4»EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
Rhode Island
Sea Grant College Program
The University
of Rhode Island
EPA 503/9-90-009
August 1990
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Citizen
Volunteers in
Environmental
Monitoring
Summary Proceedings of the
2nd National Workshop
December 1989, New Orleans, Louisiana
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Tliis publication has been funded wholly or
in part by the US EPA under Interagency
Agreement DW 13934084-0 with NOAA's
Sea Grant Program and the University of
Rhode Island.
-------
Citizen Volunteers
in Environmental Monitoring
Summary Proceedings of the 2nd National Workshop
December 1989
New Orleans, Louisiana
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments j ,
Virginia Lee and Eleanor Ely. : • '
Workshop Goals j
Michelle Miller • ; d
Welcome and Introduction
Tudor Davies and Vicki Arroyo : • ••••4
i
•|
i
Keynote Speakers • c
Dennis Weaver and John Costlow ••-• b
Panel 1: Design and Implementation of Estuary Monitoring Programs
Richard Batiuk, Alice Mayio, Jerry Neff, Andrea Copping 12
Panel 2: Forging Links to State Government
R. Paul Wilms, John Kopec, Kathleen Hentcy, Scott Kishbaugh,
Andrea Copping { • 20
Panel 3: Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Paul Godfrey, James M. Bellatty, David Flemer 26
Panel 4: Debris Cleanup
Kathryn O'Hara, Cindy Zipf, Judie Hansen,|Ken Pntchard 30
Panel 5: Regional Coordination of Monitoring Programs
Villere Reggio, Mark Mitchell, John Tiedemann, Karen Firehock....36
Ecosystem Discussion Group Reports
Discussion Group I: Streams and Rivers i 43
Discussion Group II: Lakes 4^
Discussion Group III: Estuaries • • • --48
Discussion Group IV: Living Resources • 50
Discussion Group V: Debris '. • 51
Closing Remarks and EPA Response
Ron Kreizenbeck 53
-------
-------
Preface
The second national workshop on "The Role of Citizen Volunteers in Environmental
Monitoring" was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in December 1989. Cosponsored by
EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and the Gulf of Mexico Program, the
workshop was attended by 160 people representing many different kinds of volunteer
monitoring programs and government agencies from all around the country.
This second workshop was designed to build on the accomplishments of the first one,
which was held at the University of Rhode Island in May 1988 ibd provided an introduction
to the wide variety of volunteer monitoring programs.
A primary objective of the second national workshop was to explore "how to provide
useful information and how to encourage partnerships between citizen monitoring groups
and state or regional government." The workshop was organized into five major panels fo-
cusing on the following themes: forging links with local and state government; providing
quality assurance and quality control of the monitoring data; getting useful information out
of debris cleanup programs; coordinating monitoring programs regionally; and designing
management-oriented monitoring programs for estuaries and coastal waters (where volunteer
monitoring is still a fledgling effort). In each panel, presentations were selected to represent
different areas of the country, different types of environments (e.g., lakes, streams, beaches),
and different kinds of monitoring (e.g., fish tagging, debris cleanup, water quality, education,
enforcement). • .: '
In response to requests made at the first workshop, a special afternoon session was set
aside for information and idea exchange among groups engaged in similar monitoring
activities. Conference attendees could choose among the following discussion groups:
Rivers, Lakes, Estuaries, Living Resources, and Debris. At the final session of the workshop
these five groups presented summaries of their discussions, including an evaluation of prog-
ress and specific recommendations for exchanging ideas and techniques, enhancing links to
government, and identifying solutions to problems. A great deal of information was also
exchanged at the numerous poster displays throughout the three-day program.
A second major objective of the workshop was to introduce state and regional govern-
ment officials to the achievements and potential of volunteer monitoring. Consequently, the
workshop followed OMEP's second Annual National Coastal Programs Conference. Offi-
cials from EPA regional offices and state and local government who attended the earlier con-
ference stayed to hear about different citizen monitoring topics,; to see the excellent quality
of programs represented at the poster sessions, and to join in discussions with citizen volun-
teer coordinators during meals and special joint events. The meeting was hosted in New
Orleans because of the great interest in citizen environmental monitoring throughout the Gulf
of Mexico region. In fact, during the workshop several attendees worked with local leaders
to set up a citizen monitoring program for Lake Pontchartrain. i
The third goal of the conference was to provide an opportunity for participants to meet
and foster a national network of citizen volunteers. This purpose was fully met; results of the
workshop already include:
• A third, greatly expanded edition of the National Directory of Citizen Volunteer
Environmental Monitoring Programs.
• Publication of a newsletter for volunteer citizen monitors.
-------
• Publication of EPA's guidance to state program officials on the use of volun-
teer monitoring data. .
In addition, EPA's Office of Water highlighted volunteer monitoring for the Agency's
Earth Day celebration.
The outstanding commitment, creativity, integrity, and energy that characterize citizen
volunteer monitoring programs continue to be an inspiration to us. We are exceedingly
grateful for the privilege of working with all of you.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the Gulf of Mexico Program and the EPA Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection for cosponsoring the workshop and the publication of the proceed-
ings. Special thanks go to Tudor Davies, Tom Armitage, Michelle Killer, Lore Hantske,
Margherita Pryor, and William Whitson. We would also like to thank the EPA Office of
Water Regulations and Standards for their participation in the conference and continued
support of volunteer monitoring.
We appreciate the help of the organizing committee—Kathy Ellett, Tom Armitage,
Tom Perlic, Dave Flemer, and William Whitson—for their assistance in the months of
planning before the workshop. Thanks also to Ken Cooke for his talents in videotaping
the workshop (copies are available from Virginia Lee or Tom Armitage).
Many thanks are due to LaVie McDonald for design and layout of the proceedings
and to the Rhode Island Sea Grant Program for distributing this document.
Virginia Lee
Coastal Resources Center
Graduate School of Oceanography
The University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI02882
Eleanor Ely
Information Office
Rhode Island Sea Grant Program
The University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02882
-------
Michelle
Killer
EPA Office of
Marine and
Estuarine
Protection
Workshop Goals
i
This afternoon we will be hearing from a wide range of citizen monitoring groups that
have forged effective partnerships with environmental programs at the federal, state, and
local levels. Our office is very pleased to be cosponsoring this meeting with the Gulf of
Mexico Program. We believe that fostering citizen involvement is perhaps the most impor-
tant thing we can do to ensure the success of our programs. There is much we want to ac-
complish during the workshops. I am confident that the group of talented and committed
citizens and agency program managers gathered here can provide answers to many of our
questions and challenging problems.
WORKSHOP GOALS
• Continue building and nurturing a national network of volunteer environmental
monitoring programs. ,
• Find ways to get states working together in a basinwide approach to managing our
nation's water bodies. Many of our estuarine waters are interstate, -
• Develop new users of data collected by citizen volunteers, and new opportunities for
citizens to become involved in environmental programs.
• Convince state program managers that data collected by citizen volunteers can be
extremely useful in decision making. To do that, we must ensure that citizens are collecting
the data the managers need.
. Determine what states need from volunteer monitoring programs, and what volunteer moni-
toring programs need from the states.
• Answer two questions: First, what pollution abatement and control programs can be evalu-
ated by volunteer monitors? Second, can volunteer monitoring programs move further into
the living resources arena where our biggest challenge lies?
. Determine what EPA and other government agencies can be doing to fully use
the talents and energy of committed volunteers who are collecting environmental data.
-------
Ibdor
Davies
Director, EPA
Office of
Marine and
Estuarine
Protection,
Washington,
D.C.
"April 22,1990, is
the 20th anniversary
of Earth Day. It's a
good occasion for
EPA to examine
where it came from
and where it's going.
One of the things
we'd like to do is to
use Ms occasion to
recognize the role of
citizen volunteers.9*
Welcome
(X Introduction
I'm here to begin the transition from the second Annual National Coastal Programs Cor,
ference into, the joint conference session with the second National Citizen Volunteer Moni-
tonng Workshop. With the help of the Gulf of Mexico program, we are for the first time
holdmg these two conferences in conjunction with each other. As we thought about and
planned this joint meeting, I think it surprised us all that we hadn't tried to do this before
There's a very logical tie that EPA has to a citizen monitoring program. One of the funda-
mental things EPA tries to do is involve the public and empower the public.
What you people can provide is a data-rich environment in which we can track the healt
and trends of the nation's waters. And what you are doing is building a former public consei
sus about the environment. You're very remarkable people.
The secret about volunteer monitoring is out. There is growing interest in using volun-
teers to monitor environmental conditions, and some states have established some very
strong links with you and can testify as to how important what you do is. And it's important
that they do testify because some were skeptical about the quality of the data you produce '
and they have been converted into true believers.
And I'm sure that, after the first monitoring meeting, some of you were probably skepti-l
cal too-about whether EPA would follow through on some of the commitments we've
made. Here's what EPA has done:
• We have published a national directory of citizen volunteer monitoring
organizations (and there's been great demand for it).
• We have supported the publication of a national monitoring newsletter.
• We have promoted the use of citizen monitoring nationwide.
• We are preparing a document for state, program managers that explains
how to use data from citizen monitoring.
• Perhaps the biggest commitment is that we're back—we're having
this second conference, and we're prepared to work with you.
Be a little patient with us because we're scientists and lawyers, and they're some of the
most difficult-to-convince people in the world, but we're listening and we're hearing
April 22, 1990, is the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. It's a good occasion for EPA to
examine where it came from and where it's going. One of the things we'd like to do is to use
this occasion to recognize the role of citizen volunteers.
One day recently I had a discussion with someone about what makes a successful pro-
gram. He said there are three components: First, you need money; second, you need a
consensus about what should be done; and third, you need a hero. I think you people the
citizen volunteers, are the people who are going to give us heroes. You can galvanize that
political support. Politicians will listen when the public talks.
-------
Vicki
Arroyo
Assistant Chief
of Staff of
\Environmental
Affairs, Office
of the
Governor,
Baton Rouge,
Louisiana
are now
experiencing marsh
loss rates of 50 to 60
square miles per year
in coastal Louisiana,
and each year
approximately 30
fercent of our oyster-
producing areas
are closed due to
the threat of
pollution."
On behalf of the Governor, I would like to welcome you all to Louisiana. Louisiana is a
state blessed with rich natural resources, yet we are also a state with an unfortunate history of
environmental problems. Louisiana's coastline region contains millions of acres of wetlands
and estuarine waters. Forty percent of the nation's coastal wetlands are here! Our state leads
the country in commercial fisheries and our coastal marshes serve as the principal nursery for
the fishery resources of the Gulf. :
i .
Yet here in Louisiana, as in other areas of the country, we are facing very difficult
environmental problems—resulting from both natural and manmade causes—which seri-
ously threaten our coastal wetland resources and their productivity. For example, we are now
experiencing marsh loss rates of 50 to 60 square miles per year in coastal Louisiana, and
each year approximately 30 percent of our oyster-producing areas are closed due to the threat
of pollution. Contributing factors to these problems include coastal subsidence and saltwater
intrusion, rising sea level, oil and gas exploration and production, agricultural and urban
runoff, and industrial discharges. |
All of these problems are complex and will take time and resources to address, but I am.
optimistic. In the year that I have been back in Louisiana, I have observed some striking
changes in the attitude of the general public and state legislators; in making the environment a
priority. '
But despite this unprecedented state commitment to the protection of our coastal re-
sources, we recognize that we cannot do it alone. We welcome ihe opportunity to learn from
those of you working on EPA's coastal programs. •
I want to mention my enthusiasm for the participation today of. citizen volunteers. In
spite of my recent string of bureaucratic titles, I began my interest in the environmental field
as a citizen (and student) concerned largely with water resource issues. After seeing the
progress we have made since that time in passing environmental; laws and regulations and
receiving the funding necessary for implementation—it is quite clear that none of this would
be possible without the active support and involvement of our citizens.
-------
Dennis
Weaver
Earth
Communications
Office,
Los Angeles,
California
u\Ve, as humans, have
the ability to destroy
that which allows us
to live, and not only
to destroy it for
ourselves, but for
every other creature
that lives on this earth.
So we're in a very
responsible position."
Keynote
Speakers
I am really grateful for what all of you are doing to solve our environmental problems—
because they're massive, as you know. We need your energy and commitment. This is
probably the most exciting time to be living in the history of the species. It's also the most
dangerous—maybe that's what makes it so exciting. We, as humans, have the ability to
destroy that which allows us to live, and not only to destroy it for ourselves, but for every
other creature that lives on this earth. So we're in a very responsible position.
Ten years ago, if you said you were an environmentalist, you would have been consid-
ered some kind of weirdo. Now public activism is high; but how do we get-the environ-
mental message out to people who don't know? Ignorance is the worst problem we have. It
leads to apathy.
This summer, scientists and representatives of the media were brought together at a con-
ference at the Smithsonian Institution. The theme was, "Are we overreacting to our environ-
mental problems?" The answer that the scientists gave to the media people was, "No—we
are under reacting."
But some people still want more studies. It reminds me of the experiment where they put
a frog in a container of water. He could get out if he made a great effort, but he was comfort-
able, so he didn't try. Then they started heating the water very slowly—so slowly that the
frog didn't notice. By the time he finally realized "Hey, I'm in real deep hot water," it was
too late—he was too enervated and didn't have the strength to save himself. We're in the
same way with this environmental crisis. Pollution has crept up so slowly that people have
gotten used to polluted air and water. If we don't do something, we're going to end up like
the frog. That's why we can't afford another study. What if it proves we were right?
People ask, "What can I do as an individual? I'm just one little person." They think we
have no power as individuals, but that's just not so. We have tremendous power and we're
not using it as we should.
What can we do? First we need to examine the use of energy in our daily lives. There are
many ways that we as individuals could save energy. We could use compact fluorescent
bulbs in our homes. We could use low-flow shower heads that use two-and-a-half, rather
than eight, gallons of water per minute. Every drop of water we conserve is energy con-
served. And do you realize that heat escaping around leaky windows wastes more oil than
the Alaska pipeline supplies in a year?
The obvious way to save energy is through the gasoline we burn in our automobiles. If
the government would just raise the efficiency standards for cars by one mile per gallon, we
would save 420,000 barrels of oil per day. Per day! That is twice the amount lost in the
Alaskan oil spill. So there are things we can do, but they won't happen unless the public
demands them. Detroit isn't going to make a fuel-efficient car unless there's a market for it.
We who are involved must act as well as talk. Our actions are much stronger than our words.
We must be an example. Changing our behavior will make other people change theirs. I just
bought a car, a Geo Metro, that gets 52 miles per gallon. And don't think that I'm depriving
myself, because that is a fun car to drive. My cruising range is over 500 miles!
-------
I * My wife and I built
a house where
^everything is powered
by solar energy. We
have photovoltaic
cells that collect the
energy from the sun
and store it in
batteries. The
batteries power
everything in our
thouse-—refrigerators,
\freezers, light bulbs,
blenders, hair dryers,
^everything. It costs a
I little to begin with—
but then you don't
| have an electric bill
after that. *
Making these changes takes commitment; it takes stick-to-itiveness, perseverance. Com-
mitment is that power that doesn't give up, that keeps looking for a solution. Commitment is
different from involvement. Involvement is fine but it doesn't necessarily last. For example,
take a plate of ham and eggs: the chicken obviously was involved, but the pig was commit-'
ted!
There's another energy source we should be using: the suri. It's inexhaustible. Even if oil
and gas were clean energy sources, there would still be a problem with relying on them
because they will be gone. What are we going to do then? We have no vision; we don't look
ahead. "Live for today" has been our philosophy. So my wife and I built a house where
everything is powered by solar energy. We have photovoltaic cells that collect the energy
from the sun and store it in batteries. The batteries power everything in our house—refrig-
erators, freezers, light bulbs, blenders, hair dryers, everything. It costs a little to begin with-
but then you don't have ah electric bill after that.
The house is not only solar; we've also demonstrated that we can use recycled materials
The house is made basically out of old tires and aluminum cans. Earth is packed into the
tores with a sledge hammer until it forms a "tire brick" with a great thermal mass After one
year (the time it takes to be totally charged by the sun's energy), the house will maintain a
constant temperature between 68 and 72 degrees with no heating or air conditioning. This is
catching on: The first commercial building using the same method as my home is being
constructed in Ridgway, Colorado. j
One of the best means we have for solving the problems we face is that we have this
great ability to communicate. If it weren't for that, I think the situation would be hopeless
So in Hollywood we have formed a group called ECO—Earth Communications Office—
because we felt that the thing we were most capable of doing was communicating. It's a
group of directors, actors, writers, and musicians. So you will be seeing more environmental
issues on TV shows, in songs, in movies.
As we evolve toward our eventual good, let's be optimistic but practical. There's a story
about an optimist: A man fell from the top of a 10-story building and as he passed each win-
dow he waved at the people inside and said, "Don't worry-everything's all right so far!" So
let us be optimistic, but not too optimistic. We need a dash of practicality too.
Throughout our history, we have gone through shifts in consciousness. Our biggest hope
is that we are presently going through a shift that will bring us to greater truth, understand-
mg, and knowingness. We are all connected, linked together. You can't hurt someone else
and not hurt yourself too. If we acted from that understanding-tot we can't have happiness
for ourselves and exclude it from others-I believe it would change the world overnight If
we understood that, we wouldn't need armies.
The last shift in consciousness produced the Industrial Revolution. That was a great
change; however, we are now paying the bill. It was a time of intense individualism and
intense competition. It was exciting and possibly it was necessary—but it's yesterday's
news. Today there are new ideas on the horizon: intense togetherness and intense coopera-
tion, i
Some say greed will always rule because we are motivated bv self-interest I agree that
we are motivated by self-interest, but that doesn't mean greed cannot be eliminated I believe
that greed will go when we realize that it's in our own best self-interest for it to go We will
either arrive at the understanding that we are aU parts of the same! whole or we will destroy
ourselves. We will learn to love one another or perish. I
-------
John Costlow
Duke University
Marine
Laboratory,
Beaufort,
North Carolina
Keynote
Speakers
The presence of each of you this morning clearly'affirms that you have an interest, and
hopefully some level of involvement, in environmental issues involving individual citizens,
citizen organizations, and agencies of the local, county, state, and federal governments. But
how many of you have ever stopped to analyze the various components and interactions of a
successful estuarine program? This morning would seem to be an excellent opportunity to
"dissect" the machinery of such an effort.
(At this point-having been the mayor of the town of Beaufort, N.C., for two terms, and
subsequently involved with some number of state, federal, and international groups con-
cerned with the coastal/estuarine environments-I'd like to point out that the examples
which I intend to develop are "purely academic"!)
It would be useful to consider first just who is involved in this machinery. Of course,
there are individual citizens and groups or organizations of citizens and several levels of
government. With that as a basic premise, one can progress to ask in what way can tiiese
groups be best integrated for maximum effectiveness?
For a change, let us first identify the actual owners of our natural estuarine systems, a
point which is all too frequently overlooked. In spite of what you may hear, it is not "indus-
try," it is not the "developers," and it is not "government," regardless of the level! Insofar as
coastal estuarine systems are concerned, the owners are the citizens of that state—and, for
the most part, the various levels of government have varying degrees of responsibility for
managing these priceless areas for us, the citizens. At mis point, it could be useful to iden-
tify or categorize, the ways in which citizens organize themselves. I have listed a few which
one'could expect to find in the average community within most of the states of the Union. I
You will notice that I have also attempted to identify the level of "influence" (small, me-
dium, or large) which mat particular organization may have relative to estuarine programs,
or, for that matter, any issue. (See pages 9 and 10.)
Unfortunately, some communities of citizens, while organized, tend to be totally polar-
ized in a negative sense. There are groups of individuals banded together for some cause or
another but there is no interest in communicating with other groups. Most of you, having
been involved in community efforts at one time or another, can identify the various organiza-
tions to which I refer. For example, there are the "AB's"-"Ag'iners-Because." It does not
really matter what you may wish to initiate, they are always against it! Then there are the
"DIM's"—"Don't Involve Me." This group is not really against anything, they just seem to
feel that they have far more important things to do than become involved in an effort at the
lowly level of the community! Closely related, but never working together, are the
"ITB's"—the "I'm Too Busy" group. They may actually be too heavily involved to allocate
further time to community effort, but frequently one wonders. And then, finally, there are the
"IWW's"—"It Won't Work." In some ways this is the most irritating group, largely because
they rarely permit you to even describe the project and invariably identify an unsuccessful
effort on their part, 37 years ago, as an example of why it will not work!
-------
CITIZEN'S GROUPS
Influence Organization
S Individual Citizens
M-L Environmental Groups
S-L Garden Clubs/Women's Clubs
M-L ERA, NOW, League of Women Voters
S-M Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Moose, I.O.O.F,
Masonic Lodge, Knights of Columbus
M-L Churches and Religious Organizations
M-L AARP
M-L Chambers of Commerce
M-L Regional Scientific Organizations
M-L Unions
M-L Teachers Associations, Local Bar Associations,
Local Historical Associations,
Political Parties and Associations
M-L Local Student Associations
S-L Industry
M-L Banks and Savings and Loans Associations
M-L Developers' Associations
M-L Local Press
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Influence Agency
M-L Municipal Commissioners and Mayor
M-L Municipal Agencies and Department Heads
S-M Local Fire Departments/Local Rescue Squads
S-M Water and Sewer Departments
M-L Municipal Police Departments
S-M Municipal Housing Authorities
S-M Urban Development Authorities
S-M Municipal Employees Unions
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Influence Agency
M-L County Commissioners - Chairman
M-L Sheriff's Department
M-L Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools
M-L Planning Commission
M-L Zoning Commission
M-L Health Department
M-L Department of Social Services
M-L Community Action Association
M-L Tax Supervisor and Staff
-------
STATE GOVERNMENT
Influence Agency
Executive
L Office of the Governor
M-L Individual Cabinet Members
M-L State Health Department
M-L Department of Natural Resources
M-L Environmental Management Commission
M-L Marine Fisheries Commission
M-L Coastal Resources Commission
M-L State Wildlife Commission
M-L State Urban Development Commission
M-L State Department of Social Services
M-L State Highway Patrol
M-L Department of Transportation
M-L Department of Commerce
M-L Department of Agriculture
M-L Office of the Attorney General
M-L Office of the Secretary of State
Legislative
S-L Individual Members of House
S-L Individual Members of Senate
M-L Special Study Commissions
M-L Special Standing Committees
M-L Finance Committee
10
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Influence Agency
Executive
L EPA
L NOAA-Sea Grant and NMFS
L U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
L U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
L U.S. Department of Interior (Park Service and Minerals
Management Service)
L U.S. Geological Survey
L Branches of U.S. Military (Office of Naval Research)
L National Science Foundation
L Department of Energy
L N.I.E.H.S.
Legislative
L Individual Members of House
L Individual Members of Senate
L Overview Committees of House and Senate
L Individual Staff of Members of House and Senate
L GAO
L OMB
Other
L National Academy of Sciences
L National Academy of Engineering
L National Press (radio-television-magazines-newspapers)
L National Environmental Organizations (Nature Conservancy,
Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund)
-------
^Unfortunately, some
communities of
citizens, while
organized, tend to be
totally polarized in a
negative sense. There
are groups of indi-
viduals banded
together for some
cause or another, but
there is no interest in
communicating with
other groups. "
Normally, at least in our country, where three or four citijiens are gathered together, one
finds a form of "local" government, established to manage the community and its needs. One
form is that which includes a mayor, several elected commissioners, and then heads of some
number of departments depending upon the size and needs of the community. This type is
shown below.
Again, depending upon the size, geography, and heritage1 of the community, the next
level of government is the "county," or, as in this state, the "parish." It would normally have
some number of elected commissioners, one of which is identified as the Chairman, and
then, as with the municipal government, some number of heads of departments to carry out
the day-to-day operations of the county or parish. '
On a much larger scale, many state governments are composed of the elected governor
and the individuals that he appoints to serve as his "cabinet," responsible for the workings of
particular components of the state government. Then, reporting to individual cabinet mem-
bers, or Secretaries, there can be a seemingly endless array of department heads and agen-
cies, frequently referred to as the bureaucracy of the government,, It is here that we first
encounter the problems associated with the "Executive" branch and the "Legislative" branch
of the government. In most states, the legislative branch is composed of two "houses." From
time to time, one finds that the element of "political philosophy," commonly referred to as
"party," can be involved and it is possible for one "party" to dominate the "Executive" while
an opposite philosophy dominates the "Legislative." Although one might hope that an issue
of such importance as the environment would be above such party differences, there are
occasional suggestions that this is not always the case!
And finally, last but certainly not least, we come to the federal government which, as
you certainly well know, is organized along lines similar to that described for the state. Al-
though most of us rarely have contact with the president, we should have contact with our
congressmen, our senators, and, as evidenced here today, with members of the various
agencies charged with specific roles relative to the estuarine/coastal environment—the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, the Fish
and Wildlife Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to mention just a few. At this
level of government, we encounter the same dichotomy we first identified within the govern-
ment of the state—that is, two or more political philosophies and further subdivisions associ-
ated with the Executive and Legislative branches. (I recognize the third branch, the Judicial,
is important, but most of us rarely have occasion to be involved in those hallowed halls.)
Ideally, there are strong interactions not only between the: citizen groups and the local
government, but also among elected commissions and department heads of county and state
government, allowing for communication and cooperation. :
11
-------
Richard
Batiuk
Re-thinking
Estuarine
Monitoring
12
Panel I Design and Implementation of
JJEstuary Monitoring Programs
Panelists: Richard Batiuk, EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office; Alice Mayio, EPA Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division; Jerry Neff, Battelle Ocean Sciences; Andrea Copping, Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority.
Moderator: Tom Armitage, EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
Introduction to Estuary Management — Tom Armitage
We've heard that monitoring estuaries is a hot topic. At the recent International Estuarine Re-
search Federation meeting in Baltimore, an entire session was devoted to estuarine monitoring. And at
EPA's Water Quality Assessment Symposium that was held early this year, an entire day was spent on
sessions on estuarine monitoring. The National Academy of Sciences has recently completed several
studies on estuarine monitoring. They've looked at monitoring needs in the Southern California Bight
and the Chesapeake Bay. And many of you have indicated that developing monitoring pro grams for
estuaries is high on your list of priorities.
In many estuaries, monitoring programs are already in place for discharge permits. I think the
challenge facing us is to build on existing monitoring efforts and to design effective basinwide monitor-
ing programs.
Citizens have been playing a key role in monitoring two of the bodies of water we're going to be
talking about on this panel—Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound.
Before we begin discussing citizen volunteer monitoring, this panel of experts will discuss design
and implementation of estuarine monitoring programs.
The multi-agency state/federal Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program is now entering its
seventh year. I would like to share some of our experiences with other estuary programs that
are now planning their monitoring programs. •
We need to start a re-thinking of estuarine monitoring. We need to think of the estuary in
terms of the whole basin—the surrounding watershed and the tidal waters; and we need to
think of monitoring not as simply routine data collection but as an evolving data-collection
network and process.
The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program has the following objectives:
1. Water quality monitoring program
• Characterize existing water quality baywide.
• Determine trends in water quality that might develop in response to management
actions or additional sources of pollution.
• Integrate the analyses of various monitoring components with a view toward
achieving a more comprehensive understanding of the processes affecting water
quality and the linkage with living resources.
2. Living resources monitoring program
• Document the current status of living resources and their habitats in Chesapeake Bay.
• Track the abundance and distribution of living resources and the quality of their
habitats over time.
• Examine correlations and relationships among water quality, habitat quality,
and abundance, distribution, and integrity of living resource populations.
Based on our experiences in the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program, I'd like to offer
some specific recommendations in four areas—program design, data management, quality as-
surance, and data analysis:1
-------
1. Program design
Our experience:
We institutionalized the program through an effective committee/technical workgroup
structure. We planned adequately for the water quality network design but not for living
resource components. The monitoring of toxics still has not been fully addressed.
Recommendations:
• Establish a multi-jurisdictional monitoring committee,:
• Clearly state the program objectives; use them in developing data quality objectives and
network design. I
• Continually seek long-term, stable funding sources.
• Integrate existing monitoring programs into the design of a coordinated monitoring
program. !
• Consider future modeling needs during network design.
2. Data management
Our experience:
We did not make adequate plans up front for our data management needs. We found that
working with data submitted by numerous different organizations demanded specific data-
submission formats and data-management requirements.
Recommendations:
• Plan adequate resources for data management prior to implementing the monitoring
program. ( •
• Seek consensus on, and require adherence to, specific data submission requirements.
• Clearly state objectives for database development up front, and adhere to them when
structuring the database. j
• Target acquisition of key historical data sets early on.
• Establish procedures for quality assurance of all data entered into a common database.
3. Quality assurance
Our experience: i
For water quality samples alone, we eventually had mots thsn 15 laboratories analyzing
samples and contributing to the centralized computer database. A significant effort was
required to ensure the use of comparable sample collection and analysis methods.
Recommendations:,
• Establish quality assurance as an integral part of all monitoring program components.
• Set up a coordinated split-sample program between analytical laboratories.
• Seek technical consensus on sample collection and analysis procedures.
4. Data analysis and interpretation
Our experience:
Insufficient resources were devoted to data analysis. Direct links between information
resulting from the program and management decisions were limited at first. Establishment
of consensus on data-analysis priorities and sharing of data-management and data-
analysis resources between agencies was necessary.
Recommendations: ;
• Dedicate resources for analysis and interpretation of monitoring data.
• Establish a tiered reporting system to force routine analysis and synthesis of data
targeted toward various levels of agency managers and the public.
• Create a dependence on using results from the monitoring program for management
decision making. ; ,
(from audience): How do you create this dependence?
13
Pull together the existing information and see where the gaps are; then target
those people who need that information. In our ease, the question was
whether the phosphate detergent ban was helping the estuary. Managers were
able to look at the monitoring data, which showed that ambient phosphorus
levels had decreased. Now they ask us every year, "Are we on target?"
-------
Alice Mayio
EPA's Guidance
Documentfor
State Surface
Water
Monitoring
Programs
"Previous EPA
guidance to states
just wasn't hitting
the right audience; it
focused on technical
issues and was aimed
at those who run and
manage monitoring
programs, not
those who make
decisions on
pollution control."
14
Development of a Guidance Documentfor State Surface Water Monitoring Programs
The guidance is aimed at state water quality program managers. More than 20 contribu-
tors from the states, EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee
Valley Authority, and others are working on the document, which is expected to be ready for
review by EPA regions and states in 1990.
Why did EPA decide to produce the guidance? First, a little of the history that led up to
the decision.
In 1987, EPA completed a study (called "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
Change") of its surface water monitoring program. The study identified five emerging chal-
lenges facing state and EPA program managers:
1. Toxics: Need to develop quick, reliable, and inexpensive biological testing for toxics.
2. Biology: Need to increase the use of biological monitoring to characterize baseline water quality.
3. Targeting: Need to target control actions to where they will achieve results and need to show
the effectiveness of those actions.
4. Nonpoint source pollution: Need to identify and characterize the impacts of nonpomt
source pollution.
5. Coastal: Need to expand pollution identification and control efforts in near-coastal
and ocean waters.
The study also noted the failure of managers to make adequate use of existing data in
planning pollution control activities.
One of the study's recommendations was that the EPA should issue guidance to states on
re-evaluating their surface water monitoring programs. Previous EPA guidance to states just
wasn't hitting the right audience; it focused on technical issues and was aimed at those who
run and manage monitoring programs, not those who make decisions on pollution control.
The new guidance should be aimed at state environmental managers, such as those who
permit point sources, assess nonpoint source pollution, and interact with the National Estuary
Program.
The core of the guidance is its discussion of the uses of monitoring information in a
number of state-level program areas. These program areas are:
1. Establishing and refining water quality standards.
2. Identifying problems and setting priorities for waters in need of controls.
3. Implementing management programs and making control decisions.
4. Evaluating the effectiveness of management actions through follow-up monitoring.
Follow-up monitoring will be undertaken by the National Estuary Program management
conference to assess the effectiveness of comprehensive conservation and management
plans.
Under each of these program areas, the guidance discusses the benefits to managers of
using monitoring information; clarifies the objectives of monitoring and makes recommenda-
tions for data collection, analysis, and presentation; and discusses some of the resource
requirements of monitoring.
The guidance goes on to make some general recommendations to the states on program
design, such as:
• Conduct watershed-level assessments.
• Conduct integrated assessments (that is, use chemistry, biology, toxicology, and habitat evaluations).
• Maximize monitoring resources (for example, by using volunteers, by exploring alternate funding
sources, and by making better use of available data).
• Involve citizens in identifying problems and working toward solutions.
• Interpret monitoring data and present it in a usable form.
• Improve water quality standards and criteria.
• Use environmental measures rather than administrative ones to set goals and track progress.
-------
^Volunteer
monitoring can
produce
comparatively
inexpensive,
high-quality data that
can be useful to the
state, but in order to
get that kind of data
the state has to com-
mit resources and
personnel from the
start, and carry that
commitment through
the life of the
program."
15
Panel I/Estuary Monitoring Programs
In conclusion, I'd like to point out that this monitoring program guidance is one of a num-
ber'of EPA activities to improve water quality assessments. Among other activities are the
development of a policy on the use of ecological assessment methods and biological criteria,
technical guidance on biological assessment methods, and guidance on the use of volunteers
in water monitoring. - .
EPA Guidance Manual for States to Use Volunteer Monitoring
EPA's recognition of the importance of volunteer monitoring came about from two
fronts. First was the 1987 EPA study, "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
Change." Prompted by that study, EPA reviewed and evaluated existing volunteer monitor-
ing programs. Our conclusion: Yes, a properly managed volunteer monitoring program can
yield high-quality data that can be used by the states in assessing water quality and in
making program decisions.
The second driving force was our concern about the relatiyely large percentage of the
nation's waters that remains unassessed, and the limited state resources to assess those
waters. According to state water quality assessment reports submitted to EPA in 1988, only
about 30 percent of the nation's rivers and 40 percent of its lakes are actually being assessed
for their ability to support uses like fishing and swimming.
EPA is currently developing two guidance documents: a guide for state managers on
planning and implementing a volunteer monitoring program, and a methods manual for lake
volunteer monitoring. I'll talk mostly about the first, a "parent" document to which the lake
manual (and possibly others) will be a companion.
The guide for state managers is directed at skeptical state water program managers who
currently don't make use of volunteer monitors. It is also useful to anyone interested in
setting up a volunteer program. Its primary message is: Volunteer monitoring can produce
comparatively inexpensive, high-quality data that can be useful to the state, but in order to
get that kind of data the state has to commit resources and personnel from the start, and carry
that commitment through the life of the program.
The guide starts off with an overview of existing volunteer monitoring programs. Then it
discusses the steps a state should take in planning a program, siuch as:
• Establish priority goals for the program. Do you want it to supplement state water quality
information, or to serve mostly as a public education/public awareness tool? .
• Identify data users and data uses. Early in the planning stages, involve those who will use
the data and those who will do the monitoring. Make sure expectations are realistic.
• Develop and stick to effective quality assurance/quality control procedures if you want
the data to be used.
• Assign qualified staff to recruit and train volunteers, analyze data, produce reports, etc.
Next, the guide discusses steps in implementing a state-coordinated volunteer program:
• Begin with a pilot project.
• Train your volunteers.
• Conduct quality control sessions. i •
• Evaluate the results of the pilot before expanding.
Next, the guide goes into some detail on data management and presentation of results. It
stresses the need for certain basic data management steps that are essential if the data are to
be used with confidence. These steps include documenting data sets, screening the data,
evaluating the data, and presenting results back to the volunteers.
Last, the guide discusses costs and funding. Citizen monitoring is cost-effective but it is
-------
Jerry Neff
Designing an
Estuary
Monitoring
Program
"It should be
recognized/ram the
outset that the public
does not necessarily
demand monitoring.
What the public
demands is
environmental
protection or
restoration.9*
16
not free. Costs vary widely depending on program scope and administrative needs, with most
programs in the $20,000 to $50,000 range. The guide touches on various funding options
available to states. It concludes with case examples of successful state-managed volunteer
programs. The guidance manual will be published in late 1990 and will be available from my
office.
Now I'd like to switch tracks and say a few words about the methods manual for lake
volunteer monitoring. The target audience is primarily volunteers interested in starting a lake.
monitoring program or modifying an existing program. It is much more of a nitty-gritty
manual, giving details on parameters to monitor for, specific sampling methods appropriate
for volunteers, equipment needs, etc.
In addition to these two guidance documents, some other EPA projects being
considered are:
• A video on sampling methods for lakes, to accompany the lakes manual.
• A methods manual for rivers.
• Possible meetings with state managers to "sell" them on the concept of volunteer
monitoring. .
We are also encouraging states to establish volunteer monitoring programs by integrating
the concept into our monitoring program guidance and other EPA documents, and including
it in our discussions with regions, states, and interstate organizations.
In conclusion, I hope I have conveyed to you today that EPA's support for volunteer
monitoring is strong, and that we are working on several fronts to encourage the establish-
ment of more state-coordinated volunteer programs.
Monitoring and assessment programs are performed by state and federal agencies or by
dischargers in order to produce information that can be used to quantify and evaluate the
effects of human activities on the estuarine ecosystem. Ideally, these monitoring programs
will provide decision makers and managers with the information they need to make appropri-
ate management decisions about actions required to protect the estuary and its resources, and
about the effectiveness of remedial and abatement activities being implemented to restore the
environmental quality of the estuary.
Estuarine monitoring and assessment programs are a socio-political phenomenon. They
are grounded in the perceptions and values of society, which find expression at the political
level through government laws and regulations. The public concerns about estuarine ecosys-
tems that motivate monitoring can be expressed as four questions:
1. Is it safe to swim in the estuary?
2. Is it safe to eat the local seafood? :
3. Are fisheries and other living resources being protected?
4. Is the health of the ecosystem being safeguarded?
However, these questions alone are not specific enough to serve as the basis for the
design of monitoring programs. They do not identify the parameters to be measured or the
amount of change that should trigger management action.
It should be recognized from the outset that the public does not necessarily demand
monitoring. What the public demands is environmental protection or restoration. Frequently
the public, and even the scientific community, do not see the link between environmental
monitoring and environmental protection. Often they would rather see money spent directly
for protection or restoration.
This negative perception of the value of monitoring stems, in part, from the-perception
that managers do not effectively use the information gained from monitoring in managing
the estuarine environment. Thus, it is important to design estuarine monitoring programs so
-------
** One approach to
gaining public
acceptance of moni-
toring is to get the
public actively
involved in the moni-
toring effort.
Participation by
citizen groups
should be built into
the design of the
monitoring program
at the outset."
17
Panel I/Estuary Monitoring Programs
that they will generate the information managers need, and then to educate the public about the
important role of monitoring in the protection and restoration of the estuary.
One approach to gaining public acceptance of monitoring is to get the public actively
involved in the monitoring effort. Participation by citizen groups should be built into the design
of the monitoring program at the outset.
As a first step in defining the conceptual framework for a monitoring program, it is neces-
sary to define the following aspects of the estuary under investigation:
• The "valued ecosystem components," or resources that are to be protected.
• The marine constituents that reflect or lead to changes in the state or quality
of these resources.
• The natural and human sources of perturbation that piroduce changes in these
ecosystem parameters.
• The mechanisms, both direct and indirect, that link sources of perturbation to
ecosystem changes.
The following conceptual pitfalls should be avoided:
• Thinking that there are no cumulative, overlapping, or interactive effects arising from
multiple discharges or multiple uses.
• Thinking that measurements made to document the effects of a particular activity reflect
the importance of only that activity and no others.
In designing an estuary monitoring program, a strategy should be developed to maximize
the usefulness of the monitoring data already being generated by existing programs, as well
as the data to be generated in the new monitoring program, for assessing the status and trends
of environmental quality in the estuary as a whole. This can be accomplished in several ways:
1. Establish clear objectives and goals for the estuarine monitoring program in the pre-
design phase. The goals and objectives should be achievable, scientifically and techni-
cally sound, and financially realistic. Mechanisms for measuring progress toward
meeting the goals should be established.
2. Identify channels of formal and informal communication among all parties involved in
the monitoring program. Make sure those channels remain open and are used.
3. Utilize existing monitoring activities in the design of an estuary-wide monitoring
program. Whenever possible, stations already being monitored should continue to be
monitored.
4. Maintain consistency in the parameters measured, the times and frequency during the
year for making measurements, and the locations of stations. Methods for sampling,
measurement, and analysis should also be consistent for the whole monitoring program.
Uniform quality assurance and quality control procedures should be applied to all data-
gathering activities.
5. Design and put in place a centralized, user-friendly data management system at the
outset of the program. Allocate sufficient funds to allow for in-depth analysis and
interpretation of the ever-growing database, and the generation of information useful to
managers and the public.
-------
Andrea
Copping
Puget Sound
Ambient
Monitoring
Program
18
The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan found that "there is currently no
long-term comprehensive program to monitor Puget Sound and its resources." In response to
this finding, the plan mandated that a comprehensive environmental monitoring program be
developed for Puget Sound.
In 1988 the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority appointed an interdisciplinary commit-
tee, known as the Monitoring Management Committee, consisting of water quality profes-
sionals from federal, state, and local agencies, universities, tribes, industry, and members of
the public. The Monitoring Management Committee developed a comprehensive monitoring
program referred to as the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. The monitoring
program includes a sampling design, an institutional structure, a data management approach,
and a cost estimate. The draft design was reviewed extensively during public workshops, and
by scientific and technical experts in the Puget Sound area.
The purpose of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program is to provide scientifically
credible information that increases our understanding both of Puget Sound and its resources
and of the effects of human activities over time. PS AMP has been designed to ensure that
high-quality data are collected and analyzed, and that the results are made available to a wide
audience.
The goals of PSAMP are to:
• Characterize the condition of Puget Sound, its natural resources, human uses, and
contamination problems.
• Take measurements to support specific program elements identified in the Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan (including the municipal and industrial discharge,
nonpoint, shellfish, wetlands, and contaminated sediments and dredging programs).
• Measure the success of programs implemented under the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan.
• Provide a permanent record of significant natural and human-caused changes in
key environmental indicators in Puget Sound over time.
• Support research activities through the availability of consistent, scientifically
valid data.
The Puget Sound watershed is large, draining about 16,000 square miles. The design
calls for coverage of all' the marine and fresh waters of the Puget Sound basin and will
complement existing monitoring programs in the Puget Sound basin. Standardized data
formats and sampling and analysis protocols will enable PSAMP data to be used with, data
from other programs (such as the Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis, ongoing urban
bay studies, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System compliance monitoring).
The findings will be used to trigger intensive surveys to identify and investigate emerging
problems.
The monitoring program is now in the implementation stages. We are monitoring the
following parameters:
Fish
Bottom fish
Recreational fish
Shellfish
Shellfish abundance
Tissue chemistry
Bacterial content
PSP
Marine water column
Nearshore habitat
Marine mammals
Birds
Fresh water
Water column
Fish tissue
-------
46 The pur pose of the
Puget Sound Ambient
Monitoring Program
is to provide scientifi-
cally credible
information which
increases our under-
standing of Puget
Sound, its resources,
and the effects of
human activities
over time. **
Panel I/Estuary Monitoring Programs
This is an expensive program: Full implementation will cost about $3.2 million, a year.
We presently have a litfle over $1 million a year in implementation funds, almost all of it
state funds. ;
The Monitoring Program is implemented by five state agencies: the Washington State
departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Health, Natural Resources,, and Wildlife. The program is
managed by an interagency steering committee with representatives of the five implementing
agencies plus the PSWQA, EPA, local governments, and tribes.
A citizens monitoring program is an important part of the Puget Sound Ambient Moni-
toring Program. This will be discussed later (Panel 2).
There are a number of important components that we feel have to be hard-wired into a
regional monitoring program. They include: ,| . .
• Data management. Our system is microcomputer-based. Each implementing agency
has its own system, and staff at the PSWQA maintain the central database.
• Quality assurance/quality control. Each implementing agency is responsible for its
own field and laboratory quality assurance, and must prove the quality of its data to the
PS AMP steering committee.
• Protocols. PS AMP requires the use of uniform and consistent protocols.
• Reports and uses of the data. Each implementing agency writes an annual technical
report on its monitoring activities. The PSWQA staff integrate these reports and write
a public-release version of the information; the first one will be available in May 1990.
Resource managers in state, federal, and local agencies have access to PSAMP data
for use in management decisions. The data will also be used for research and for
developing public information programs.
19
-------
R. Paul
Wilms
North
Carolina
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Community
Development
«//i North
Carolina, we have
tried to harness the
concern, commit-
ment, and dedication
of our citizens to
enhance protection
of the natural
environment in a
number of ways."
20
2
Panel / Forging Links to State Government
Panelists- R Paul Wilms, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment-John Kopec, Ohio Scenic River Stream Quality Monitoring Program; Kathleen Hentcy, Vermont
Lay Monitoring Program; Scott Kishbaugh, New York Citizens' Statewide Lake Assessment Program;
Andrea Copping, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
Moderator: Michelle Hiller, EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
I hope I'm not the only regulatory official in the room, because I really want to talk to
someone other than the saved. Are there any federal, state, or local regulatory officials in the
audience?—Super. Any that don't already use citizen monitoring?—Great. I'm talking to
you.
I've come to realize that, in a sense, citizens are always monitoring the environment.
Anyone with eyes, ears, and/or a nose cannot help but note the quality of the environment
around them. These observations can engender peace, contentment, and even joy, or, alterna-
tively, concern and even outrage. Contentment is often left unexpressed, except by poets. On
the other hand, outrage over environmental degradation is usually expressed—and usually
not toward the person responsible for the degradation, but rather at the government environ-
mental agency that is perceived, either rightly or wrongly, as having allowed the degradation
to occur.
Being from such an agency, and having been on the receiving end (or, actually, continu-
ally being on the receiving end) of citizen complaints, I know that we often respond that we
are doing the best job we can with the meager and insufficient resources we have. Such a
defense may be valid, but it ignores the very real contribution that well-equipped and well-
trained citizen volunteer monitoring groups can make to environmental assessment and
protection. ,
In North Carolina, we have tried to harness the concern, commitment, and dedication of
our citizens to enhance protection of the natural environment in a number of ways:
• In the late 1970s, we used volunteers to monitor the trophic status of the Chowan River, a
tributary of Albemarle Sound. The data allowed the state to develop an algal index for the
river as well as a predictive model for bloom events.
• In 1983, North Carolina began a "Stream Watch" program.
• More recently, commercial fishermen and residents immediately adjacent to the Pamlico
estuary have been enlisted to collect water quality data and make qualitative observations ot
the environmental and fisheries status of the estuary.
The benefits of citizen monitoring are many. It increases the public understanding and
appreciation of the complex web of physical and biological interrelationships that characterize
any aquatic ecosystem. It results in a long-term commitment by citizens to the protection of
the environment. It obviously expands the state's ability to monitor environmental quality and
those activities that may affect it. Most importantly, it establishes a working partnership be-
tween citizens and government, wherein citizens move from being affected bystanders and
sideline observers to being active and effective participants in the effort to protect environ-
mental quality. . ' '
Let me say to those program manager colleagues of mine in the audience that do not now
use citizen monitoring that if you launch into a citizen monitoring program, it must be more
than gratuitous. If you're going to have citizens collect the information, you've got to use it.
-------
John
Kopec
Ohio Scenic
River Stream
Quality
Monitoring
Program
[ KWe chose biological
rather than chemical
monitoring for
several reasons. One
is that biological
monitoring provides
a better assessment of
long-term stream
health, whereas
chemical testing
mainly gives informa-
- tion about the
water quality at the
time of sampling."
21
And it will be good information. People who are committed enough to join a monitoring
program are going to do an exemplary job. I haven't had a problem yet with quality assurance
or reliability. Also, it must be a real partnership. The volunteer program can't be simply an
adjunct to the state's program; it must be an equal partnership.
If you do those things, I'm convinced, from my experience, that the benefits will exceed
any expectations you might have. :
• " ' '• '
!
I was asked to speak about how citizen volunteer monitoring programs have forged links
with state government agencies. I would like to state for the record that in Ohio, our Stream
Quality Monitoring Program has produced one of the most significant alliances between
state government and the general public that supports that operation. We are frequently told
by our volunteers that our program provides one of the best returns for the taxpayer's dollar.
Ohio's stream monitoring program receives the lion's share of its funding through a state
income tax refund check-off arrangement. If only we could convince our state legislators to
provide us with a mere fraction of the state budget that is allocated for education (the
justification being that the state's environmental education directive is being served through
the environmental education message conveyed by the monitoring program).
I would like to give you a quick overview of Ohio's Stream Quality Monitoring Pro-
gram, with an emphasis on the philosophy and value of the program rather than the proce-
dural methods.
Ohio developed its Stream Quality Monitoring Program in! 1983 to provide an easy and
inexpensive method of determining general levels of stream health. We use a biological
•monitoring technique that we adapted from the Izaak Walton league's Save Our Streams
Program. The technique involves the collection and examination of "indicator" organisms—
20 taxa of stream macroinvertebrates such as snails, crayfish, dams, and aquatic worms and
insects. Each taxon is assigned a point value based on its tolerance of pollution. By deter-
mining the composition and abundance of the macroinvertebrate community in a portion of
a stream, we obtain a score or cumulative index value that relates to the aquatic health of the '
stream. \ '
We chose biological rather than chemical monitoring for several reasons. One is that
biological monitoring provides a better assessment of long-term stream health, whereas
chemical testing mainly gives information about the water quality at the time of sampling.
Another very significant advantage of biological monitoring is the relatively low cost of the
equipment, which makes'it possible to use a tremendous number of volunteers at any given
time. The program annually involves more than 200 groups and organizations representing
some 4-5,000 volunteers. The cost of a fine-mesh nylon seine, a plastic container, an inex-
pensive hand lens, a thermometer, pencils, and a few forms adds up to a very reasonable $25
for each group.
The one drawback of biological monitoring is that it requires a lot of training. We do
provide visual aids and keys to help volunteers learn to identify! the various species of
macroinvertebrates, but nothing seems to take the place of personal attention, so the Stream
Quality Monitoring Program employs four part-time seasonal employees. However, this re-
quirement for a'relatively large amount of training is really a blessing in disguise, because it
forces us to be personally involved with each and every participant.
Gathering data on the health of Ohio's streams was the initial focus of the program and
is still one of its most important functions. However, as more arid more people become
-------
^Teachers tell us
that in-stream
sessions with their
classes seem to
inspire their stu-
dents—especially
those most in need
of inspiration."
Kathleen
Hentcy
Vermont Lay
Lake Monitor-
ing Program
^Eleven years have
passed since the
beginning of the
Vermont Lay Moni-
toring Program, and
this program contin-
ues to be the back-
bone of Vermont's
water quality data
collection both
on Lake Champlain
and on what we call
our inland lakes. *
22
involved each year, the feedback that we receive is that this is one of the most rewarding and
entertaining activities that anyone has ever experienced. Teachers tell us that in-stream ses-
sions with their classes seem to inspire their students-especially those most in need or
inspiration. Scout leaders, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, school latch-key programs, and
individual families are equally enthusiastic.
Our Scenic Rivers law is structured not only to provide for local input, but actually to be
dependent upon local actions and attitudes to get the job done. What better way to gam that
cooperation than to bring all social elements of the river community-schools, civic organi-
zations, landowner associations, youth clubs, local agencies, and others-into a program such
as stream quality monitoring which can really help to build a constituency of support through
a much improved understanding and appreciation of the resource?
Does citizen monitoring attract media attention and garner public enthusiasm and sup-
port? You bet it does! And what better way to induce environmental consciousness in the
business and industrial communities than to dramatically illustrate that level of public con-
cern and action? .
I can guarantee you that if you are able to entice your local TV station to give coverage
of your citizen monitoring events, you stand a much better chance of attracting the attention
of your state and local politicians.
•
In 1979, the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Quality, had
neither baseline data on Vermont lakes nor me monetary resources to collect such data. Yet
anthropogenic eutrophication was and continues to be a major threat to Vermont's lake water
quality. Basic nutrient enrichment data, therefore, were and are essential to protecting our
lakes from continued degradation.
So the Vermont Lay Monitoring Program was born. Sixteen thousand dollars was bled
from state funding sources to equip monitors on 32 lakes and 19 Lake Champlain stations,
hire a part-time coordinator, and cover other expenses. In 1981, a federal 314 grant for
$100,000 was secured, and since then all funding for the program has come from the state of
Vermont However, the monitoring program is used as matching funds for federal grant
money, the most recent of which has been the EPA Lakes Assessment grant for $100,000 for
the years 1989 and 1990.
Eleven years have passed since the beginning of the Vermont Lay Monitoring Program,
and this program continues to be the backbone of Vermont's water quality data collection
both on Lake Champlain and on what we call our "inland lakes." The lay monitonng data are
the only data we have on many of our lakes. Sixty lakes and 30 stations on Lake Champlain
have been part of the program.
Monitors typically collect Secchi disk clarity readings and chlorophyll a samples on a
weekly basis from approximately June 1st through September 2nd. Some collect total phos-
phorus as well.
The equipment we provide to the monitors is pretty basic—we are very limited in our
funds—but we give them everything they need down to pencils and paper clips. Monitors get
an acid-washed garden hose that has been marked off in meters, witti a line and two diving
weights attached at the zero end; a Secchi disk; data sheets; lake map; an acid-washed plastic
bucket with a lid; sample bottles; filtering apparatus; and filters. Monitors have only to supply
a boat, an anchor, and their time.
Currently the program requires one part-time, year-round person, two summer field assis-
tants, and two vehicles for sample pick-ups. Our monitors freeze their chlorophyll filters and
-------
Scott
Kishbaugh
New York
Citizens'
Statewide Lake
Assessment
Program
KWith increased
sophistication comes
an increased aware-
ness that environ-
mental problems
ranging from toxic
wastes and erosion to
add precipitation to
the greenhouse effect
| are the summed effect
of millions of people
making individual
decisions."
1,23
Panel 2/Forglng Links
this necessitates our traveling to pick them up.
We've found the dedication of the volunteers to be impressive and their attention to
detail worthy of scientific data collection.
The monitoring data have been used as the basis for four1 diagnostic watershed studies.
One full-blown restoration was carried out on one of those laikes., Also, Vermont has recently
designed a bistate workplan with the state of New York for Carrying out a diagnostic water-
shed study on Lake Champlain's drainage basin. Again, the monitoring data were a major
part of the justification for the study. The data are also being ;used extensively in our new
Lakes Protection Program to target those lakes in the state most threatened by human-caused
eutrophication.
I believe an important reason for our success with the program is the high level of
contact we maintain with our monitors. Without such contact I don't believe a program
i .
would survive.
Volunteer monitoring programs are much more than a cost-saving method for securing
large databases. I'd like to echo what Dennis Weaver said earlier this morning—that pro:
grams like this make the general public part of the solution instead of part of the problem,
and to me that's one of the greatest benefits.
As we approach the 20th anniversary of Earth Day, it is clear that the face of the environ-
mental movement has changed dramatically. In those early y«ars, it was easy to blame the
"heartless corporate polluter" for environmental problems. As the movement has become
more sophisticated, some pollution problems have been controlled, if not eliminated. How-
ever, with increased sophistication comes an increased awareness that environmental prob-
lems ranging from toxic wastes and erosion to acid precipitation to the greenhouse effect are
the summed effect of millions of people making individual decisions.
Over the next few days, you will hear how several programs have provided cooperation
between government, environmental monitors, and laymen to resolve the conflict of too
many threatened natural resources, too little time, and too few dollars. In New York State,
the vehicle for cooperation has been the Citizens' Statewide Lake Assessment Program,
known as CSLAP. . . ! ' - :
CSLAP is a cooperative effort between the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation and the New York Federation of Lake Associations (FOLA), a state-
wide nonprofit coalition of lake associations that comprises over 250 lake associations,
corporations, and individual members. Funding for the program is provided through the state
budget. ,
Using field and laboratory equipment provided by the state, volunteers from FOLA
perform a series of in-lake and watershed analyses through procedures established in a
sampling protocol document. Water samples are then processed and sent to a central labora-
tory, the New York State Department of Health, where they sjre analyzed for six chemical
parameters. Volunteers also determine water transparency; macrophyte species coverage;
and oxygen, precipitation, and lake levels. Sampling data are analyzed by the Department of
Environmental Conservation, and summarized in annual reports to the participating lake
associations. Results are used by lake associations, planning departments, and local govern-
ment officials to develop lake and watershed management plcbs tailored specifically to the
-------
Andrea
Copping
Puget Sound
Citizens
Monitoring
Program
24
local community.
Although lay monitoring programs can be very cost-effective, it is clear that the manage-
ment of a successful program involves both time and manpower, two commodities not found
in great supply in most state agencies. Lay monitoring programs must be accountable and
provide sufficient benefits to be deemed acceptable for government work. The following are
three of the most significant reasons why CSLAP has been successful in New York:
1. Collection of reliable data
With accurate data, standardized sampling procedures, reproducible methods, and ade-
quate quality assurance/quality control, the results from lay monitoring programs can be
deemed acceptable by state agencies.
2. Problem diagnosis
Whether assessing the need for a dredging project in one lake, investigating the impact of
a sewage treatment facility on another lake, or upgrading the best use classification for
other lakes, the data from CSLAP have been useful in diagnosing problems in New York
lakes.
3. Education
The state of the environment is a function of millions of people making individual deci-
sions. If the old adage that an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure is true, then
education to influence these individual decisions will provide a better method of protect-
ing the environment. The educational component of CSLAP is two-way: Volunteers are
learning about lakes and environmental protection, while the state agencies are learning,
about the specific water quality conditions in specific lakes.
It is clear from the experience in New York that lay volunteers and government officials
can work together to develop a scientifically sound lake monitoring program. It is also clear
that, in the days of the shrinking environmental dollar, there may be no other way to ade-
quately protect our threatened natural resources.
I'm very pleased to be on this panel because the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority is
involved in a citizen monitoring program that represents a bit of a different model from some
of the ones we've heard about today. Also, ours is an entirely marine and estuarine program,
which again is a little bit different.
We've been fortunate enough to have some cigarette tax money. This is the 80-per-pack
tax on tobacco products in the state of Washington, which is used for water quality projects.
Most of that goes toward building secondary treatment plants, but the Authority was given
some small part of that money for public involvement and education projects (our so-called
PIE fund). Over the last couple of years, we've been able to fund about eight citizen monitor-
ing projects out of that. Some of those have ended because the funding was only for two
years, but other groups have gone on to find.continuing funding elsewhere.
The program that I want to talk about to you today is the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority citizens monitoring program, which is associated with the Puget Sound Ambient
Monitoring Program, or PSAMP. PSAMP is a comprehensive environmental monitoring
program for Puget Sound and the surrounding watersheds. The program is actually carried out
by five state agencies in Washington State. We at the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority-
act as coordinators and data managers.
When PSAMP was designed in 1987 and 1988, citizen monitoring was very much an
integral part of it; it was not an afterthought. Since we have over 2,200 miles of shoreline in
Puget Sound, and a watershed of 16,000 square miles, it would be extremely difficult for state
agency staff to monitor all of it.
As we see it, our citizen monitoring program is a state agency/citizens group coalition.
-------
^Oneof our biggest
problems has been
the reluctance of
some state agency
people to accept the
citizens' data. To
overcome this, we set
up our program so
that the coordinating
agencies have very >
strong roles in
training, oversight,
and reporting of
data. I think we've
succeeded in swing-
ing most of the
skeptics around."
25
Panel 2/Forging Links
The money comes from the state cigarette tax, and we at the Authority contract with citizen
groups to carry out specific parts of the program. The state agencies are responsible for
training citizens and providing equipment, and they're also responsible for reporting back to
the citizen groups with any information that is produced in the program.
One of our biggest problems has been the reluctance of some state agency people to
accept the citizens' data. To overcome this, we set up our program so that the coordinating
agencies have very strong roles in training, oversight, and reporting of data. I think we've
succeeded in swinging most of the skeptics around.
In deciding which parameters are suitable for monitoring by volunteers, the agencies em-
phasized those types of samples that are (1) easy to.collect and (2) difficult to contaminate.
For example, volunteers do not collect samples for toxics analysis because these are easy to
contaminate and could also pose a danger to the volunteers.
Currently we have two citizens groups under contract. These groups provide volunteers
to the PSAMP agencies for almost any PSAMP activities. The two groups represent different
.models of volunteer organization. ,
, The first group, Adopt a Beach, is a traditional environmental group. Most of the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority money goes to pay the salary of a coordinator for the group.
Since the group has volunteers based all around the Sound, there are few travel expenses.
The second group, Chautauqua Northwest, is a group of retired citizens. They have a
long history of volunteer activities but were never involved with the environment before.
There is a core group of people from this organization (they call themselves the "Anti-Dirty
Dozen") who travel all around the Sound to do monitoring for us., With Chautauqua, most of
our contract money goes to travel expenses.
Now I'd like to give you some examples of the types of projects that these two groups
have done:
i
« Adopt a Beach worked on a project of groundtruthing nearshore habitat. We needed to
have people out in the field all over the Sound at exactly the .same time that a plane flew
overhead doing a remote sensing survey. The volunteers checked for vegetation type,-
density, etc. It was a very labor-intensive project.
• Adopt a Beach volunteers also collect shellfish for PSP (paralytic shellfish poisoning)
analysis. This is quite a commitment because the shellfish have to be collected at low
tide, and at this time of year low tide comes in the middle of the night.
• For one project, Chautauqua Northwest volunteers caught fish by hook and line for
chemical analysis. These fish were too deep for divers to reach.
• Chautauqua Northwest is also involved in collecting shellfish for bacterial analysis and
collecting water quality samples for analysis of conventional parameters.
In summary, the message I'd like to leave you with is that you can be innovative. Don't
restrict yourself just to the types of monitoring you've done in the past.
-------
Paul Godfrey
Massachusetts
Acid Rain
Monitoring
Project
**We were very
interested in quality
assurance/quality
control from the
beginning. You have
to remember that we,
were monitoring
surface waters for
add deposition—that
meant we were
playing the same
game as EPA, and it
meant that if we were
to have a credible
effort, we had to meet
EPA's standards. We
also knew that the
utilities and industries
would question the
data if we were not
very attentive to
quality control."
26
3
Panel -4 Quality Assurance & Quality Control
Panelists: Paul Godfrey, Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring Project; James M. Bellatty, Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality; David Flemer, Friends ofPerdido Bay.
Moderator: Michelle Hiller, EPA Office of Marine andEstuarine Protection.
We began the Acid Rain Monitoring Project (ARM) with a presentation on acid rain at a
local Massachusetts Audubon Sanctuary in the fall of 1982.1 proposed that the assembled
group of 20 or 30 people might organize an effort to measure pH and alkalinity in local lakes
and streams. To my surprise, most of the people in the room stayed after the presentation to
do exactly that.
The following six years have seen three phases of the ARM Project. Phase I sampled
1,000 surface waters monthly for 14 months; 79 professional labs volunteered their time and
equipment. Phase II sampled 2,500 surface waters on two separate days. We reduced the
number of labs to 20 because we could not manage to send quality control samples and
provide personal attention to over 70 labs. Phase III is ongoing, with 300 volunteers sam-
pling 800 surface waters quarterly and 17 labs performing the analysis.
The labs analyze the samples for pH and alkalinity. These determinations must be made
within 24 hours of collection. Labs also provide two aliquots of sample water to the Water
Resources Research Center lab (at the University of Massachusetts) for analysis of 30
additional parameters.
We were very interested in quality assurance/quality control from the beginning. You
have to remember that we were monitoring surface waters for acid deposition—that meant
we were playing the same game as EPA, and it meant that if we were to have a credible
effort, we had to meet EPA's standards. We also knew that the utilities and industries would
question the data if we were not very attentive to quality control.
In the first phase, we concentrated on quality assurance of the labs. Each participating
lab received a blind quality assurance sample to analyze along with field samples. That
approach allowed us to document quality and to make decisions on which data to retain, but
it did not allow us to correct difficulties as they happened. At the end of the first phase, we
had no choice but to eliminate the work of several labs.
To minimize the problem of excluding data of questionable quality, we adopted a more
extensive quality assurance plan for the second and third phases. Three quality assurance
samples were distributed to each lab. The first was sent a week prior to sampling. Labs
analyzed the sample and reported by prepaid postcard. If we saw a problem with the results,
we were able to give the lab advice (by phone or by visit) to correct the problem. On the
sampling day, labs were given two additional quality control samples—the first to be run in
duplicate prior to field sample analysis, the second to be run in duplicate after the last field
sample was analyzed. A plot of the results for pH measured at the volunteer labs versus our
measurements at the University of Massachusetts shows an excellent correlation—the slope
of the regression is 0.995 and the intercept is 0.002 (compare to 1.0 and 0.0, which would be
perfect agreement). Results for alkalinity were almost as good.
For many sampling dates another set of quality assurance samples was provided to the
labs. These were labeled as if they were field samples. We had to demonstrate that field
samples were not treated differently from the identifiable quality assurance samples. Human
-------
People have gotten
out of hospital beds,
cut vacations short,
fallen through ice,
slid down hillsides,
gotten stuck to the
axles in mud, and
been questioned by
the police—and still
continue to collect
samples for the
project."
James M.
Bellatty
Surface Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
127
nature suggests that the lab personnel would be more careful with the known quality assur-
ance samples; Yet we found no significant differences.
In the third phase of the project, we began a program to monitor the performance of the
monitors. During each sampling period, my staff collects a duplicate sample at one site
visited by each volunteer. We collect our samples within hours of the volunteer collection
and bring the samples to the same lab as the volunteer. Of the: 800 sites regularly sampled,
we have replicated 122 to date. The correlation between the volunteers' results and ARM
staff results has been near perfect.
There is one other aspect of quality control in volunteer efforts that also needs to be
mentioned. ARM has encountered its share of skeptics who believe that volunteers simply
cannot produce data of scientific quality. In recent months we have been surveying our
volunteers in an effprt to better understand who they are and why they participate. We have
found that nearly all have some college education. They are very active in their communi-
ties. Most value the outdoors. In short, these citizen volunteers are some of the most active,
successful, and educated representatives of our society. I . '
It is crucial not to demean the abilities of the volunteers, land to allow some room for the
volunteers to participate in the decision-making process. We did that initially by letting
volunteers select sampling sites. We have let them be local spokespeople in the community.
After eight years, I can flatly state that our volunteers continue to follow sampling protocols,
do their homework by learning more about acid rain impacts, and accurately represent our
efforts.
Many of the volunteers have been with the project since its inception. There has been
greater staff turnover at the Water Resources Research Center than in our volunteers. Their
motivation is astounding: People have gotten out of hospital beds, cut vacations short, fallen
through ice, slid down hillsides, gotten stuck to the axles in mud, and been questioned by the
police—and still continue to collect samples for the project. Most volunteers would like to
do much more and our task is to find ways to tap this almost unlimited resource. If there is a
danger in using citizens for environmental monitoring, it is in trying to keep up with them.
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) established a statewide volunteer
water quality monitoring program during the summer of 1987. The goals of the program are
to meet an increased need for long-term water quality monitoring and to allow for public
participation in the data-gathering process.
Currently, the volunteer water quality monitoring program covers eleven Idaho lakes
and one river segment. The IDEQ tailors the different monitoring programs to the interests
and financial resources of each volunteer group. Some groups perform mainly Secchi disk
transparency depth measurements while others collect sampleis for nutrients, metals, and
chlorophyll a. .
This presentation will focus on how our volunteer monitoring program provides reliable
water quality data and maintains quality assurance standards. |The quality assurance program
we have chosen consists of: (1) a training course, (2) an annual field audit, (3) collection of
replicate samples, and (4) quality controls for laboratory analytic.*! methods.
1. Training
At the beginning of each volunteer monitoring season (April through October), the
volunteers attend a water quality training session presented by the IDEQ staff. At this
outdoor workshop, the volunteers learn the proper use of their water quality sampling
-------
**Bflc/i volunteer
group is required to
schedule afield audit
with the IDEQ staff
during the monitor-
ing season. The
purpose of this IDEQ
visit is to take a non-,
threatening look at
sampling procedures
and to provide con-
structive comments
for improving water
quality sampling
teclwiques.**
David Flemer
Friends of
Perdido
Bay
28
equipment and practice their water quality sampling protocols. The IDEQ trains the
volunteers to use a "cookbook" approach to ensure that volunteers systematically
collect their samples in a step-by-step manner.
2. Field audit
Each volunteer group is required to schedule a field audit with the IDEQ staff during
the monitoring season. The purpose of this IDEQ visit is to take a nonthreatening look
at sampling procedures and to provide constructive comments for improving water
quality sampling techniques. The field audit includes an informal evaluation of the
volunteers' organizational .capabilities, preparation and labeling procedures, paper-
work, consistency, meter-calibrating techniques, and ability to preserve and transport
water quality samples in a timely manner.
3. Replicate sampling
During the field audit, the volunteers also collect one set of replicate water quality
samples. These replicate samples enable IDEQ to estimate the level of sampling
precision, or the amount of reproducibility among individual measurements of the
same parameter. Although IDEQ has not defined acceptable levels of precision for
volunteer monitoring parameters, most of the replicate sampling results indicate low
levels of sample variability.
4. Laboratory quality controls
Volunteers transport their water quality samples to the Idaho Bureau of Laboratories
for the appropriate chemical and biological analyses. Analyses are conducted in
accordance with EPA and APHA (American Public Health Association) standards and
are tested for estimates of analytical accuracy and laboratory precision.
Although no single element in the quality assurance program would be enough to
validate the results of a volunteer water quality monitoring program, we feel that a combina-
tion of several checks and balances is adequate to meet our program goals and objectives.
Volunteer water quality monitoring data are primarily used for determining long-term water
quality trends, rather than for regulatory or investigative purposes.
The water quality data generated from the IDEQ program complements existing water
quality monitoring programs and helps agencies make informed water quality management
decisions. As we look toward the future, the challenge for continued volunteer monitoring
success will depend on our ability to retain volunteer interest, recruit new members, and
assure quality data.
• •
Perdido Bay, located on the Alabama/Florida border, is one of the smaller estuaries of
the Gulf of Mexico. Waste water discharges to the bay include those from several municipal
sewage treatment plants (4.1 million gallons per day total), as well as those from the Cham-
pion International Corporation Paper Mill, which discharges 22 million gallons per day into
Elevenmile Creek, a bay tributary.
In many ways, Perdido Bay's physical characteristics and environmental problems
reflect the concerns about the Gulf Coast and its estuaries. Therefore, Perdido Bay was ,
selected as the site of a pilot project under the EPA's Near Coastal Waters Program.
For nearly 30 years, various government agencies and industries have collected data
documenting the physical and biological conditions in the bay and its tributaries. However,
there was never a coordinated approach to bay investigations. On October 1,1988, EPA, in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Coalition of
Concerned Citizens' Organizations (ECCCO), began the Perdido Bay Cooperative Manage-
ment Project. As part of this project, ECCCO and another local environmental group, the
Friends of Perdido Bay, have organized a citizens monitoring program for Perdido Bay. A
citizens monitoring program can deliver data of known quality to augment existing monitor-
ing programs by (1) capturing short-lived phenomena of interest (e.g., storms), (2) sampling
areas not routinely monitored, (3) providing observational information on weather, living
-------
**From the outset,
quality assurance has
been an important
consideration for the
volunteer monitoring
program. Volunteers
undergo training in
proper data-collec-
tion methods and
adhere to a rigorous
quality control!
quality assurance
program. *
29
[
Panel 3/Quality Assurance & Quality Control
resources, and site conditions, and (4) contributing answers to short-term research questions.
The volunteer monitors are collecting hydrologic, water quality, and weather data related
to Perdido Bay and are reporting it directly to state agencies, EPA, and other interested data
users. The monitoring program has also purchased and maintains automated weather sta- -
tions. ,It is believed that local weather conditions have a great deal of influence on the
hydrology and water quality of Perdido Bay. Thus the data will, be valuable in forming a
picture of the dynamics of the Bay.
From the outset, quality assurance has been an important consideration for the volunteer
monitoring program. Volunteers undergo training in proper date-collection methods and
adhere to a rigorous quality controVquality assurance program. The following are some of
our quality control procedures:
i
i
Secchi disk. The accuracy of the depth markings will be checked before initial use and
approximately every six months thereafter.
Thermometers. All stem thermometers will be compared to a standard ERL/Gulf Breeze
National Bureau.of Standards reference thermometer before initial use and approxi- "
mately every six months.
Salinity titration (LaMotte kit). Each kit will be initially compared to an ERL/Gulf
Breeze reference water sample. The kits will be rechecked approximately every six
months.
Dissolved oxygen meters (YSI Model 57). Initially, and at three-month intervals each
meter will be calibrated by a Winkler titration. Meters; will be air calibrated with every
use. i ,
Salinity-conductivity meter (YSI model 33). The meter will be checked initially and at
six-month intervals with a reference coastal water; sample or standard saline solution
Monthly checks will be made with a refractometer for the salinity endpoint.' The
thermistor will be checked when salinity checks are made.
"Tide" staffs. Primary water level staffs will be surveyed in by a licensed surveyor Other
staffs will be calibrated to a "fixed" structure (e.g., surface of pier) to provide a
reliable relative reading. ;
Rain gauges. The collection will follow the guidance of U.S Weather Service on place-
ment.
Wind speed indicator. Hand-held indicators will follow procedures provided by manufac-
turer. All indicators will be "calibrated" as a group against a U.S. Weather Station
measurement.
Wind direction indicator. Readings will resolve eight points in the compass. The
instrument will be calibrated against the "North Star" or compass reading.
I . • '
In addition, precision and accuracy objectives for all of the above measurements have
been set.
The Project Director funds a Quality Assurance Officer who reviews and initials each
data sheet from volunteer monitors before it is sent to the data analysis and repository
facility. Quarterly quality assurance reports are made to the F'roject Manager. Copies of the
reports are submitted to the regular meetings of the Friends of Perdido Bay and to chairmen
of the Technical Advisory Committee. ' •
By the end of the two-year project, the information collected will provide a clearer
picture of the present condition of Perdido Bay. The project will also be a model for involv-
ing local interest groups and government agencies in environmental management and for
encouraging them to implement strong control programs.
-------
Kathryn
O'Hara
Beach Debris
and Pollution
Prevention
Program
litter on our
coasts is just an
indicatL n of even
greater amounts in the
oceans, where it is
less visible but
deadly."
30
4
Panel /[ Debris Cleanup
Panelists: Kathryn O'Hara, Center for Marine Conservation; Cindy Zipf, Clean Ocean Action; Judie
Hansen, Get the Drift and Bag It; Ken Pritchard, Adopt a Beach.
Moderator: Virginia Lee, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island.
America's shorelines and coastal areas were once famous for their beauty and biological
richness. In recent years, however, our coastal areas have been most widely publicized for
their concentrations of trash.
Beach debris is not merely unsightly—it is dangerous to human health and safety, and
expensive for coastal communities burdened with repeated cleanup costs. But the litter on our
coasts is just an indication of even greater amounts in the oceans, where it is less visible but
deadly. Thousands of marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and fish die every year from
entanglement in debris items such as rope, nets, and monofilament fishing line, or from in-
gesting items like plastic bags and sheeting, mistaking them for food. This floating debris also
poses a hazard to navigation by fouling boats' propellers. Plastic debris items, because of their
buoyancy, strength, and long-lasting nature, pose the greatest threat to the marine environ-
ment.
Since 1986, the Center for Marine Conservation has conducted an extensive campaign
based on what is the key to solving the marine debris problem—education. The Center's
efforts have been directed at two primary groups: those who litter marine areas on shore, and
seafarers who are accustomed to the centuries-old practice of tossing trash over the rail at sea.
Citizen beach cleanups have become an important component of this education campaign.
During the opening remarks to this Conference, Tudor Davies stated that every successful
citizen monitoring program needs a hero. In the world of beach cleanups, we have many heros
and heroines, including Judie Hansen. In 1984, Judie successfully organized a citizen beach
cleanup in Oregon that attracted 2,000 volunteers. Her idea has inspired the nation. Today, I
would like to describe how this idea has evolved.
History
In organizing the first statewide beach cleanup in Texas in 1986, the Center for Marine
Conservation designed a method to obtain useful information on the types and quantities of
debris collected. Beach cleanups, after all, provide only a temporary remedy to the debris
problem. In order to develop permanent solutions, the sources of this debris need to be
identified. Therefore, volunteers who participated in the 1986 Texas Coastal Cleanup were
given a detailed data card to record specific information on debris. This data collection effort
not only proved to be an educational experience for cleanup volunteers, but also helped to
generate a significant amount of press coverage that reached others. The information was also
used in support of U.S. ratification of MARPOL Annex V, an international treaty prohibiting
the dumping of plastic garbage from ships at sea and regulating the distance from shore that
all other solid waste materials may be dumped.
During the period of 1986-1988, cleanup campaigns spread to coastal areas throughout
the country. There were "Trash Attacks" in New Jersey, "Lend a Hand in the Sand" in Missis-
sippi, "Beachsweep" in North Carolina, and "Get the Trash Out of the Splash" in Alabama.
Some states, such as Texas, integrated beach cleanups into "adopt-a-beach" programs.
-------
«* In 1988, more than
47,500 volunteers in
25 U.S. states and
territories partici-
pated in the National
Marine Debris
Database. These
volunteers covered
more than 3,500 miles
ofU.S. shorelines and
collected nearly 1,000
tons of debris."
31
When it became apparent that 1988 would be the last year to obtain baseline information
on beach debris prior to the enactment of MARPOL Annex V, CMC solicited suggestions
from states that were conducting beach cleanups in order to design a data card that could be
used nationally. Subsequently, the Center for Marine Conservation initiated the National
Marine Debris Database in the fall of 1988. Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard,
the database serves to involve citizens in the identification of specific debris problems in
different parts of the country.
Results
In 1988, more than 47,500 volunteers in 25 U.S. states and territories (Alabama, Alaska,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Wash-
ington) participated in the National Marine Debris Database. These volunteers covered more
than 3,500 miles of U.S. shorelines and collected nearly 1,000 tons of debris.
Volunteers used a standardized data card that was divided, into eight major category
types—plastic, glass, styrofoam, rubber, metal, paper, wood, and cloth. In total, the data card
listed 65 types of debris items.
The volunteers reported finding a total of 1,973,995 debris items. The amount of plastic
reported surpassed all other categories, accounting for 1,222,708 of the debris items, or
approximately 62 percent. The remaining debris items consisted of approximately 11.8
percent paper, 11.4 percent metal, 9.5 percent glass, 2.3 percent wood, 1.8 percent rubber,
and 1.3 percent cloth.
Collectively, twelve debris items constituted more than 56 percent of all debris items
recorded. The Dirty Dozen of 1988 were as follows, in order of abundance:
1. plastic pieces (or fragments)
2. small foamed plastic (styrofoam) pieces
3. plastic cups, spoons, forks, and straws
4. metal beverage cans
5. foamed plastic (styrofoam) cups
6. glass beverage bottles
7. plastic caps and lids
8. paper pieces
9. plastic trash bags
10. miscellaneous types of plastic bags
11. glass pieces
12. plastic soda bottles
134,685
125,725
112,465
99,847
95,807
95,028
90,998
85,864
78,025
74,672
65,819
58,116
The information from the 1988 National Beach Cleanup and Marine Debris Database has
been compiled into a final comprehensive report titled "Cleaning America's Beaches." The
data in this report are presented in a national overview as well as state-by-state analyses.
Information from the 1988 report has been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard in reports to Congress. State and local governments are
also using these data for evaluating the marine debris problem;. The data are also being used
to inform marine industries of their contributions to the marine debris problem, in hopes that
they will realize the need for proper disposal and compliance with federal regulations.
Data collected during beach cleanups cannot be used to estimate total amounts of debris
or the precise sources of debris items. However, comparison of relative amounts of debris
-------
Cindy Zipf
Clean
Ocean Action
'"Using the data
collected in the
cleanups, Clean
Ocean Action
continues to push for
state and federal
initiatives to control
floatable pollution.
...Once the debris
gets into the marine
environment, in a
sense the battle is
over. So our focus at
Clean Ocean Action
is on source
reduction."
32
can reveal important national, state, and local trends in the types and distribution of beach
debris. In particular, citizen beach cleanups have helped to demonstrate the predominance
of plastic waste on our nation's shorelines. Future beach cleanups will help to monitor legis-
lative and other efforts to control the discharge of plastic wastes into marine areas.
Moreover, citizen monitoring of beach debris contributes greatly to the underlying
theme of a beach cleanup—increased awareness. Those who participate in beach cleanups
learn that marine industries are not the only sources of marine debris and that the solution .
lies with us all. Those who do not participate in beach cleanups hear about the results in the
media. Knowing that someone is keeping count, they may consider proper disposal of their
next six-pack ring or foamed plastic cup.
•
Clean Ocean Action is a coalition of 130 organizations including women's groups, com-
mercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, boating organizations, Kiwanis clubs, traditional
environmental groups, unions, and—more and more, I'm happy to say—tourism industry
groups.
While we represent about 400,000 people, Clean Ocean Action is really representing the
fish, shellfish, and plants that live in the marine environment and have a terrible time getting
to the public hearings to testify about the degrading condition of their habitat.
Clean Ocean Action is very committed to science. Because of that, and because we can
back up what we say with facts, we have been able to open doors in New Jersey that might
otherwise have been closed to "fish-huggers."
The metropolitan New York/New Jersey area is one of the most densely populated, ur-
banized areas in the country. Clean Ocean Action is based at Sandy Hook, which is at the
receiving end of the pollutants entering into the New York/New Jersey estuary. Because the
area is so densely populated and so old, we have a wide variety of problems, from decrepit
infrastructure to toxic dumping. Medical waste, though given a lot of publicity, is not the
major problem threatening the estuary.
Clean Ocean Action's beach cleanup program, which is called Trash Attack, focuses on
getting a diverse group of sponsors—particularly media sponsors. By including television,
radio, and newspapers, we maximize our education opportunities and publicity for the
cleanup.
We try to recycle as much as we can from.the beach cleanups. Bottles and cans are easy,
but other materials are not. Recently, Clean Ocean Action attempted to take advantage of
McDonald Corporation's recycling program. We separated out all the styrofoam from the
cleanup, then called and asked McDonald's to come and collect it and take it to their recy-
cling plant in Brooklyn, N.Y. We called many McDonald's restaurants and they all refused
to come—so we just shipped the styrofoam off to their national headquarters.
Using the data collected in the cleanups, Clean Ocean Action continues to push for state
and federal initiatives to control floatable pollution. Several programs have started. Prisoners
pick up debris in inner harbor areas, and skimmer boats collect "slicks" spotted by patrols.
However, many of our pollution problems are being addressed after the fact. Once the
debris gets into the marine environment, in a sense the battle is over. So our focus at Clean
Ocean Action is on source reduction. For example, we've been trying to get towns to pass
ordinances banning polystyrene take-out packaging. We are also attempting to get legislation
to ban certain products from New Jersey. We tried to get a bill passed to ban plastic tampon
applicators, but it failed.
We're trying to get the litter laws enforced. If you can get a few people arrested and
-------
Judie Hansen
"Get the Drift
and Bag It"
**Going after marine
debris as "litter" on.
the beaches does not
•have the same appeal
as focusing on the
issues of entangle-
ment and ingestion
by fish and wildlife.
That focus has
attracted the media
and gotten
new people
involved."
33 '
Panel 4/Debris Cleanup
fined for littering, you can get front-page coverage. We're also going into source-reduction
programs—educating about the harmful effects of dumping motor oil or household toxics,
and about lawn-care products.
Of course, if you can't recycle it and you can't get rid of it, you can re-use it. Making
light of litter also helps. We make "tampoons"—fishing lures made from plastic tampon
applicators. They work really well; they've caught bluefish, fluke, sea robins, and several
other fish species.
We also built a "Tacky Town" out of materials that we collected on the beach. It has a
florist shop (we collect a lot of plastic flowers), and of course there's a food store with all the
food wrappers and potato chip bags, and there's a restaurant, and a tampon highway leading
into the town. The press gets bored with "totals," so you can build something with your trash,
make it a monument to the trash problem.
The moral to our story is that it can be difficult to "keep the fires burning" because it gets
boring after awhile—so you do innovative things to keep it exciting.
• ' • . '
In October 1984,1 organized Oregon's first coastwide cleanup in an effort to determine
the amount and type of plastic marine debris on our beaches,: The motivation for conducting
the cleanup came from'increasing concern about the extent of injury or death to fish and
other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resulting from ingestion of or entanglement in plastic
debris.
That first cleanup attracted 2,100 volunteers who collected 2,613 tons of debris in just
three hours. On October 7 of this year, we conducted our 6th annual "Get the Drift and Bag
It" coastal cleanup, and at the same time—as you heard, from Keithy O'Hara—similar
cleanups were held in all coastal states not blown away by Hurricane Hugo.
So, after six cleanups, what are my thoughts about this v/hole beach cleanup business? I
feel the number one value of beach cleanups is raising public awareness. Almost to a person
the volunteers remark, "I never realized how much stuff was out there until I had to spend
time leaning over to pick it up." And the awareness sticks with them when they get back
home.
Each year our.data gathering gets a little more sophisticated. The first four years we had
a very general, short questionnaire. It gave us bulk figures, because volunteers could write
"some," "many," "lots," or "a few" under the category "number of pieces." Since 1988, we
have used the Center for Marine Conservation questionnaire;! The first year with the CMC
form, the volunteers grumbled about haying to be more specific, but this year they seem to
be more familiar with the form. The CMC form is an excellent tool for recording what we
find, and there is certainly a value in having debris data uniformly documented nationwide.
Prior to the cleanups, there was virtually no documentation on the amount or source of
marine debris. So we have come a long way!
In the years prior to 1988, all the debris from Oregon's cleanup went directly into
landfills, thanks to the generosity of the Oregon Sanitary Service Institute. In 1988 we asked
volunteers to work in pairs and separate the plastic from othesr debris and place it in a special
bag. After the cleanup, all the plastic and polystyrene foam was picked up by Environmental
Pacific Corporation, taken to Portland, and analyzed to see how much of it could be recycled.
This year we couldn't put a recycling package together, so it went to the landfills again.
Going after marine debris as "litter" on the beaches does not have the same appeal as
-------
Ken
Pritchard
Adopt a Beach
34
focusing on the issues of entanglement and ingestion by fish and wildlife. That focus has at-
tracted the media and gotten new people involved.
A major value of the cleanups is networking with people in other coastal states working
on marine debris. Having the cleanups clustered during one month in the fall gives everyone
higher visibility with the public and news media.
One of my earlier recommendations was to get a media blitz in the popular press, not
just obscure technical or professional journals. I am pleased to report that hardly a week goes
by that I don't run across a marine debris article in a commercial fishing industry magazine,
a conservation organization newsletter, or the newspaper. The state natural resource agency
magazines and Sea Grant have also done an excellent job of documenting the problem
through feature articles complete with color photographs.
I am really glad I had the foresight, in 1984, to write the "Nuts and Bolts Guide to Or-
ganizing a Beach Cleanup the Easy Way." I also made extra copies of all my handouts,
posters, lunch tickets, instructions to zone captains, etc. The educational aspects of the
cleanup have been tremendous. In the past five years I have distributed over 500 information
packets to at least 40 of the 50 states and 20 foreign countries. I have always stressed that
nothing I send is copyrighted— most of us have no budget for what we are doing, so it helps
to be able to use existing artwork, recognized logos, or themes.
The 7-1/2-minute video, "Trashing the Oceans," produced by NOAA, is the best deal for
schools because it gives a quick overview and then the discussion can turn to specific things,
like showing examples of recycled plastic and how to set up milk-jug recycling projects.
In Oregon, our program of distributing information, working with the media, and organ-
izing the cleanup statewide has been a one-person effort. My regular job (with the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife) does not involve public relations or working with volun-
teers, so the cleanup has been looked on as my "hobby." Now that I have "retired" and am
moving to Indiana, our public affairs office is taking over the cleanup.
(from audience): I did my first cleanup this year, and it was frustrating because you
see all that garbage and you realize that in two or three months it's going to look
exactly the same. •
What's encouraging to me is that people are having their awareness raised. They
used to be able to tolerate the dirty beaches, but now they are taking their own large
bags to the beach with them so they can pick up the debris. The people who work at
the state parks say that their beaches are a lot cleaner now, and their trash cans and
dumpsters are full of big bags of trash.
Adopt a Beach started in 1985 and does a variety of educational, monitoring, and
rehabilitation projects. In 1988 we started surveying marine debris in the state of Washing-
ton. This is to be a long-term (15 years) survey project. Presently we are engaged in a pilot
project for the purpose of field-testing and refining our methodology.
The objectives of Adopt a Beach are:
• To collect raw data from beaches that are known to accumulate marine debris.
• To characterize the debris (in terms of distribution by type of material and type of use) .
on given units of beach over time. .
• To diagnose probable sources of indicator debris and record their geographic occurrence
and frequency.
• To provide raw data, data summaries, and descriptive statistics to the members of Wash-
ington State's Marine Plastic Debris Taskforce (members include local, state, and
federal agencies) and other data users.
A
-------
**We are groping for
a methodology that
will be acceptable to
the agencies in
charge of monitoring
marine debris, and
hoping that agencies
such as EPA and
NOAA will aggres-
sively undertake the
creation of a national
citizen marine debris
program."
35
Panel 4 /Debris Cleanup
We caution data users that we are not providing certain information. For example:
• The survey provides no indication of daily accumulation.
• We don't provide information on "micro-debris" (small, broken-down debris such as
polystyrene pellets).
• We don't provide inferential information (i.e., regional trends; trends by beach types; trends
by types of local onshore and offshore uses).
The biggest problem with marine debris surveys is trying to develop a method that, is statis-
tically valid. We have adopted our methodology and taxonomy from the Center for Marine
Conservation surveys and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska survey.
Briefly, our methods are as follows:
1. Beach selection
We needed a criterion for selecting which beaches to survey—i.e., those beaches where
debris is likely to be found. We used the "drift cell" concept. Predominant wind-driven
shore currents tend to push sand in one direction along the shore until some ending
point or terminus is reached, such as a sand spit, headland, or jetty. The area from the
current's starting point to the terminus is called a drift cell. The terminus accumulates a
lot of sand, and also a lot of debris, so it is a good place f.o survey. We visited over 30
beaches and selected 10 for our surveys. They are located in Puget Sound and the outer
coast.
2. Debris collection i
Each beach is sampled quarterly. Survey sites are divided into 100-meter sampling
units. Volunteers arrive at the beach and begin by measuring out their section. Then
they sweep the section, collecting all non-wood human artifacts that are visible from a
standing position. Two other types of surveys that are being conducted in parallel on
some beaches are daily accumulation of debris and amount of micro-debris in a 1-meter
quadrant. ,
3. Debris sorting and classifying
Volunteers bring their bags of debris indoors for tallying. Sometimes when people
first start, they say, "Why just clean 100 meters—why not the whole, beach?" Then
they find out that they spend three or four hours just classifying the debris from the
100-meter section. Debris is first sorted by type of material (e.g., glass, plastic, paper),
shape (e.g., sheeting, container), and use, if known (e.g., personal-use aerosol can or
recreational fishing gear). Then each piece is classified and assigned a five-digit code.
In order to be diagnostic, it's necessary to go into a lot of detail. The form is quite
complicated for the untrained volunteer.
We are groping for a methodology that will be acceptable to the agencies in charge of
monitoring marine debris, and hoping that agencies such as EPA and NOAA will aggres-
sively undertake the creation of a national citizen marine debris program. The first step
should be to identify all current marine debris monitoring activities conducted by citizen
groups, universities, and government. Without a proper infrastructure—including standard-
ized methodologies, project development support, technical assistance, national and regional
coordination, and a national data base—citizen monitoring will be fragmented at best and
largely ineffective if not nonexistent as a national effort.
-------
ViHere
Reggio
Gulf of Mexico
Marine Debris
Subcommittee
^Marine debris is
tangible, it's visible,
and it's a people-
generated problem. It
is a regional problem
and it needs a
regional solution."
36
Panel
5
Regional Coordination of
Monitoring Programs
Panelists: Villere Reggio, Minerals Management Service, US. Department of the Interior; Mark
Mitchell, Friends of the Rouge; John Tiedemann, American Littoral Society Fish Tagging Program;
Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League Save Our Streams Program.
Moderator: Virginia Lee, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island.
There were two famous "M" men of history. One was Moses, who gave us 10 rules to
live by. Then Murphy came along with just one law: If something can go wrong, it will. So,
is the answer more laws? Yes and no. We have a lot of environmental laws already. We may
need more laws, but even more we need the public will and determination to make the laws
work.
Now I'll talk about a "G" man (government man). I'm a "G" man—I work for two gov-
ernment agencies. One is the Minerals Management Service, a part of the Department of the
Interior. We have responsibility for offshore oil leasing and development in the Gulf of
Mexico. A 1985 study by the state of Texas indicated that 90 percent of the debris on Texas
beaches was due to the oil and gas industry.
I'm also a representative of EPA, where I am associated with the Gulf of Mexico pro-
gram through the Marine Debris Subcommittee. This subcommittee has two goals:
1. To encourage compliance with the requirements of MARPOL Annex V, and also to
strengthen that law by supporting Special Area Designation for the Gulf of Mexico.
2. To foster pride, stewardship, and increased understanding of the marine and coastal
resources of the Gulf of .Mexico, including increased awareness .of the harmful effects
of marine debris.
To support these goals, the committee facilitates the planning, organization, promotion,
and coordination of a volunteer Gulf-wide coastal cleanup and marine debris monitoring
program. Marine debris is tangible, it's visible, and it's a people-generated problem. It is a
regional problem and it needs a regional solution.
Now I'd like to tell you a little about the Gulf of Mexico. We have four major industries:
petroleum, fisheries, merchant shipping, and recreation/tourism. Ninety percent of all U.S.
offshore oil and gas production is taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. We have 7,500 com-
mercial fishing boats, 6,000 of them shrimpers. The Gulf accounts for 40 percent of the total
U.S. commercial fish catch. There are 33 major ports handling 45 percent of the nation's
import/export shipping tonnage. We have 2 million registered private recreational boats in
the five Gulf states; we also have Navy vessels, research vessels, and cruise ships.
The Gulf has over 1,000 miles of beaches. The point is that all the users we've just been
talking about generate and dispose of garbage, some of which can and does end up on Gulf
beaches.
So, why beach cleanups? Because a beach cleanup is the neutral ground where the Gulf
of Mexico users, the regulators, the environmental groups, the civic groups, and the citizens
can come together for a common purpose—participatory voluntary environmental action.
What a beach cleanup does is:
• Builds understanding of the problem.
• Builds cooperation and support in seeking solutions.
• Builds commitment toward implementing solutions.
• Builds a database useful for monitoring progress.
For our 1987 Gulf-wide cleanup we had 11,000 volunteers; in 1988 we had 15,000; and
-------
Mark
Mitchell
Interactive
Rouge River
^Public awareness of
the pollution problem
is high, partly
because of a man who
fell into the Rouge a
few years ago and
ingested some water.
He died three days
later. It turned out
that he had ingested
some leptospirosis
bacteria, which can
be transmitted
through urine."
37
in 1989, 21,000. This didn't just happen. Here are some of the factors we think are important
in generating and keeping productive volunteer support:
1. Target user groups and organizations. Try to get groups associated with the problem to
.become associated with the solution. One example is Conoco. Many of their employees
helped with the cleanup, and when they saw all the styrofoam on the beach they went
back and asked, "How come we're using all these styrofoam cups offshore?" Conoco
ended up instituting a divisionwide policy banning the use of styrofoam cups offshore.
Several other oil companies heard about this and have voluntarily adopted similar
policies.
2. Encourage leadership and support from the highest levels of government, industry, and
the private sector. When governors, mayors, regional directors, county supervisors,
commissioners, park superintendents, refuge managers, base commanders, and
•company presidents get involved, all the logistics and support services just seem to fall
into place, and volunteers come out of the woodwork. So don't be bashful about asking
the people at the highest level to get involved.
3. Tabulate data on the debris. Volunteers will feel they are more than garbage collec-
tors—they're contributing to an important investigation. Then let the volunteers know
how the data are used.
4. Give recognition and awards to volunteers.
5. Develop a recognizable theme and logo (such as our^'Take Pride Gulf-Wide" slogan
and logo) to build identity and unity.
6. Have an annual coordinated regionwide or nationwide cleanup day.
7. Promote adoption programs to keep up interest and commitment over a period of time.
The state government should sponsor these programs, with local government support.
Texas gets the credit for getting this idea started. ;
8. Coordinate beach cleanups with other recognized events, such as Coastweeks or Earth
Day. Community groups are predisposed to get involved with these events, and the
press is looking for projects' to promote when these events are going on.
9. Besides making cleanups meaningful, make them FIJN. We work for about two hours;
then we party for three hours. If people go away with happy memories, they will come
back and bring others.
H ' ' ;i
The Interactive Rouge River Water Quality Project, jointly administered by Friends of
the Rouge and the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources, is set in the
Detroit metropolitan area. In case you've never been to Detroit (and I know that people have
perceptions about Detroit already!), the Rouge is an extremely polluted watershed that is
plagued by frequent combined sewer discharges. ;
Public awareness of the pollution problem is high, partly because of a man who fell into
the Rouge a few years ago and ingested some water. He died three days later. It turned out
that he had ingested some leptospirosis bacteria, which can be transmitted through urine.
That really got to people—that a man fell in the river and he died.
The watershed is about 465 square miles in area, and within that area live about 1.5
million people. So it's a very concentrated, very urban place.
Students in over 40 high schools and middle schools currently participate in the Interac-
tive Rouge River Water Quality Project. The project embraces three major activities: water
quality monitoring, computer networking, and role-playing. The educational goals of the
program are:
• To develop thinking skills. :
• To develop problem-solving ability.
• To increase awareness about the river.
« To help students understand the complexity of a river ecosystem.
The students test nine water quality parameters at their sampling sites. We use mostly
Hach kits and Millipore kits. The data are entered onto personal computers. All the partici-
pating schools are connected to a computer network. Students can communicate with
-------
John
Tiedemann
American
Littoral Society
Fish Tagging
Program
38
students at other schools via the network.
We're striving to make this an interdisciplinary program and one way is through the use
of a social studies sourcebook that we've published. The sourcebook goes over the history of
the river and the watershed, some of the economics of pollution control, and the agencies
you might want to contact if you have a problem.
Last year we came up with something new: the C.R.A.P. game (Community River
Action Plan). This is a role-playing game about a fictitious river that resembles the Rouge.
Students can decide to play various roles—i.e., decision makers from EPA, taxpayers,
business people, land-use planners, or environmentalists. There are three different game '
"cycles": a flood event, major development along the river, and a legal mandate to clean up.
Working with schools entails many challenges and pitfalls. I think we can learn from our
"sorrys" as well as our "prouds." Based on our experiences, here are some recommendations
for anyone contemplating working with schools:
• We get principals, teachers, and curriculum coordinators to sign a Letter of Agreement
that outlines their responsibilities toward the program as well as what they can expect
from Friends of the Rouge and the University of Michigan's School of Natural
Resources.
• Recruitment of schools should target teachers, not the administrative structure (which
takes too long).
• Link project'goals to common educational goals of the school system, because teachers'
curricula are too full as it is and new projects must be justified.
• Because lack of time and money are the most chronic constraints found among schools,
it is important to provide a support system, including adequate funding and resource
people who can assist teachers.
After all that we've heard in the last two days, it's hard to believe that there are still fish
out there—but there are! I'm a volunteer with the American Littoral Society Fish Tagging
Program, which was started in 1965. The program was developed with the help of marine
biologists at the NMFS Sandy Hook laboratory and is operated out of the ALS headquarters
at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, by a single staff member, Pam Carlsen. (Anyone wishing to
contact the program can write to: American Littoral Society, Fish Tagging Program,
Highlands, NJ 07732; or call (201) 291-0055.)
Scientists have been tagging fish for probably more than 100 years^ In terms of volun-
teer angler participation, it's been going on for at least a few decades.
The ALS tagging program encourages anglers to tag any fish that they are going to
release. The program's purposes are to promote a conservation ethic among anglers and to
provide scientific data on the migration, growth, and condition of important marine game
fish.
All taggers must be members of ALS (annual dues are $20). Fishing clubs can join as a
unit for $25. Individuals or clubs purchase the fish tagging kits, so the program is self-
supporting. Kits cost $4 and contain 10 tags, 10 postcards (data cards) that correspond to
the tags, a stainless steel insertion needle, and a set of instructions. When a kit is sold, its
tag numbers are recorded along with the name and address of the tagger to ensure that ALS
can get in touch with the tagger if necessary.
The tag is called a "spaghetti tag." You thread the tag into the needle and insert it
through the fish's dorsal side near the tail. Then you fill out the data card with the species,
date caught, length, weight (if possible), where released, tagger's name and address, and
-------
Panel 5/RegionaI Coordination
"The ALS tagging
program encourages
anglers to tag any fish
that they are going to
it-
release. The
program's purposes
are to promote a
conservation ethic
among anglers and to
provide scientific data
on the migration,
growth, and condition
of important marine
gamefish.9*
any special comments. The card is returned to ALS where it is processed and coded for the
NOAA/NMFS computer.
When a fish is recaptured, both the fisherman capturing the tagged fish and the original
tagger receive a letter containing'tagging and recapture information and a patch. All returns
are acknowledged in the tagging report column in each issue of the ALS magazine, "Under-
water Naturalist."
Approximately 780 anglers and 75 fishing clubs from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico are
currently participating in the program. Since the program's inception, 210,720 tags have
been distributed and 101,043 fish have been tagged and released. A total of 4,012 recaptures
have been recorded for a return rate of approximately 4 percent.
The ALS regards the participating anglers as partners in this program. A constant
dialogue is maintained with the volunteers. All input from taggers is taken very seriously and
all questions are answered as completely as possible.
Pam takes the time to hand-write a card to anybody who writes an interesting comment
on a data card or writes for information. In fact, you might hear from her if you tag a large
number offish or an exceptionally large fish, or take a cub seout troop on a tagging expedi-
tion, or even if you get written up in the local papers for any reason—such as a new birth in
the family.
ALS informs anglers about other tagging programs (such as those conducted by the
Hudson River Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,;and. NMFS) and coordinates
its efforts with these other programs.
Probably the key to maintaining a program such as this one is a long-term commitment
by the organization operating the program. The program must provide an accessible contact
person who can ensure that all data are consistent and meaningful, and who will communi-
cate with the volunteers and applaud their efforts.
Karen
Firehock
Save Our
Streams, Izaak
Walton League
of America
39
I've been with the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA), as the Save Our Streams
Coordinator, for about'four and a half years. The League was founded in 1922 by a group of
fishermen who organized to protect the Mississippi River. We have a long history of dedica-
tion to river issues—for example, we conducted the nation's first water pollution survey, for
President Calvin Coolidge. The League is a national nonprofit organization with a current
membership of 50,000 people in 400 chapters nationwide.
The League works on a variety of issues such as acid rain, clean air, wetlands protection,
outdoor ethics, and clean water. One of our most popular programs is Save Our Streams,
which is a grass-roots water quality protection program. Save Our Streams began in 1969 in
Maryland IWLA chapters. It was spread nationwide by the "water wagon"—a large mobile
lab piloted by former SOS coordinator Dave Whitney, who traveled to every state except
Alaska and Hawaii and lectured to 2,000 people per day on SOS and stream protection.
That's why Dave is now retired in Florida, even though I think he's only in his forties.
The IWLA uses a biological monitoring approach. We do benttiic surveys of macroin-
vertebrates (aquatic insects large enough to be seen with the naked eye). The reason we do
biological monitoring is that it tells you right off the bat whether the river is healthy—that is,
whether it is able to support the diverse population that we would expect it to support if it
was not polluted. Chemical testing gives a lot of valuable infoirmation but often does not
-------
**/ was in a
ne\vspaper article
last week as being
a "professional
nag" and now I'm
getting calls from
people who want
nagging advice.
What I do is call
up state
agencies and
do some
investigation."
40
answer that question.
The purpose of this segment of the conference is to provide an overview of how to
design and implement a regional or statewide water quality monitoring program. I am going
to give some organizing tips based on how I set up networks in states.
Step 1. Convincing the state agencies that they need you
I was in a newspaper article last week as being a "professional nag" and now I'm getting
calls from people who want nagging advice. What I do is call up state agencies and do some
investigation. I ask them questions like how many permitted industries they have in the
state, how many river miles they have, how many monitoring sites they have. For example,
in West Virginia they have 28,000-plus river miles; they have 29 or 30 permanent monitor-
ing stations and 30 ambient stations. You can imagine how many river miles are unprotected
and unmonitored. That tells me that this state is going to be really receptive to a citizen
monitoring program. You also need to find out about the principal water quality problems in
the state and the level of funding.
Another way to get states to believe that they need you is through the new nonpoint
source pollution management plans that states are putting into effect. The 1987 Clean Water
Act amendments required that all states submit a management plan for controlling pollution
by August 1988. The problem is, how are you going to come up with a plan if you've only
been able to monitor 20 percent of your river miles? The states are also required to docu-
ment the success of their plans. Citizen monitoring programs can help states with these
nonpoint source management plans in two ways, because they can provide states with (1) the
ability to assess their unknown waters now, in order to write the management plan, and (2)
the ability to document whether their nonpoint pollution management projects are successful
in the future.
It's also important to be familiar with federal protocols. For example, since the IWLA
uses biological monitoring, the appropriate EPA guidance document is the May 1989 "Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Invertebrates and Fish."
Being familiar with this document, I can go in to state agencies and say, "Our method is
equivalent to protocol #2 in the federal guidelines." Knowing the federal criteria gives you
credibility when dealing with state officials.
Basically, in setting up cooperation with state agencies you have to tell them what you
can do for them. You say to them: You don't have data?—I've got it. You don't have citizen
support, you don't have enough .staff?—I'm going to get citizens interested in lobbying to
get more funding for more staff.
Step 2. Setting up the volunteer monitoring network
Monitoring agencies are set up differently in each state. The various agencies have
different political makeups and different degrees of familiarity with citizen monitoring. In
some states I find that the Department of Natural Resources is really cooperative with me; in
other states I have to go through the Department of Education and work with their Aquatic
Resources people. In some states I find that I can work with the regulatory agency but can't
work with the Department of Conservation. Other agencies to try are the agency in charge of
nonpoint source pollution, or the Soil Conservation Service, or a. scenic rivers program.
Sometimes I end up setting up the whole citizen network and getting the program going for
a year, and then telling the state that they need me.
The point is that there's always a way in the door—it may be around the back, or
-------
Panel 5/Regional Coordination.
through a window, or you might have to go down the chimney,, but you can get in. You need
to find that one sympathetic individual. I've found that most bureaucrats in state environ-
mental agencies do care about the environment; that's where their hearts are at, and they're
really looking forward to the opportunity to do something besides pushing reports around
their desks.
Let the state agencies know that EPA supports the use of volunteer monitors. For ex-
ample, use the EPA's 1989 publication, "Nonpoint Sources Agenda for the Future," which
advocates the use of volunteer monitors in state nonpoint programs.
One book that is helpful—though very technical—is "Design of Networks for Monitor-
ing Water Quality," published in 1988. Our office has a seven-page bibliography of publica-
tions on citizen monitoring, which you can obtain by writing to us and sending a dollar for
postage. . ;
You can vastly expand your network by working with other environmental or civic
groups—the Sierra Club, Audubon chapters, scout troops, school groups, church organiza-
tions, and many others.
Step 3, Ensuring ongoing coordination for the program ,
Have the state designate a permanent liaison to provide teclinical advice to citizen
monitors and to help get the monitoring data to the appropriate state agencies. Establish a
variety of private funding sources for the program. This will prevent the program from being
cut during the state budget process. .
i •
Step 4. Designing methods for data storage and retrieval
Computer storage of data is the best method because it allows toth statistical analysis
and rapid recall. A popular software to use in database design both for chemical and biologi-
cal programs is dBASE III. Relational Report Writer is a commonly used program for
generating reports from dBASE III databases. Reports must be generated regularly, and in a
format that is easily understood and usable by state officials, i. . .
41
-------
Recommendations to EPA from first
volunteer monitoring workshop, May 1988
1. We recommend that EPA publicly endorse and encourage the use of citizen
volunteers to collect and process information for assessing the status of the
nation's environment.
• Highlight successful citizen monitoring programs through national promotions.
• Issue letters of commendation to programs recognizing their contributions.
• Sponsor annual conferences for information exchange among citizen monitoring programs.
• Sponsor a national networking newsletter with briefs on new programs and techniques and
notices of workshops and meetings.
2. We recommend that EPA adopt policies that encourage states to develop and
utilize citizen monitoring programs to help carry out their mandates for environ-
mental monitoring as delegated from EPA under the Clean Water Act and
MARPOL.
• Authorize states to use some portion of the federal funds provided under appropriate sections of the Clean
Water Act for developing and implementing citizen monitoring programs. Encourage states to use volun-
teer monitoring results as part of the biennial State of States' Waters Reports.
• Request each state to designate a contact person to work with volunteer citizen monitoring program coor-
dinators in that state.
• Develop a guidance document for state program managers with practical advice to assist them in success-
ful recruitment of volunteers and management of citizen monitoring programs.
3. We recommend that EPA direct regional offices and research laboratories to
support citizen monitoring activities by offering technical assistance.
• Request that the EPA Office of Research and Development provide guidance to laboratories on the types
of activities that are appropriate for citizen monitoring programs.
• Develop training manuals and seminars for training citizen volunteers.
• Develop a standard methods manual that is appropriate for volunteer sampling and analytical procedures.
4. We recommend that EPA validate its endorsement and unify its approach to
citizen monitoring by establishing a full-time staff position, directly reporting to
the Administrator of the Office of Water, with the primary responsibility for coordi-
nating and enhancing citizen monitoring programs throughout the country. Spe-
cific responsibilities of this person would include:
• Enhancing opportunities for citizen monitoring programs within EPA headquarters and among the
regional offices.
• Fostering communication among citizen monitoring projects and among federal agencies.
• Forging new links between citizen monitoring and EPA program initiatives in freshwater, estuarine, and
marine environments around the country.
• Providing technical assistance to states.
-------
I
Ecosystem Discussion
Group Reports j
In response to requests by citizen volunteer groups at the first workshop (Rhode Island,
May 1988), time was set aside to discuss the practical day-to-day challenges of monitoring
specific types of ecosystems. Accordingly, all the attendees divided up into the following five
"ecosystem discussion groups" .-streams and rivers, lakes, estuaries and tidal waters, living
resources, and debris cleanup.
The purpose of the discussion groups was to give people monitoring similar ecosystems
an opportunity to (1) exchange ideas, techniques, and solutions to problems; (2) talk about
how states can use volunteer monitoring data and how better links can be forged between
monitoring groups and states; and (3) review the list of recommendations developed at the
first workshop (see opposite page), assess progress, and make further recommendations to
EPA and to the workshop participants.
Following are the summary reports from the discussion groups.
Discussion Group
Discussion leader: Sarah Hubbard-Gray, Stream Team Program, Bellevue, Washington.
Recorder: Ken Cooke, Water Watch Program, Kentucky Division of Water, Frankfort, Kentucky.
The groups represented at the streams and rivers discussicb group were: 7 nonprofits, 5
educational institutions (colleges and high schools), 4 state governments, 3 local govern-
ments, and 2 federal representatives.
There were 11 "old hats" (in this business, an old hat is someone who's been involved
for a year or more) and 10 new folks. i ,
t
j
+ Exchanging ideas, techniques, and solutions to problems
The group discussed the importance of maintaining positive relationships with volun-
teers. Empowerment is very important; so are good training and quality control. Agencies
will respect well-trained volunteers. Some specific suggestions for maintaining positive rela-
tionships are:
• Agencies should establish who is responsible for which types of environmental problems, so
volunteers know who to call.
• The monitoring coordinator should avoid assigning risky jobs to volunteers (i.e., jobs that
involve handling hazardous materials or visiting facilities where; there is a chance for encoun-
tering hostile violators).
• The monitoring project should involve companies and businesses when setting up the project,
and work to build bridges with private industry.
43
-------
4- Enhancing links to state government
There are many ways that states can use volunteer monitoring data, and there are also
other groups that can use the data. Possible uses for the data:
• State 305b reports
• Nonpoint source assessment
• Wild rivers or scenic rivers programs
• Soil and water conservation districts
• Health departments
• Enforcement cases
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Storm event studies
• University research studies
• Planning and zoning districts
• Forestry programs
• The citizens monitoring groups themselves
One important way to encourage states to use the volunteer data is to make the data user-
friendly. Use the same forms as the state uses—for example, stream-site survey forms.
Survey the state agencies by phone or by mail and see what they want—what kind of data,
and in what format. Learn about the state's rules and. regulations on data collection. Let the
state help design the training program and participate in the training.
+ Evaluating progress and making recommendations
The group expressed appreciation and compliments for what EPA has already done, and.
for the fact that we are here today. Recommendations are:
A. Re-recommend the recommendations of the first conference.
B. National conference
Hold another national conference. The West Coast would be a good location. It would be
helpful to have workshops that are more "nuts-and-bolts"—how to fund-raise, how to do
specific testing procedures, how to conduct training sessions, etc.
C. Regional meetings
Hold regional meetings in U.S. EPA regions.
D. Guidance documents
When EPA provides guidance documents to states, include information on where citizen
monitoring data would be appropriate.
E. Newsletter
We liked the newsletter. We would like to see it produced every six months, preferably
using recycled paper. We don't recommend rotating responsibility for the newsletter; that
would involve too much re-inventing the wheel.
F. Liaisons at EPA offices
Establish liaisons at EPA regional offices to deal with citizen monitoring groups and
states establishing programs.
G. Funding
Allow states to use 106g and 205j monies for establishing volunteer monitoring programs.
44
-------
a
Discussion Group / Lakes
45
Discussion leader: Linda Taylor Green, Watershed Watch Program, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island.
Recorder: Judy Bostrom, Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
St. Paul, Minnesota.
+ Exchanging ideas, techniques, and solutions to problems
A. Tax deductions and insurance for volunteers
Participants can be "reimbursed" for their contribution of time through federal income
tax deductions. Also, liability insurance for volunteers is available through NALMS
(North American Lake Management Society).
B. National Volunteer Center
The National Volunteer Center may be a way to get the program listed and the volun-
teers recognized.
C. Problems with volunteer monitors
• Problems can arise when monitors are trained by other monitors, instead of by the coor-
dinating agency. It's important for monitors to be properly trained by the agency, in
order to maintain good quality assurance and to project an image of accountability for
the program and the data collected.
• One program had a problem of a volunteer talking to the media before sending in the
data. To handle this, the program formed a "damage control" group.
• When participants lose interest in taking samples, but still want to be involved in the pro-
gram in some capacity, some programs "graduate" these participants to the role of col-
lectors/coordinators.
D. Staying in touch with volunteers
Agencies can stay in touch with volunteer monitors throujjh annual lake conferences,
meetings with groups of participants to discuss problems with results, and visits to the
lakes during the year. Possibly EPA could issue Certificates of Appreciation as a way of
giving recognition to volunteers.
E. Quality assurance/quality control
When "outliers" occur in the data, it is important to investigate the circumstances sur-
rounding the taking of the sample to determine its validity:
F. Site selection
Carolyn Rumery Betz of Wisconsin's Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program said that they
used the deepest hole of the lake as their monitoring location. In the case of a lake
having more than one basin they chose the deepest hole in each of the separate basins.
This method of site selection seemed to be the consensus of everyone present.
G. Methods for taking Secchi disk readings
Some programs use a view tube to reduce the influence of ichoppy water or surface glare.
One way to avoid bias in the reading is to have one person lower the Secchi disk while
another person watches for the disk to disappear from view.
H. Other water quality parameters
Several of the programs measure other water quality parameters besides Secchi depth.
Some use turbidity, chlorophyll a, and phosphorus data to back up the Secchi disk data.
Others do alkalinity and use calcium and magnesium analyses for corroboration. New
York (CSLAP) does nutrient sampling (collected in Kemmerer bottles and sent to a lab).
They also take dissolved oxygen measurements using a Nestor meter which has a
permanent membrane, thus eliminating the need to change membranes.
-------
46
I. Trophic Status Indices
It was noted that different programs use different intervals in measuring Secchi depth
(New Hampshire measures to the nearest 0.1 meter, Wisconsin to the 1/4 foot, and
Minnesota to the 1/2 foot). These differences appeared to be a function of the different
trophic conditions of the lakes in the various regions. Where lakes are generally oligotro-
phic, it makes sense to use a finer unit of measurement. But where lakes are mesotrophic
or eutrophic, measuring to the 1/4 or 1/2 foot is more reasonable. Therefore it was felt that
the Trophic Status Indices should probably not be standardized nationally.
J. Comparability of data among programs
Participants were concerned about the comparability of data from different programs
because not all programs sample during the same period of time. For example, Wisconsin
samples from June through August; New Hampshire from May through October; and
Minnesota from mid-June through mid-September. Also, programs have different inter-
vals between readings.
K. Ties with other organizations
We could strengthen our ties with several other organizations: USGS, SCS (Soil Conser-
vation Service), universities, and the American Society of Limnology and Oceanogra-
phy. We felt, however, that NALMS should be the responsible party for strengthening its
ties to us. .
4- Enhancing links to state government
Most of the groups represented in this discussion said that they had already forged links
to state government. One program mentioned a concern that the state seemed "hungry" for
data but didn't appear to be concerned about the quality of data. New Hampshire reported
that the state has finally asked for the volunteer data for use in the 305b report.
A group in Virginia was the only one having problems in getting their efforts recog-
nized—even though they have data comparable to the state's, are using the same sites, and
monitor at additional sites not covered by state efforts. It was suggested that the state may see
the group's efforts as competition. A possible solution might be to try to find a sympathetic
ear within government at any level (i.e., county commissioner or planning and/or zoning ad-
ministrator). Another suggestion was to get targeted people to join in on a sampling event.
The following suggestions were offered to those programs and states that do not yet have
satisfactory links: (1) Programs could try contacting the state's Water Resources Research
Center, (2) Programs should maintain a positive image in the community; (3) States should
look at existing volunteer programs to avoid re-inventing the wheel; and (4) All offices of
EPA, not just the Office of Water, should look at volunteer programs.
+ Evaluating progress and making recommendations
A. Re-recommend all four of the recommendations made at the first volunteer
monitoring conference.
B. Newsletter
• Consider mailing directly to the volunteers and not just to the coordinators.
• In articles, be sure to mention the name of the program and give the name and
address of the contact person.
• Monitoring programs should be sure to put the person producing the newsletter
on their mailing lists so that person is kept up to date on what we are doing.
• Possible sources of funding for the newsletter might be USDA or USGS.
• It might be worthwhile to contract the production of the newsletter to a non-
-------
monitoring agency while having a monitoring agency retain the editing duties.
• Include a section listing any new publications and materials produced by the
various programs.
i
C. Standard methods manual
1. The group made the following recommendations to EPA:
• Take into account the variability of the regions (not necessarily EPA's regions)
and include a range of methods.
• Take into account the limitations of activities appropriate for volunteer
monitoring. I
• Include a list of source materials.
2. We made the following recommendation to ourselves and to other monitoring groups:
If we use a method other than those given in the manual, we should document the
method on paper to convince the EPA of the quality assurance of the method and to
show that the method is comparable with those in the manual.
D. Next conference
At the next citizen environmental monitoring conference we would like to hear programs
talk about something other than their background; perhaps they could discuss one aspect
of the program, such as quality control or demographics. The background of a particular
program could be given in an abstract for those unfamiliar with the program. Suggested
topics for the next conference are: "How We Use the Data" and "How Do Our Monitor-
ing Activities Complement Other Groups (e.g., NALMS)?" It is a good idea to hold the
conference in concurrent sessions with other groups (as this one was).
E. EPA encouragement of volunteer monitoring
One area where EPA could encourage and endorse volunteer monitoring is in its inter-
agency council groups. Also, EPA could schedule talks about volunteer monitoring at
other conferences besides this one. And EPA should tell toe states that if volunteer-
generated data meet state requirements, the state should uise trie data in the 305b report.
F. Organization for volunteer coordinators
The group discussed whether there is a need to set up a formal organization for volunteer
coordinators. We should stress the need for a staff person at EPA and have that person be
responsible for such an organization.
47
-------
3
Discussion Group ^Estuaries
Discussion leader: TomPerlic, Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, Washington, North Carolina.
Recorder: Diane Barile, Marine Resources Council, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Fla.
+ Exchanging ideas, techniques, and solutions to problems
A. Objectives of citizen volunteer monitoring
1. Provide a positive approach to pollution problems (i.e., define the purpose of the
program in terms of improving the environment, not finger-pointing at polluters).
2. Determine the health and viability of the ecosystem.
3. Determine trends and baselines to aid decision making.
4. Determine pollution sources.
5. Monitor episodic events like storms or algae blooms (which state programs often
cannot do).
6. Fill in data gaps in existing programs or provide broader coverage.
7. Provide public awareness and education through involvement.
8. Provide a reliable source of information to the press and researchers.
B. Ideas for laying the groundwork for a new volunteer monitoring program
1. Establish the need for the program. Help build a perception of need with public
officials, the press, and citizens. At the same time, determine the specific data needs of
government agencies.
2. Set clear objectives and a unified goal.
3. Establish a group or committee that includes all who have a stake in the area—i.e., en-
vironmental groups, developers, commercial and recreational fishermen, marine indus-
tries, government staff, schools, retirees, scientists.
4. Work with existing local groups and supportive government staff.
5. Establish a technical advisory board.
6. Find sponsors for funding and support. These could be:
• "Friends of the lake, river, or bay
• Lake or watershed associations
• National Estuary Program
• National Estuary Research Reserve
• Land trusts
• Private or public corporations
C. Suggestions about how a new program can get started with the actual
monitoring
1. Start off with what you can manage and do it incredibly well; then expand. Either start
out monitoring only a few parameters, or start with a small pilot project and measure
more parameters.
2. Pick the parameters you will monitor based on your program's objectives.
3. Expand from existing monitoring programs or coordinate with other agencies.
4. Determine whether citizens are to be involved only in collecting samples or in pro-
cessing and reporting data.
5. Determine the data format; assure a system for data collection, storage, and retrieval.
48
D. Ways to attract, keep, and motivate volunteers
1. Respond quickly to volunteer requests for information or supplies.
2. Maintain personal contact; limit the number of volunteers to those you can serve.
3. Solicit volunteer ideas for improving the program.
4. Respect the time and talent of each individual. If a volunteer is not performing well in
-------
one task, transfer him or her to another task. Put people in positions where they will
shine.
5. Keeping volunteers informed is crucial. Hold regular meetings. Publish a newsletter.
Distribute results regularly and keep volunteers informed as to how the data are being
used. -
6. Help volunteers keep learning and moving. Give advanced training sessions. Hold
lectures and field trips to give them more information about the whole water body. See
if you can get local colleges to provide credit for training.
7. Provide incentives and recognition to volunteers—cards, letters, patches, T-shirts, pins,
or awards.
8. Increase your own effectiveness by delegating some of your responsibilities to proven
volunteers. ,
E. Quality control and quality assurance
1. Training is the key to a successful program. It's essential to have good trainers. Try to
involve state and federal agencies in the training.
2. Maybe EPA could set up a national certification process for citizen monitors.
3. Check all data sets. If a volunteer's data are inconsistent, retrain or shift to another task.
4. Have the data approved by a state agency. Use the state agency's forms.
5. Have volunteers use a checklist to assure complete procedures.
+ Enhancing links to state government
A. How the data can be used by states
1. Track compliance of permits.
2. Monitor "hot spots."
3. Alert state agencies to problems such as storms, algae blooms, or spills.
B. Joint training program
The volunteer monitoring program can also include new or unskilled state staff as trainees.
C. Funding
We need to be sure that money allocated for monitoring goes to the volunteer program
and not to building a greater bureaucracy at the state level. Money will go much further if
it's put into equipment and people on the ground rather than into three state office people
to administer the program.
•* Evaluating progress and making recommendations
A. General recommendations to EPA
1. EPA should support citizen monitoring in the EPA regions and especially the states.
2. Citizen programs should not be used to replace existing state programs but to increase
state coverage and responsiveness. There was concern that as citizen monitoring in-
creases, states might cut back on their programs.
3. There needs to be EPA leadership in facilitating dialogues on shellfish monitoring with
USDA, FDA, and the university extension programs.
4. Citizen monitoring programs need to have a program plan to take to states to show how
citizen data can be used in state programs.
5. There should be more opportunities for interaction between monitoring agencies and
groups to assure consistency of approach and compatibility of data.
B. Newsletter
1. Use recycled paper.
2. Have an annual update of new programs.
49
-------
3. Use the newsletter as a resource catalog rather than for descriptions of a few successful
programs. For example—list new publications and where to get them; give instructions
for new methods.
4. Have a directory of technical materials for citizen monitoring.
5. Each program needs a local newsletter.
C. National meeting
Hold national meetings every two years, with regional meetings on the off year.
"Regions" for meetings should be biogeographic, not necessarily EPA regions.
D. Earth Day
Earth Day could be a good opportunity to highlight citizen monitoring with the press.
Discussion Group
Living
Resources
50
Discussion leader: Carroll Curtis, Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Recorder: Chris Swarth, Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary, Lothian, Maryland.
+ Exchanging ideas, techniques, and solutions to problems
The group determined that, with the exception of wetlands surveys, a few organized bird
counts, and stream macroinvertebrate monitoring, there are relatively few situations where
citizens are monitoring living resources as an indication of the health of the environment. In
order to increase the monitoring of living resources by volunteers, the group recommends
the following:
• Hold meetings with experts to identify species of special concern and indicator organ-
isms that could be monitored by citizens. Ask experts to help produce identification
keys to indicator organisms by region. We need to develop a counterpart to the key to
stream macroinvertebrates that can be used for estuaries.
• Consult with experts for advice on literature, research procedures, and analytical
techniques.
• In designing sampling protocols, consider carefully the objectives of the study.
• To maximize the effectiveness of biological monitoring, citizens can be used for routine,
labor-intensive field studies. Call upon experts for training, quality assurance, and in-
vestigating anomalous data.
• Give careful consideration to the environmental sensitivities of the populations or
habitats under investigation. Monitoring activities may inadvertently disturb or destroy
sensitive organisms or fragile habitats. For example, birds that breed in colonies, like
terns and herons, are extremely vulnerable to human disturbance during the breeding
season.
• Design living resource monitoring with the data user in mind. It can be used both for en-
vironmental characterization and for applied studies. One example of an applied use is
monitoring and evaluating mitigation projects.
+ Enhancing links to state government
Links should not be limited to state agencies, but should also be forged with federal
agencies, academia, local government, and the private sector. Similarly, funding for moni-
toring activities should come from a variety of sources.
+ Evaluating progress and making recommendations
The discussion focused on the need for communication. We concluded that there is a lot
-------
of good information "out there" that could be used by citizen monitoring groups, but it is
often difficult to gain access to that information. Also, all the various monitoring groups
are gaining good experience and we need more ways to share new ideas. To address these
needs, the group recommends the following:
A. National meetings
National meetings such as this one are extremely beneficial and should be held at least
every other year. It would also be useful to hold regional meetings in between the na-
tional meetings, perhaps in conjunction with annual meetings of scientific societies.
Possible themes and ideas for the next national meeting aire:
• Volunteers: Discuss how to get volunteers involved and how to keep them; how to or-
ganize and manage volunteer efforts; how to provide iincentives and recognition for
volunteers.
• International perspectives: Discuss what is being done in other countries; invite people
from monitoring programs in other countries to participate in the meeting.
• Communication: Discuss ways to improve communication among monitoring groups as
well as between monitoring groups and other agencies.
• Training: The meeting could include training sessions on specific monitoring techniques
and field trips for hands-on experience with the methods.
B. National association
Create a national association of citizens environmental monitoring groups and affiliated
government, university, and nonprofit groups. |
C. National clearinghouse
Establish a national clearinghouse for information on citizens environmental monitoring
activities and publications.
D. Guidance manuals
Continue to publish and update guidance manuals such as the one the EPA is currently
developing.
E. Newsletter
Continue to publish a newsletter.
F. Computer network
Consider the feasibility of developing a computer network to link citizens monitoring
groups.
51
Discussion Group ^% Debris
Discussion leader: Angela Farias, Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program, 'Austin, Texas
Recorder: Patricia Haddon, Anne Arundel County, Volunteer Monitoring Program, Annapolis,
Maryland
+ Exchanging ideas, techniques, and solutions to problems
A. Two-tiered approach to cleanup
Two important concerns about debris cleanups are that (1) the data are not totally valid
and (2) the cleanups are not frequent enough. Both these problems could be solved by
developing a two-tiered approach to debris cleanup.
• Level one would consist of large, grass-roots volunteer efforts like most current clean-
ups. These get beaches cleaned, raise awareness, involve many participants, and can
contribute qualitative data to the data bank.
• Level two would be a more scientific, more quality-controlled, and more frequent
collection of data by specially trained groups of volunteers. Adopt-a-Beach groups
might be one good source of volunteers for this. !
-------
52
B. Quality assurance
Quality assurance needs to be improved. Coordinators need to field-check methods used
and volunteer perceptions of debris categories. A guidance document is needed (see
below, recommendations to EPA).
C. Recycling
Materials picked up during cleanups should be recycled. Options for recycling vary
greatly from one area to another and there is no one formula.
D. Focus on wildlife protection
We need to focus more on the issue of protecting marine wildlife, not just getting the
beach clean.
E. Source reduction
We need to involve more of the trash originators—recreational boaters, industry, com-
mercial fishermen, etc.—and focus on source reduction.
4- Enhancing links to state government
The group felt that good links with state governments already exist/since most cleanups •
are state programs. However, there is a need for more communication with local govern-
ments to find out how they can use the debris data.
+ Evaluating progress and making recommendations to EPA
A. Standardize methodology
There is a lack of standardized methodology for debris cleanups. To address this, EPA
should:
• Work with NOAA and the National Park Service to field-test and modify existing
methods and come up with one overall model applicable to all areas.
• Design a new standardized data card.
• Publish a guidance document that would include sections on training, beach and debris
classification, data recording, and quality assurance.
B. Publicity
We recommend that EPA better publicize debris cleanup programs.
C. Use results to protect marine wildlife
EPA needs to publicize the ways they are using the debris-cleanup results in order to
protect marine wildlife.
D. Newsletter
• Make it a quarterly newsletter.
• It should be topical. The first one was more of a "PR" publication; not informative
enough.
• Include specific information and in-depth articles. Possible topics for future newsletters:
Where and how particular groups obtain funds; updates about specific programs and new
programs; problems groups have had and how they were solved; accidents and liability
and how to handle them.
• There should be one permanent, designated editor; contents can be contributed by
various groups.
E. Future meetings "
• Invite multiple potential user groups to meetings (i.e., state agencies, governor's offices,
local government offices, legislators).
• Have shorter panel talks and more discussion time after panels.
F. Earth Day
Some debris cleanup groups are planning to provide materials to schools.
-------
Ron
Kreizenbeck
Acting Deputy
Director, EPA
Office of Marine
and Estuarine
Protection
53
Closing Remarks
& EPA Response
EPA's Office of Water supports the use of citizen volunteers to collect environmental
data, and we are pleased that this conference has been successful in meeting many of our
planned objectives.
This second national conference has brought together state program managers and repre-
sentatives from volunteer monitoring organizations across the United States. The meeting
has provided a forum for the exchange of ideas among volunteer monitoring organizations,
the states, and EPA. It has also strengthened an existing national network of citizen volun-
teers. . !
We are impressed with what we have heard during the past two days. The organizations
represented at this conference have clearly demonstrated that volunteers are capable of pro-
viding a wide range of reliable environmental information. Participants at this conference
have also demonstrated the strong commitment of many citizens to environmental protection.
Citizen volunteers clearly represent a valuable resource that state, federal, and local environ-
mental program managers can use to support their programs. We think that this message has
been well received by the state and federal program managers in attendance.
National volunteer monitoring meetings such as this one must continue. We hope that
sponsorship of, and participation in, future meetings can be broadened to include many
federal agencies in addition to EPA. Future national meetings'of citizen volunteers might
effectively be held under the auspices of national volunteer monitoring associations, environ-
mental organizations, or scientific associations.'Regional volunteer monitoring meetings may
also be useful.
EPA's Office of Water will continue to work with the states, other EPA program offices,
and other federal agencies to explore how citizen volunteers can provide data to support
environmental decision making.
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards has produced a new citizen monitor-
ing guidance document for state program managers. Through this guidance, EPA is encour-
aging the states to fund citizen monitoring programs using funds under Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act. •
EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection is continuing to offer training and
support to newly organized volunteer groups established to monitor estuaries and near-
coastal waters. Management conferences organized as part of EPA's National Estuary
Program support a growing number of estuarine volunteer monitoring organizations.
These actions demonstrate the EPA Office of Water's commitment to involving citizens
in environmental monitoring. However, if environmental data collected by volunteers are to
be used in decision making, volunteer monitoring organizations must prove that their data
are reliable. They must show government agencies how the data can be used. This is your
chaUenge. You must continue to forge new links with state and federal agencies. You must
speak at scientific meetings, publicize your successes, and build support for volunteer
monitoring among the scientific and regulatory community. EPA cannot tell the states to
-------
accept and use data collected by volunteers, but through national meetings such as this, and
through the publication of Agency guidance, EPA will support your efforts to show how
effectively you can assist state, federal, and local environmental programs.
54
-------
CITIZEN MONITORING WORKSHOP
ATTENDEES
(* = Speaker
** = Ecosystem Discussion Group Leader
or Recorder)
Abberger, Will
The Conservation Foundation
P.O. Box 5958 x
Tallahassee, FL32314
Alexander, Joy
National Toxics Campaign
37 Temple Place, 4th floor
Boston, MA 02111
617-482-1477
Arcuri, Mike
WV Dept. of Natural Resources
Rt. 6, Box 185
Charleston, WV 25311
304-348-2108
*Armitage, Tom
EPA Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection
(WH556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7378
Armstrong, John
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Arnold, Chester
Connecticut Sea Grant
43 Marne Street
Hamden, CT 06514
*Arroyo, Vicki
Assistant Chief of Staff of
Environmental Affairs
State of Louisiana
Office of the Governor
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Ashford; Glenda
Corps of Engineers
CESAM-PD-EC
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, AL 36628
205-694-4106
"Barile, Diane
Marine Resources Council
Florida Institute of Technology
1 SOW. University Blvd.
Melbourne, FL 32901
*Batiuk, Richard
Monitoring Coordinator
EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
301-266-6873
Batterton, Carroll V.
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
512-463-7749
Beckett, Daniel
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
512-463-8319
Beede, Susan
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Bldg., WQE-1900C
Boston, MA 02203
*Bellatty, James
State of Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality
2110 Ironwood Pkwy.
Coeur D'Alene, ID 83814
208-667-3524
Bellinger, John
US Army Corps of Engineers
2911 Barber Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Beristain, Melissa
NY Sea Grant Extension Program
Dutchess Hall, Room 143, SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11794
Betz, Carolyn Rumery
Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
608-266-8117
Bisterfeld, Ted'
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Blosser, Mark
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
"Eostrom, Judy A
Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
612-297-3363
Bowls, Rick
Texas Water Commission
1400 Woodway Drive
Waco, TX 76712
817-751-0335
Brierly, William
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, IDE 19903
Brockbank, Marcia
Sari Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94694
Brown, J.D.
Friends of Perdido Bay
400 Colbert Avenue
Pensacola, FL 32507
904-994-9582
Bunker, Stephen
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Campbell, Gayla
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
301-266-6873
Carlson, Renee
Texais Water Commision
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
512-463-8028
Choy, Brian J.J.
Hawaii State Dept. of Health
Five Waterfront Plaza, Suite 250
500 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-543-3337
Chritton-Meeker, Cindy
Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
55
-------
Conroy, Michael
Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation
3330 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 400
Metairie, LA 70002
Cook, Dan
Texas General Land Office
1700 N. Congress Avenue, Room 730
Austin, TX 78701 -1495
"Cooke, Ken
Kentucky Division of Water
Water Watch Program
18ReillyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-564-3410
'Copping, Andrea
Oceanographer, State of Washington
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, Washington 98101
206-464-7320
*Costlow, John
Professor of Zoology and Director
Emeritus
Duke University Marine Laboratory
Beaufort, NC 28516
Crofts, Marjorie A.
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
"Curtis, Carroll
Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve System
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
804-642-7156
Custer, Claude
NEFCO
969 Copley Road
Akron, OH 44320
216-836-5731
*Davies, Tudor
Director
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7166
Debenham, Patty
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
202-429-5609
Dewart, Mark
Park Tudor School
7200 N. College Avenue
Indanapolis, IN 46240
317-254-2700
DuCote, Gregory
Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44487
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Ellett, Kathleen
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 110
Annapolis, MD 21403
301-266-6873
Ely, Eleanor
Rhode Island Sea Grant
The University of Rhode Island
Narragansett Bay Campus
Narragensett, Rl 02882-1197 •
401-792-6843
Fahrer, Alison
Citizens Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 447
jslamorada, FL 33036
305-664-4704
Faigenblum, Jacques
Washington State Dept. of Ecology
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
"Farias, Angela
Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program
General Land Office v
1700 N. Congress Avenue, Room 620
Austin, TX 78701-1495
512-463-5108
Finazzo, Barbara
EPA Region 2
28 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
*Firehock, Karen
Izaak Walton League of America'
1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B
Arlington, VA 22209
703-528-1818
*Flemer, David
EPA Gulf Breeze
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
904-932-5311
Gaffoglio, Robert
New York Department of Environmental
Protection
40 Worth Street, Room 1325
New York, NY 10013
Gates, Mark
Texas Water Commission
4301 Center Street
Deer Park, TX 77536
713-479-5981
Giordano, Joan
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889
919-946-6481
'Godfrey, Paul
Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring
Project
Blaisdell House
University of Massachusetts
Amherst,MA01003
413-545-2842
Goodlander, Doug
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources
One Ararat Bldg., #214
Harrisburg,PA17110
Goodwin, Mel
Harbor Watch
Charleston Harbor Estuary Committee
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
287 Meeting Street
Charleston, SC 29401
803-727-2078 .
"Green, Linda Taylor
Watershed Watch Program
21 OB Woodward Hall
The University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rl 02881-0804
401-792-2495
Gregutt, Peter
French Broad River Foundation
70 Woodfin Place
Suite 327
Asheville, NC 28801
704-252-1097
56
-------
Gutierrez, Adriana
Adopt-A-Beach Program
Texas General Land Office
1700 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78711
512-475-1468
""Haddon, Patricia
Volunteer Monitoring Program
Anne Arundel County, Office of Planning
and Zoning MS 6303
P.O. Box 2700
Annapolis, MD 21404
301-280-1270
Halsell, Nita
Lockheed Engineering and Science Corp.
1050 Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, NV 89119
702-734-3381
Halverson, Wes
Clear Clean Colorado River Assn.
3II6 S. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78704
512-462-1588
Hansen, Ed
Division of Fish and Wildlife
607 State Office Bldg.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-232-4091
"Hansen, Judie
1502 S. County Road, 525 W.
Danville, IN 46122
317-745-2948
Hansen, Nancy
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Hantske, Lore
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Harrison, Verna E.
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., C-1 -.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Hawver, W. Dean
Park Tudor School
7200 N. College Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46240
317-254-2700
*Hentcy, Kathleen
Vermont Department of Natural
Resources
Water Quality Division
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676 .
802-244-5638
Hess, Carolyn
Citizens Volunteer Monitoring
Albemarle Environmental Foundation
Box 5346
Hertford, NC 27944
919-426-956
"Miller, Michelle
Director, Technical Support Division
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7102
Holloway, J.L.
HAM Industries
I425 Pecan Briar Drive
Jackson, MS 39212
601-762-8230
Holman, Robert
Albamarle-Pamlico Study
4209 Boxwood Road
Raleigh, NC 27612
**Hubbard-Gray, Sarah
City of Bellevue/Storm and Surface
Water-Utility
P.O. Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009
206-453-4895
Hunt, Dianne
Mississippi Marine Trash Task Force
Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources
2620 Beach Blvd.
Biloxi, MS 39531-4501
601-385-5883
Hutcerson, Danny
Hach Co.
P.O. Box 389
Loveland, CO 80539
1-800-227-4224
Ireland, Diane Anderson
32911 River Road
Orange Beach, AL 36561
Jamison, Annie Marie
Keep America Beautiful
P.O. Box 908
Pascagoula, MS 39567
601-762-8443
Kahcie, Michael
California Environmental Affairs Agency
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
"Kishbaugh, Scott A.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 301
Albany, NY 12233-3502
518-457-7470
"Kopec, John S.
Ohio Scenic River Stream Quality
Monitoring Program
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Division of Natural Areas and Preserves
Bldg. 1889
Fountain Square Ct.
Columbus, OH 43224
614-265-6458
Kopfler, Fred
Chief Scientist
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Building 1103
John C Stonnis Space Center
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000
Kramer, William
EPA Office of Municipal Pollution Control
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
"Kreizenbeck, Ron
Acting Deputy Director
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Kruegor, Catherine
EPA Re'gipn 10, Puget Sound
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-139
Seattle, WA 98101
"Lee, Virginia
Coastal Resources Center
The University of Rhode Island
Narragansett Bay Campus
Narragansett, Rl 02882
401-792-6224
57
-------
Levron, Al J.
Terrabonne Parish Government
P.O. Box 2768
Houma, LA 70361
Lindsay, Nancy
EPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94118
Lirette, Donald J.
Gulf Program CAC
5347 G.C. Road
Dulac. LA 70353
504-563-7009
Livingston, Eric
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Lord, Robert
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-2126
Lytle, Marv
Hach Co.
Houston, TX
713-292-7421
Mangan, Andy
Texas General Land Office
1700 N. Congress Avenue, Room 730
Austin, TX 78701
*Mayio, Alice
EPA Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7056
Mendelman, Krista
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Milts, Bill
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
903 9th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-225-4355
•Mitchell, Mark
Friends of the Rouge
12763 Stark Road
Suite 103
Lavonia, Ml 48150
Monroe, Michael
San Francisco Estuary Project
5535 Masonic Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
Murchison, Mary E.
Friends of Perdido Bay
P.O. Box 1320
Foley, AL 36536
205-943-1579
Neff, Jerry
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
617-934-0571
Nielson, Peter
Clark Fork Coalition
P.O. Box 7593
Missoula, MT 59807
Neumeier, Sally
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Road
Baltimore, MD 21212
301-377-6270
O'Beirne, William
NOAA/OCRM
1825 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20235
O'Hara, Kathryn
Center for Marine Conservation
306A Buckroe Avenue
Hampton, VA 23664
804-851-6734
Olsen, Christine
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Payne, John
San Francisco BayKeeper
Building A, Fort Mason Center
San Francisco, CA 94123
415-567-4401
Pendergast, James
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
"Perlic, Tom
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
P.O. Box 1854
Washington, NC 27889
919-946-9492
Perry, Michael J.
Southwest Florida Water Mgmt. District
7601 Highway 301 North
Tampa, FL 33637
*Pritchard, Ken
Adopt a Beach (Seattle)
Dexter Horton Bldg., Suite 730
710 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
206-296-6591
Pryor, Margherita
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection ,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7176
Pursell, Robin
French Broad River Foundation
70 Woodfin Place, Suite 327
Asheville, NC 28801
704-252-1097
Putt, Rusty
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-7145
Radde, Laura
EPA Region 6/Gulf of Mexico Program
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-6681
Reban, Alicia
Texas General Land Office
1700 N. Congress Avenue, Room 735
Austin, TX 78711-1495
512-463-2196
Redford, David
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7179
*Reggio, Viilere C.
Recreation Planner
U.S. Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
Gulf of Mexico Region
1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard
Mail Stop LE-2
New Orleans, LA 70123
504-736-2780
58
-------
Ruta, Gwen S.
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
Rylco, Michael
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98107
206-442-4011
Sabins, Dugan
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Sanzone, Stephanie
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20480
Schauffler, Flis
Coastal Communications Coordinator
Maine State Planning Office
Station 38
Augusta, ME 04333
207-289-3261
Schloss, Jeff
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring
Program
University of New Hampshire Cooperative
Extension
Durham, NH 03824
603-862-3848
Schneider, John
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Schoen, Jerry
Hoosic River Watershed Assoc. '
P.O. Box 268
North Adams, MA 01247
413-458-4094
Schueler, Tom
Metro Washington Council of Govts.
1875 Eye Street, NW, #200
Washington, DC 20006
Shipley, Frank
Galveston Bay NEP
Box 164, UHCIear Lake
2700 Bay Area Blvd.
Houston, TX 77058
Smith, Dave W.
Washington Dept. of Ecology
St. Martin's Campus, M.S. PV-11,
Prudential Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504
Snow, Patty
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Snyder, Chris
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries
2620 Beach Blvd.
Biloxi, MS 39531
601-385-5860
St. John, John
HydroQual
384 Oakwood Drive
Wyckoff, NJ 07481
St. Pe, Kerry M.
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 177
Lockport,LA 70374
Stacy, Gus III
Louisiana Coastal Management Division
P.O. Box 44487
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Standoff, Esperanza
University of Maine Cooperative
Extension
375 Main Street
Rockland, ME 04841
207-594-2104
Steele, Greg
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Stewart, Sharron
Galveston Bay NEP
P.O. Box 701
Lake Jackson, TX 77566
Stout, Martha
EPA Office of Wetlands Protection
401 M Sreet, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-6745
Strunk, Janis W.
TVA Water Quality Dept.
2S-270C Haney Bldg.
311 Broad Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
"Swarth, Chris
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary
Anne Arundel County
Department of Recreation and Parks
1361 WrightonRoad
Lothian, MD 20711
Teague, Ken
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75206
214-655-(5681
Thomas, Carolyn
Smith Mountain Lake Lay Monitoring
Program •
Ferrum College
Life Science Division
Ferrum, VA 24088-9001
703-365-4368
"Tiedemann, John
New Jersey Sea Grant
Ocean County Extension Center
1623 Whitesville Road
Tom's River, NJ 08755
Turner, Eleana
Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 20305
Jackson, MS
601-061-5015
Tyrrell, Catherine
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Walk, Marie Franco ise
Massachusetts Acid Rain
63 Washington Street
Greenfield, MA 01301
413-545-4797
Walker, Alice
EPA Office of Water
(WH556)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-5683
Walker, Susan Wellington
Sarasota Bay NEP
1550 City Island Road
Sarasota, FL 34236
59
-------
Watkins, Bill
St. John River Water Management District
P.O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32178-1429
904-328-8321, ext. 345
Watson, Carolyn
Prince Georges County Critical Area
Program
County Administration Bldg., Dept. of
Environmental Resources
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
'Weaver, Dennis
Earth Communications Office
Imagine Studios
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Wetherell, Nancy
Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers
59 Sunset Drive
Charleston, Rl 02813
401-322-9007
Whitson, William
EPA Gulf of Mexico Program
Stennis Space Center
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000
601-688-3726
Wieland, Mark
Clear Clean Colorado River Assn.
3H6 S. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78704
512-462-1588
•Wilms, Richard Paul
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919-733-7015
Wilson, Craig
California State Water Resources Control
Board
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Woo, Edward
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Bldg., Room 2211
Boston, MA 02203
Yaggy, Calvin D.
Neuse River Foundation
108 Bowline Road
New Bern, NC 28562
919-638-6778
Ziegler, Sam
EPA Region 9
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604
*Zipf, Cindy
Clean Ocean Action
P.O. Box 505
Sandy Hook
Highlands, NJ 07732
201-872-0111
*U,S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990-261-069/24169
60
-------
-------
vvEFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
(WH-556F)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |