Monitors  on the Conestoga River in
Pennsylvania record air and water tempera-
ture, river height at most sites, water color
and weather conditions and weekly accumu-
lated rainfall. They test for dissolved oxygen
and nitrate-nitrogen using a color compara-
tor kit. They also record turbidity using a
visual comparison  method based  on the
Jackson candle turbidity column  with re-
sults  reported in Jackson turbidity units
(JTU) which correspond to nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU).
    Volunteers on the Patuxent River began
taking samples for laboratory analysis of
nutrients  in late 1989 and  volunteers in
selected locations in Virginia rivers will begin
nutrient sample-taking in 1990. Virginia vol-
unteers survey their sites for the presence of
common wildlife for the State's Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries as part of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Multi-State
Fish and Wildlife Information Systems Proj-
ect. Volunteers assist in groundtruthing of
the submerged aquatic vegetation aerial pho-
tographic survey each year. They also esti-
mate population density of jellyfish species
during the summer months.

DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
    Data are reported on a Data Collection
Form supplied to the volunteer monitors. See
Figure 3.3, Chapter 3  for an example form.
The monitors are instructed to make a copy
of the form and to send the original to the co-
ordinator every two weeks in supplied enve-
lopes. They keep a copy to guard against loss
in the mail and to facilitate discussion of later
questions about data reported. They may use
carbon paper or photocopy the original for
their own records.  Data are keypunched by
Chesapeake Bay Computer Center (CBPCC)
personnel by running a Fortran data entry
program. The raw data file is used as input to
a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program
which  creates  a data listing by site and
creates plots of the parameters. After the data
listing has been checked for keypunch and
coding errors  and corrected by computer

-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM
                  center personnel and the coordinator, a print-
                  out is sent to each monitor. They are asked to
                  look over the listing and report any errors to
                  the coordinator. Verified data are available to
                  the public upon request.

                  PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
                  AND BUDGET
                      The establishment of a volunteer moni-
                  toring program was suggested in the man-
                  agement plan that was developed following
                  the research phase of the Chesapeake Bay
                  Program  (USEPA 1980). In response to a
                  request from the CBP Monitoring Subcom-
                  mittee, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
                  Inc. established an ad hoc committee to ana-
                  lyze and report on the desirability and feasi-
                  bility of citizen monitoring efforts and to
                  provide specific recommendations.  The
                  committee's proposal was .presented to and
                  accepted by the CBP  Implementation Com-
                  mittee which determines detailed policy for
                  the  CBP. This committee  and  its several
                  subcommittees are  made Up of representa-
                  tives from the States, the District of Colum-
                  bia, and Federal agencies that are signatories
                  to the CBP Agreement to restore and protect
                  the Chesapeake Bay.
                      A committee of  eight Bay managers and
                  scientists worked with the Citizen Monitoring
                  Coordinator in  setting up the pilot program.
                  This technical advisory committee reviewed
                  the project plans and the protocol manual,
                  provided technical  guidance to  the project
                  coordinator as needed, and  reviewed and
                  evaluated results for inclusion  in interim
                  reports.
                      A Citizen Monitoring Workgroup of the
                  Monitoring Subcommittee; continues to pro-
                  vide direction to the program managers with
                  input from relevant State agency personnel.
                  The Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring
                  Program (CBCMP) began an extensive expan-
                  sion in Virginia and  Maryland in the spring of
                   1989. The program director provides over-
                  sight for the regional program;  helps plan
                  and conduct quality control  sessions; and
                  prepares and presents reports. The director
                  also writes and edits the newsletter,  River
                  Trends, which is published four times a year
                  and sent to volunteer monitors as well as
                  other interested people.
                      The State  citizen monitoring coordina-
                  tors carry out day-to-day management of all
                  projects in their respective states; recruit and
                  train volunteer monitors; receive, store and
                  manage data in cooperation with CBPCC
                  personnel; plan and implement quality con-
trol activities; have direct contact with volun-
teers and carry out QC activities; order, cali-
brate and issue replacement equipment and
dispense reagent refills.
   The  1989 budget  for direct costs  to
manage the CBCMP in three states is ap-
proximately $112,000. Funding is provided
by the EPA public participation grant to ACB
and NOAA Coastal Zone Management grants
to Maryland and Virginia that then contract
with ACB to implement projects in Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Program funds
are allocated as follows:
Personnel (2 and 1/2 people):     $80,000
Travel:                            8,000
Equipment:                        7,000
Supplies:                          1,000
Training and Quality Control:         800
Informational materials:            1,300
Newsletter:                          700
    EPA provides data management support
and office support for the director and the
Maryland coordinator. The Virginia Council
on the Environment provides office support
for the Virginia coordinator.


REFERENCES AND SELECTED
PROGRAM MATERIALS
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.  1986.
   Citizen Monitoring Manual. Baltimore, MD.

Ellett,  Kathleen.  An Introduction to Water
   Quality Monitoring Using  Volunteers: A
   Handbook/or Coordinators. 1988. Alliance
   for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.  Baltimore,
   MD.

Ellett,  Kathleen K., Susan Brunenmeister
   and Ricky H. Price. Chesapeake Bay Citi-
   zen Monitoring Program Report, July 1985-
   October 1988.  USEPA CBP/TRS 27/89,
   June 1989.

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region
   III, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1986. Qual-
   ity Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP)for the
   Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Pro-
   gram. USEPA QAMS 1980 Document. An-
   napolis, MD.

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region
   III, Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake
   Bay: A Framework for Action. Appendices.
   Philadelphia, PA. 554 pages.

-------

-------

-------

-------
g?i
Penal
00
icial
al Busi
lty for 1
 I

-------