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
------- |