United States
Environmental Protection
Office of Water
4503(F) ,
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 841-R-01-001
June 2001
Proceedings
6th National Volunteer Monitoring
Conference
April 26 - 29, 2000 • Austin, Texas
Moving Into the Mainstream
-------
Cover photo captions and credits:
1. TOP LEFT- Volunteer "Bac Attacker" collecting a sample for bacteria testing
as part of the Friends of the Estuary/Morro Bay National Estuary Program
(California). Photo credit: Eleanor Ely
2. TOP RIGHT- Volunteers processing macroinvertebrate samples at a
training workshop at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Photo
credit: Eleanor Ely
3. CENTER- Teachers and students at El Campo Middle School in Texas
conduct monitoring as part of the Lower Colorado River Authority Earth Day
event. Photo credit: Marian Balke
4. BOTTOM RIGHT- Collinsville, Illinois High School students conducting
chemical sampling as part of the Illinois Rivers Project. Photo credit: Bill
Robinson
5. BOTTOM LEFT— Volunteer taking a Secchi reading and holding a
Viewscope (for viewing submerged vegetation) at Crystal Lake in Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. Photo credit: Eleanor Ely
-------
Proceedings
6th National Volunteer Monitoring
Conference
April 26 - 29, 2000 • Austin, Texas
Moving Into the Mainstream
Conference Sponsors:
US Environmental Protection Agency
Lower Cplorado River Authority
Ground Water Protection Council
Conference Steering Committee:
Mike Bira, USEPA, Region 6
Sharon Clifford, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Geoff Dates, River Network
Eleanor Ely, Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
Linda Green, University of Rhode Island, Watershed Watch
Otto Gutenson, USEPA
Elizabeth Herron, University of Rhode Island, Watershed Watch
Steven Hubbell, Lower Colorado River Authority
Tina Laidlaw, USEPA, Region 8
. Abby Markowitz, Terra Tech, Inc.
Alice Mayio, USEPA
Amanda Richardson, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire, Cooperative Extension
Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Matthew Witten, Eco-Fellow, USEPA
Additional conference support supplied by the following:
Apple Annies, Inc.
Around Austin
Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District
City of Austin
Clarion Inn and Suites
Computer Associates of Austin
Hamilton Pool Preserve
La Quinta Hotel
Science Applications International Corporation
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Watch
Westcave Preserve
-------
Acknowledgements:
This proceedings document was developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
through contract no. 68-C7-0056 with the Research Triangle Institute
and Tetra Tech, Inc.
June 2001
-------
Conference Proceedings
AN INTRODUCTION TO THESE PROCEEDINGS
In April 2000, over 200 people gathered in Austin, Texas for the sixth national volunteer monitoring conference.
Most of the participants were volunteer program coordinators representing watershed groups, state & local
governments, universities, and environmental organizations. The theme of the conference— Moving Into the
Mainstream— illustrates the evolving role of volunteer monitoring throughout the country. Increasingly, we are being
accepted as an integral part of the "mainstream" monitoring community.
The Austin conference was designed for new and
experienced volunteer program coordinators and
emphasized information sharing and exploring better
ways to move our programs into the mainstream.
Across the country, volunteers participate in local
watershed monitoring, including biological, physical and
chemical monitoring; land use surveys; and stream
walks. But they are also active in debris cleanups,
restoration, storm drain stenciling, tracking permit
compliance, maintaining telephone hotlines, and a
variety of other community outreach activities. The fifth
edition of the National Directory of Volunteer
Environmental Monitoring Programs1 reflects the
energy, imagination, and dedication of the tens of
thousands of volunteers across the country who participate in these environmental monitoring projects. ,
The number of active volunteer groups has grown from 517 in 1994, to 772 upon publication of the newest edition of
the Directory in 1998. Volunteers monitor lakes, streams, estuaries, groundwater, air, and many other environments
all over the country. This national conference, Moving Into the Mainstream, gave both new and established
volunteer groups a chance to share common questions, answers, problems, solutions, and successes.
This proceedings document is evidence of the
enormous richness of volunteer monitoring activities
around the country. Conference sessions focused on a
variety of topics including innovative techniques and
methods (water clarity, wetlands assessments,
bacteria), program development and management
(study design, quality assurance, outreach strategies),
national issues and concerns (TMDLs, sustainable
growth), coordination and networking (regional
breakouts, service providers, state coordination). This
document should serve as an information resource and
networking tool for volunteer monitors and program
coordinators. It is also proof positive that volunteer
monitoring is, indeed, moving into the mainstream.
'Ely, Eleanor & E. Hamingson. 1998. National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs.
EPA Publication # 841-B-98-009. Printed version available at no charge fromNSCEP, (800)490-9198. Available
on-line at: www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/vol.html
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
-------
Conference Proceedings
Opening comments from Steven Hubbell of
the Lower Colorado River Authority
// is my pleasure and my privilege to welcome you to
Texas, to the Colorado River watershed, and to Austin.
I hear the field trips went well. I've heard reports so
far of bats and buzzards, snakes and tarantulas. Throw
in a scorpion and a cactus, an enchilada, some
barbecue and a big margarita and you can call it a
trip.
I can '( tell you how much I've looked forward to this
gathering. I know my tendency is to rush madly-
through an intense opportunity like this and wonder,
when it's over, how it passed so quickly. I challenge
and encourage you all to cherish these friends and to
savor this moment in time.
l, we're "Moving Into the Mainstream. " We've worked for years, decades in some cases, to refine our
techniques and to improve our ability to gather useful information. We have made considerable progress toward
influencing environmental management decisions.
Volunteer data are used in 305b reports and 303d
listings, and many of our professional monitoring
colleagues have come to recognize the value of our
efforts. The iron is hot, and we have before us the •
opportunity to not only be contributors to the future
integrity of our waters, but to help lead the way.
Sometimes, in the muck and mire of having to defend
and justify the existence of our programs, it is easy to
become discouraged. Sometimes we get so entangled
in the P 's and Q 's ofQAPP 's that we wonder why we
bother. A couple of months ago, I spoke to a group of
50-something senior women at a gathering of the
Killeen Chapter of the Texas Federation of Women 's
Clubs. At the end of the presentation about
connections between conservation and water quality, I
was stunned by the warm and generous reception.
Some of the members simply thanked me for my time, a few had true confessions of water waste habits they pledged
to improve, and some of the women praised me for presenting concepts that they knew intuitively but had never been
able to articulate. But one of the members said something that inspired and fortified me in a way I had not
anticipated: she simply said, "With all we hear about
the problems facing the environment, it's encouraging
to know that someone is doing something about it.
Thank you. " Though she spoke to me, she was talking
to you and to all of the volunteers we represent. Thank
you for being the people who are doing something
about it.
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Thoughts on improving the next National
Conference (from participant
evaluations)...
"®" More discussion/problem solving/brainstorming
sessions
"S" Discussion/training on specific topics (creative
fund raising, educating & dealing w/ specific
groups - legislators, Ag community, etc.)
"3" More interactive sessions - hands-on training
sessions in the field
"^ More localizing of issues...need more "How to" do
things and implement programs
Too many concurrent sessions without repeats, maybe video tape sessions and sell the tapes
Provide more specifics about city's (in this case, Austin's) environmental programs
Sessions should focus on strategies for improving, sustaining, & advancing existing programs
Give out or sell Conference T-shirts
Add sessions on training & communication for trainers & volunteers
Add Breakfast Session for Role Breakouts (government, non-profit organizations, primary schools, etc.)
modeled after the Regional Breakouts ,
Provide abstracts of presentations before going to workshops
Add session on Political Skill Building . .
What conference goers liked best (from
participant evaluations)...
"S" Great to have so many people in attendance -
Austin is a great place to visit in April .
ss" People brought their publications and generously
shared them...thank you, thank you, thank
you...loved these people, very comfortable,
welcoming, sharing, friendly, conference
^ Just meeting other volunteer coordinators and
learning what other groups do and the problems
encountered was extremely helpful for me because
I have just started
"^ Both Mateo & Dani were very informative. I
thoroughly enjoyed it...We toured 5 creeks in 4
hours! (Austin Creeks)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
-------
Conference Proceedings
There was time to talk...exhibitor's wares were available for viewing and there were opportunities for questions
and discussion
Best! I really learned a lot, plus got to see the area (Innovative BMPs in Austin)
"^ Good information and great networking
opportunities
"^ Good atmosphere...saw a lot of old friends
"®" The Eco-Coffee House was great fun!
•®* Good to see that the pros are wrestling with
the same questions we are (NWQMC Final
Session)
"^ Good diversity of sessions...! liked the
"panel" vs. 1 person speaking
"3" Enjoyed workshops on other types of
monitoring such as wetlands, phytoplankton,
shoreline type
us- Outstanding! Great local leaders...beautiful
area & grotto... (Hamilton Pool & Westcave
Preserve)
ts1 Range of topics to choose from & the Regional breakout was a wonderful surprise!
is? Nico, our tour guide, was very enthusiastic & knowledgeable. We all had a great time! (Area Springs &
Sinkholes)
ISP The availability of funding to help speakers come to the Conference
*&" Learning what topics are "hot" with volunteer groups
•=*• Opportunity to learn about latest successes, issues, & challenges in volunteer monitoring
ss" Jason was a great leader for our group — informed & excited about the local area and the trip (Barton Creek)
*%" The relaxed & open nature of the Conference
•3*" The people were active, friendly, & committed to good science in citizen monitoring programs
*S" Obvious enthusiasm on the part of all participants—doing something meaningful and taking "direct
action"...refreshing to see pride in environmentalism!
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONFERENCE-AT-A-GLANCE
The following tables show the agenda for the sixth national conference, from Wednesday, April 26 through Saturday,
April 29, 2000. In the papers and presentation overviews that follow, two-part and repeated sessions appear once-
within the concurrent session in which they first appear.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000
1:00-5:00
pm
Field Trips — (4 options)
Austin Creeks, Barton Creek,
Hamilton Pool & Westcave Preserve, Area Springs and Sinkholes
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2000
8:00 am -
12:30 pm
1:45-2:15
2:30-4:00
1
4:30 - 6:00
2
8:00-
Field Trips — (2 options)
Innovative BMPs in Austin, NWQMC Final Session
Welcome to conference
Volunteer
Outreach Tactics
that Work
Study Design:
Deciding Why,
What, How,
When, and
Where to
Monitor
Signs of Life:
Monitoring the
Health of
Wetlands
How State
Agencies Use
Volunteer Data
Murky Waters?
Making Sense of
Water Clarity
Measures
Innovative
Coastal
Monitoring
Techniques
You Found
What? Rousing
Reports and
Powerful
Presentations
Introduction to
Data
Management &
the STORET
Approach
-s-\ "*"""i ^ " 1- *•
*, ^ .™
•^ 4 ^-^t
^ ^ ^ T-J '
v "wT *" *$**
;^->4-5:
The Cs Have It-
Collaboration,
Coordination,
Comparability
Eco Coffee House
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2000
8:30-
10:00 am
3
10:30 am -
12:00 pm
4
Advancing Your
Stream Macro-
invertebrate
Monitoring
Agricultural
Issues Panel
Eye on
Recovery:
Monitoring
Restoration
Activities
Data
Management in
Action 1:
STORET and
Excel-Based
Demos
From Sampling
to Sustainability
Regional Breakout Sessions
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
-------
Conference Proceedings
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2000
1:00-2:00
2:00 - 3:30
5
4:00 - 5:30
6
Poster Session
Monitoring in
the Urban
Environment
Everyone Into
the Water!
Organizing a
Regional
Monitoring
"Day"
An Introduction
to the Clean
Water Act and
TMDLs
The Role of
Volunteer
Monitoring in
TMDLs
Program
Roundtable A
Developing a
Quality
Assurance
Project Plan
(QAPP), Part 1
Student
Volunteers on
the Web
Better
Understanding
Your Watershed
Through GIS
How 's the
Service in This
Place? Parti
SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2000
8:30-
10:00 am
7
10:30 am -
12:00 pm
8
12:00 -
1:30
Program
Roundtable B
Wetlands
Discussion
Session
Measuring
Bacterial
Contamination
Measuring
Bacterial
Contamination
(repeated)
Developing a
QAPP, Hands-on
Clinic, Part 2
How 's the
Service in This
Place? Part 2
State
Coordinators '
Discussion
Session
Data
Management in
Action 2: Web-
Based Systems &
EDAS Demos
Student
Volunteers
Taking Action
* * ~ *t'..rii^'%#>^^",^ig'
,,'.^.V&» ! jg^Sj."!1 •*§&
»r. jf ^rfM^'^itai??.
End of Conference Open-Mike and Discussion Session
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
FIELD TRIPS
As is traditional during the national volunteer monitoring conference, local folks graciously organized and led a
series of field trips. Members of Austin's environmental community took conference participants on guided tours of
some of the Austin-area's most notable natural features. In addition, volunteer conference attendees had the
opportunity to participate in the last session of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council's second national
conference, also held in Austin. Brief descriptions of the field trips as well as contact information for the trip leaders
is provided below.
Austin Creeks—
Austin straddles the banks of the Colorado River, and has more than a dozen creeks flowing through its
corridors. Several of these creeks have been identified as being threatened or impaired due, primarily, to fecal
coliform bacteria levels.-Field trip participants explored some of these local streams and observed
demonstrations of different sampling methods. The tour included visits to both relatively pristine and clearly
impaired urban streams and participants conducted a little investigative research with alternative monitoring
methods.
leaders: Jacob Daniel Apodaca, Volunteer Coordinator, Colorado River Watch Network
Lower Colorado River Authority
PO Box 220, Mail Stop H219, Austin, TX 78767-0220
phone: 800/776-5272 ext. 7859
Mateo Scoggins, Coordinator, Austin Water Watchdogs . '
City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department
PO Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767-1088
phone: 512/499-1917
Barton Creek-
This field trip included a greenbelt drive and hike concluding at Edwards Aquifer Splash Exhibit at Barton
Springs Pool. Sometimes referred to as the Crown Jewel of Austin, the spring-fed Barton Springs Pool must
contend with the inevitable desire of people to exploit the natural beauty of this watershed for the development
of homes, shopping centers, and all the subsequent trappings that accompany urbanization. Participants hiked
portions of the greenbelt intended to protect this creek.
leader: Jason Pinchback, Program Specialist, Texas Watch
Southwest Texas State University
601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666-4616
phone: 512/245-9148
Area Springs and Sinkholes-
You know you're in the Texas Hill Country when you happen upon one of these gaping holes in the earth called
a sinkhole. Often abused in the past as convenient dumping pits, these sensitive recharge features in this karst
aquifer region are vivid reminders of the typically unseen interface between surface and groundwater. In
addition to visiting local sinkholes, participants were shown some of the area's many springs. Local experts
described the processes which contribute to these fascinating natural features and also discussed efforts to
preserve them.
leader: Nico Hauwert, Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District
1124 Regal Row, Austin, TX 78748
phone: 512/282-8441
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
7
-------
Conference Proceedings
Hamilton Pool & Westcave Preserve-
Travel just a few miles west of Austin and it is possible to believe that the area is still on the verge of
wilderness. The focal point of the 232 acre Hamilton Pool Preserve is the pool and grotto formed by the
collapse of an underground river and a 45 foot waterfall. Just across the Pedernales River (a tributary of the
Colorado) is Westcave Preserve, a 31-acre oasis of cypress, moss, fern and orchids surrounding a beautiful
travertine pool beneath a waterfall over the small cave. Tour guides discussed area vegetation, wildlife and
geologic features.
leaders: Mike Lyday, City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department
PO Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767-1088
phone: 512/499-2956
Amber Ahrns, Preserve Manager, Hamilton Pool
PO Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767
phone: 512/264-2740
John Ahrns, Preserve Manager, Westcave Preserve .
HC04 Box 30-C, Dripping Springs, TX 78620
phone: 830/825-3442
Innovative BMPs in Austin-
Participants in this field trip took a tour of innovative BMPs around the city. Austin has made impressive
strides in mitigating the impacts of impervious cover on surface waters and this tour guided participants through
some of the most noteworthy structural best management practices around town.
leaders: Bob Critendon, Nonpoint Source Pollution Program
Lower Colorado River Authority
PO Box 220, Mail Stop M107, Austin, TX 78767-0110
National Water Quality Monitoring Conference Final Session-
From April 25-27, 2000, the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) held its second national
conference in downtown Austin. The last session of that conference, attended by many volunteer conference
participants, summarized themes explored during the NWQMC conference (public outreach, collaborative
efforts, data management, methods and data comparability, interactions among watershed components, and
water information strategies). The NWQMC conference concluded with an open mike session where volunteer
monitoring folks were able to engage in discussion with the professional monitoring program representatives
attending the conference. To learn more about this conference, and the Council, visit the Council Website at
water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring/
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
VOLUNTEER OUTREACH TACTICS THAT WORK
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Greg Bryant, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Presenters:
Davis Macauley, Editor, Bastrop Advertiser
(no paper submitted)
Michete Tremblay, Upper Merrimack Monitoring Program
Guerilla Outreach Tactics for Volunteer Monitoring Programs
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Michele L. Tremblay, Program Director
Upper Merrimack Monitoring Program
naturesouce communications
PO Box 3019 Boscawen, NH 03303
http://www.des.state.nh.us/upperme1.htm
.phone: 603/796-2615, fax: 603/796-2600
email: mtrembla@tds.net
VOLUNTEER OUTREACH TACTICS
THAT WORK
Guerilla Outreach Tactics for Volunteer
Monitoring Programs
Tired of competing with bigger organizations with
communications and fund-raising staff? Local officials
not recognizing your program? Volunteer attrition have
you down? Newspapers, radio, and television ignoring
your press releases?
It's time for Guerilla Outreach Tactics! Get and keep the volunteers that you need with simple, fun, and effective
techniques. Carve out your niche with and around other organizations to keep yours new and vital by reaching out to
new audiences and making partnerships. Get noticed—and funded—by local businesses and corporations. Learn
how to get the media to your event and receive the coverage that you deserve.
Although there will be some discussion of working with the media, the focus of this interactive and fun workshop
will be sharing non-traditional ideas and examples of outreach tools that work at the ground level and go directly to
your audience.
Because of the highly visual and interactive format of this workshop, it is not possible to fully represent its content
in these proceedings. Please contact presenter for further information.
Things to remember when creating outreach materials...
• Know your intended audience or try to create materials with broad appeal
• Don't forget to tell your audience what's in it for them
• Off-beat, quirky humor can be a plus
Keep the formalt clean and simple with lots of "open space"
Use color when possible—colored paper is inexpensive and some printers don't charge more to substitute
one colored ink for black ink
• When possible, use bold and expressive images instead of a lot of text
Use pictures of kids, retired people, or others to help target your intended audience
• Readable, unique fonts are a plus, but don't use more than two (or three at the very most). Consistently use
one or two (for titles and text) to create a unique identity for your organization
• Simple, bold images are better than many smaller ones without a unifying style or theme
• People like maps, graphs, and charts (in moderation) to help them visualize issues, data, or story locations
• Use endorsements from prominent citizens or inspirational quotes *
• Scanning three-dimensional objects like insects and plants can create striking, copyright-free images
• Don't leave the back of business cards blank! Use the space for a series of messages about your
organization or things that people can do to improve the environment
10
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
More ideas for guerilla outreach...
Do Make it personal
• Save correspondence so that you can use personal quotes in flyers, brochures, newsletters, funding appeals,
press releases, videos, and more
Scavenger hunts are great publicity and help make people aware of their surroundings
• Bring sign-up sheets to every event or display
In your face!
• Hang posters on the backs of bathroom stall doors and leave brochures in recreation area washrooms
• Wear name tags, bring business cards, fact sheets, brochures, and flyers to meetings and other events
• Create and distribute book covers with your message and other information
Judge a group by its cover—or title
Use innovative headlines for newsletter articles, press releases, or brochures such as, "Of Hamburgers and
E. coli: A Water Quality Parable" or "Would You Drink Coffee Made Without a Filter?" (the latter article
draws a comparison between coffee filters and shore land buffers)
The essence of good marketing
Under a "free samples" sign, have cups of drinking water with funders' or program names as the "sponsor"
Send "samples" with press releases—bugs, water in vials, exotic plants, more...
Get them in on the ground floor...
Have a contest to name a newsletter
Have a contest for photography or artwork for use in brochures, annual or water quality reports, calendars,
or other publications
• Kids' art and contributions are great ways to assure distribution (and purchase) of publications
For the gift that keeps giving...
Send a thank you card right away
Gift wrap deliverables before presenting them to funders
Send out press releases about new funding and send a copy with a media coverage list and clippings to the
fonder - -
Dress the part • •
Wear a suit to a public hearing, legislative committee meeting, or appointment with a funder
Don a fish or Dragonfly costume to a fair or protest event
Wear Dragonfly earrings or a vest decked out in flies or to an anglers' presentation
Don't miss a photo opportunity!
Buy an inexpensive camera and take it everywhere to record any events like poor construction practices,
volunteers at work, E. coli waiting to happen, wildlife sightings, meeting attendees....
Justwanted to see if you were listening...
• Hide something in the text of volunteer training materials such as "congratulations for reading through this
manual—please call me so that I can buy you an ice cream cone"
• Bury twisted humor in the text so that they get used to looking for it—and reading everything
Working with the media
• Identify the environmental journalist or find the hot buttons for your general coverage reporter
• Develop a relationship by supplying information about subjects and events other than your own
Pick up the phone and call the journalist—many prefer this direct contact but always ask first if they are on
deadline or if it is a good time to talk
• Summarize information in press releases in the first couple of sentences—with hundreds or thousands of
releases pouring in every day, grabbing instant attention is essential if you want the editor to keep reading
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 -Austin, TX
11
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Use a short, attention-getting headline: "Long River Not Safe for Local Residents" instead of "E. coli in the
Long River Exceeds 600 Counts" or "Franklin Savings Bank Renews its Commitment to Water Quality"
instead of "Local Business Donates Funds to Local Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program"
Don't be afraid to use humor or put a human face on your story or issue—for instance, "Bugs Are People,
Too"
• Include colored maps, graphs, and charts illustrating your story, event, or data—but don't overwhelm—not
more than a couple of sheets unless more is requested
• A good story will often contain a good photo element—make your story visual
The more people that are involved, the more likely you will receive coverage—indicate how many students,
volunteers, or organizations are affected or are a part of your event or issue
Selected resources for low-budget outreach material creation...
Microsoft Publisher is an inexpensive layout program and provides a large selection of clip art, available through
catalogs, office supply stores, and software outlets.
Broderbund has a variety of inexpensive image collections and layout software, http://www.printevervtfaing.com
319/395-9600
Dover Books has a large selection of copyright-free clip art including archival collections that you can scan. Contact
your local bookseller to order or call 800/223-3130.
Idea Art has a variety of custom-look papers, business cards, note cards, and other presentation tools.
http://www.ideaart.com 800/433-2278
Paper Direct has a variety of custom-look papers, business cards, note cards, certificates, and other presentation
tools, http://www.paperdirect.com 800/272-7377
Viking Office Products has an above-average selection of colored and unique papers, cards and photo-paper
supplies, http://www.vikingop.com 800/421-1222
Topo! Interactive Maps by Wildflower Productions CD-ROM map software allows users to customize
topographical maps that can be printed or inserted into publications (not available for all areas).
http://www.topo.com 415/558-8700
Creative low-budget publication design.l99S. Pretzer, Mary. North Light Books. Contains examples and advice on
expensive design techniques.
The Volunteer Monitor, Volume 9., No; 2, Fall 1997, Issue, topic: Community Outreach.
http://www.rivernetwork.org or email volmon@rivernetwork.org
River Voices, Summer 1996, Spring 1996, and Fall 1994 issues hrtp://www.rivernetwork.org
Ready, Set, Present! 1999. Schoen, Jerry; Walk, Marie-Franfoise; Tremblay, Michele L., Massachusetts Water
Watch Partnership. Advice on data presentation including layout, graphs, charts, maps, oral presentations, and
interactive displays.
12
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
SIGNS OF LIFE: MONITORING THE HEALTH OF
WETLANDS
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Leah Graff, Save Our Streams, Izaak Walton League of America
Presenters:
Leah Graff, Save Our Streams, Izaak Walton League of America
Successes and Challenges of a Nation-wide Wetland Monitoring Handbook and
Training Session
Tom Danielson, USEPA Wetlands Division
Evaluating Wetland Health
Klaus Richter, King County Department of Natural Resources
King County's Wetland-Breeding Amphibian Monitoring Program
Charlotte Shover, Dakota County Environmental Education Program
Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Project
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
13
-------
Conference Proceedings
SIGNS OF LIFE: MONITORING THE
HEALTH OF WETLANDS .
Successes and Challenges of a Nation-wide
Wetland Monitoring Handbook and
Training Session
CONTACT INFORMATION
Leah Graff, Technical Coordinator
Save Our Streams, Izaak Walton League of America
707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878
phone: 301/548-0150, extension 219
or 800/BUG-IWLA (284-4952)
email: leah@iwla.org
Wetland Conservation and Sustainability Initiative
The Izaak Walton League's Save Our Streams Program (SOS) has been involved in volunteer stream monitoring for
more than thirty years, and is well-known for its biological monitoring method using aquatic macroinvertebrates
(stream insects and crustaceans). In 1996, Save Our Streams launched the Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability
Initiative with the goals of educating the general public about wetland ecology, functions,'and values and of
providing a way for citizens to become involved in wetland stewardship activities such as monitoring.
SOS recognized a need for volunteers to become involved in wetland monitoring. Volunteers can use monitoring to
learn more about wetland ecology and specific wetland habitats in their communities. Volunteer monitors can record
changes in wetlands over time to determine the success of mitigation, creation, enhancement and restoration
projects. In addition, volunteers can use data on wetlands to help protect local wetlands at public hearings.
Challenges of Developing a National Monitoring Guideline for Wetlands
As a national program, SOS chose to develop a monitoring guideline that could be used in any type of wetland
located within any region of the country. This was a difficult task because wetlands are diverse and complex. The
term wetland is not precise. Rather, wetland is a generic term for any area that is wet for some part of the year, has
soils that were formed under wet conditions, and supports flood-tolerant vegetation. A wetland can be the forested
floodplain of a river, the area along the edge of a lake with grasses and sedges, a shallow depression in a farm field
that dries up in the summer, or a salt marsh along a protected shoreline. Those kinds of variations and more can be
found among wetlands all located within the same town. To that, add all of the wetlands found in the different •
climates and regions of the country and the diversity and complexity increases to the point where it is sometimes
difficult to understand how all of these vastly different areas can be lumped together under the umbrella of wetlands.
This diversity and complexity of wetland habitats provides challenges for monitoring wetlands. While stream
monitoring lends itself to national indicators of water quality, wetlands vary so greatly within and across regions that
monitoring protocols to determine the health of wetland ecosystems must be developed locally. In spite of this
challenge, the Save Our Streams program of the Izaak Walton League recognized the need for a comprehensive
introduction to wetland monitoring for volunteers across the country.
Save Our Streams researched existing monitoring protocols and developed instructions and data collection forms
that can be used nationally in any wetland ecosystem. The Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability Initiative
teaches volunteers to monitor vegetation, soils, hydrology, human impacts to the wetland and the watershed, and the
use of the wetland by mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Save Our Streams teaches wetland monitoring
through two-day training workshops and the Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability.
Monitoring to Understand Wetland Ecology
Some of the monitoring instructions and forms in the Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability (such
as soil, hydrology, and plant monitoring) are designed to give people a better, in-the-field education about what
wetlands really are. This background information will not help determine whether or not the wetland is healthy, or if
there are changes in the wetland. Rather, the information is designed to help people recognize a wetland and to
provide some general background on potential impacts to wetlands. For Save Our Streams, these monitoring
techniques serve the equally important purpose of education.
Monitoring Wetlands to Capture Long-term Trends
For measuring long term changes in plants and getting a better sense of overall plant diversity, Save Our Streams
stresses the importance of permanent monitoring locations and setting up transects. Many volunteer monitoring
programs may use GPS (global position systems) units to set permanent monitoring locations, but SOS gears
publications toward the general public that may not have access to these tools. Plants and animals are monitored
along transects at set monitoring locations, which can provide information on species declines or overabundance, or
track populations of invasive exotic species that may threaten the overall diversity of a site. Photos taken at set
14
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
locations over time also provide useful information on changes in wetlands and can be used to present information
effectively at public hearings.
In-depth Monitoring of Specific Parameters
The Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability contains information on some more intensive
monitoring techniques, such as trapping amphibians and installing groundwater wells. This information was geared
toward individuals and groups that monitor wetlands for a specific purpose, such as to track amphibian use. For
macroinvertebrate monitoring to assess wetland health, the Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability Initiative
refers people to local groups that are developing protocols for a specific wetland type or geographical area.
Challenges in the Field
Setting permanent monitoring locations along a transect using stakes, compasses, and measuring tapes was
challenging to volunteers with no previous experience. Changes made to the training workshops that helped address
this issue included adding instruction in how to use a compass and explaining how to set transects by drawing
diagrams in the classroom before demonstrating the process outside.
Another challenge was plant identification. As a national program, SOS traveled to different parts of the country to
teach wetland workshops. Good wetland plant field guides for each region are hard to find. Using guides for the
entire country limits the number of plants listed. SOS began collecting plant lists for the workshop field sites in
advance and making custom field guides of only those plants found in the wetland. It was very helpful not to have to
flip through huge guides, especially for the volunteers less familiar with plant identification and using field guides.
In the Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability, Save Our Streams suggests making field guides
specific to the wetland being studied as an educational activity.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
15
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Tom Danielson
U.S. EPA Wetlands Division
401 M Street, SW (4502F), Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202/260-5299, fax: 202/260-8000
email: danielson.tom@epa.gov
SIGNS OF LIFE: MONITORING THE
HEALTH OF WETLANDS
Evaluating Wetland Health
Partly due to the fact that physical and chemical
conditions create such a great variety of biological
conditions in wetlands, measurements of pH, dissolved
oxygen, and total suspended solids give a limited picture of a wetland's health. It is valuable to look at the plants
and animals themselves in order to gain insight into the ecological functioning and biological condition, or integrity,
of wetlands. Biological integrity is the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive biological
system having the full range of elements and processes expected in a region's natural habitat.
Scientists can use bioassessment methods to directly measure biological condition of wetlands and determine if
wetlands have been impaired by human activities. If a state, tribe, or other organization detects a warning signal
during the screening process, it can then conduct a more detailed and thorough assessment. Many states using
bioassessments in streams are finding that they save time and resources by screening a large number of sites with
"rapid" bioassessments and then following up with more detailed assessments (including expensive chemical and
physical tests) when appropriate.
Bioassessment can also be used to determine if a wetland has been damaged by human activities. Many stressors
can damage biological communities, such as habitat alteration, invasive species, pesticides, acidification, toxic
chemicals, nutrient enrichment, hydrologic modification, or sedimentation. By observing the presence, absence, and
relative proportions of indicator plant and animal species, scientists can analyze the health of a wetland and can
determine which of these stressors may be causing problems. Indicator species are those that react predictably to
natural conditions and/or human impairments. Typically biological assessments combine several potentially
indicative measures in order to arrive at a robust picture of wetland health - also known as an Index of Biological
Integrity (IBI). For more information about wetland biological assessment, see EPA's web page:
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands.
In addition, wetland bioassessment is useful in helping to protect and restore wetlands, or in evaluating the
performance of protection and restoration activities or watershed management plans. The information provided by
biological assessments can help agencies prioritize and target activities to protect and restore wetlands. Also, by
periodically conducting bioassessments, states and tribes can track the condition of wetlands and leam which
management activities have worked as planned and which have not. With this knowledge, states, tribes, and land-
use managers can improve future management plans and maximize their wetland protection efforts.
Wetland Bioassessment Pilot Projects have been undertaken by several agencies and institutions across the U.S.,
including in the states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio,
Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Representatives from many of these states have been involved
in an EPA effort to develop appropriate monitoring protocols and different indicators for assessing the health of the
various wetland types that occur within the United States. The EPA Wetlands Division and other agencies have been
convening a group of scientists from federal and state agencies and academia called the Biological Assessment of
Wetlands Work Group (BAWWG), and the group is publishing a series of wetland bioassessment reports that will be
available for volunteer monitoring groups as well as professionals.
One of the most important roles that volunteer wetland monitors can play in evaluating and protecting wetlands is to
screen wetlands for possible problems. "Screening" refers to an initial assessment conducted by volunteers that
indicates to professionals those areas in need of remedial action and/or greater study. Screening by volunteers is not
as detailed or as fine-tuned as a professional study is, but can roughly assess the condition of a large number of
wetlands or other water bodies. Volunteers can often discern through their monitoring any big problems occurring
in wetlands. This function of discovering problems in wetland health can supplement (but certainly not replace)
state staff, who are often too busy to get out in the field to a large number of wetlands. Although volunteers can do
valuable work on their own, it is essential for the organization coordinating them to have a paid, full-time volunteer
coordinator so that the volunteer network remains strong and on task.
A new tool to help organizations coordinate volunteer wetland monitors is Volunteer Wetland Monitoring: An
Introduction and Resource Guide, which is a new EPA publication to be released in the next month. The guide
16
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
provides helpful hints on starting projects and also evaluates existing publications and manuals on volunteer wetland
monitoring. For copies, call the EPA Wetland Help line: 1-800-832-7828.
One prime example of a pilot program involving volunteers in a modified wetland bioassessment is a project in
Massachusetts that began last summer. The Wetland Health Assessment Toolbox (W.H.A.T.) for evaluating coastal
wetlands is a partnership among three local groups in northeastern MA (Salem Sound 2000, 8 Towns and the Bay,
and the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission), the UMass Extension, MassBays Program, and Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management. WHAT is partly sponsored by EPA. For more information about WHAT, call Bruce
Carslisle at MA CZM: 617-626-1200, www.magnet.state.ma.us/czm/wastart.htm.
The goals of the coastal wetland monitoring project are to train volunteers to evaluate the health of estuarine salt
marshes, and to promote citizen stewardship for wetland protection. The evaluation technique used - W.H.A.T. - is a
multi-metric and integrated assessment program developed for both freshwater and salt marsh wetlands. W.H.A.T,
examines individually:
• water chemistry
• land use
• hydrology
• vegetation
invertebrates
• avifauna
Subsequently, the indices from each of the above parameters are combined into a comprehensive overall integrated
score of health.
The organizers of this volunteer salt marsh monitoring program began the process with a series of workshops on
each of the above parameters, all of which were well attended by volunteers. Volunteer enthusiasm was maintained
through:
• refreshments and socializing at the initial meeting
• certificates of attendance at the workshops
• free copies of slides and photos taken during the workshops
• final social wrap-up meeting with refreshments, and presentation of WHAT t-shirts
data base of participants for follow-up mailings giving results of monitoring, future activities, workshops,
etc.
• reports in the quarterly newsletters on the status of the monitored salt marshes
Although wetland bioassessment is a powerful tool and a promising way to involve volunteers, it is certainly not the
only way and may not be the best way. Depending on the circumstances, it may be more appropriate to use
volunteers to follow up on tracking wetland mitigation projects and to find out if the projects were actually done, to
monitor effects of tidal restrictions, etc.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
17
-------
Conference Proceedings
SIGNS OF LIFE: MONITORING THE
HEALTH OF WETLANDS
King County's Wetland-Breeding
Amphibian Monitoring Program
CONTACT INFORMATION
Klaus O. Richter
Elissa C. Ostergaard
King County Department of Natural Resources
Water and Land Resources Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
phone: 206/205-5622, fax: 206/296-0192
email: klaus.richter@metrokc.gov
This presentation is adapted from:
Richter, K.O. and E. Ostergaard 1999. King County
Wetland-breeding Amphibian Monitoring Program:
1993-1997 Summary Report. King County Department
of Natural Resources, Water and land Resources
Division, Seattle, WA, USA.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to all the volunteers who spent their weekends
and free time in the wetlands to survey for amphibians.
Introduction
The protection of open space, natural drainage systems,
and wetlands and their wildlife have consistently been
rated major natural resource issues of concern by
residents throughout King County (King County
199la) and the nation (National Research Council
1992). Wetlands are recognized as essential landscape
components of integrated aquatic ecosystems that
include ground water, lakes, streams, and estuaries,
with their hydrology and water quality linked to that of
our ground and surface waters. Thus the water from
which we drink, the lakes in which we swim, and the
streams in which we fish depend on the health of our
wetlands.
Under the Federal Clean Water Act the biological integrity of wetland water quality is protected. Consequently,
biomonitoring is now directly applied to assess water quality and anthropogenic impacts to prevent harm to human
health (Adamus 1996, Danielson 1998). Amphibians, especially, are considered early warning signals of water
quality deterioration. For example, their distribution, abundance and richness are considered sensitive indicators of
overall changes in water regimes, sedimentation, water quality and landscape stress (Sparling et al, in press).
Unexpected deaths, physical deformities and altered fecundity have catapulted amphibians into a nationwide effort
to link their health to wetland condition and to human health (Adamus 1996, Danielson 1998). In Minnesota and
Vermont, frog deformities may be directly linked to water quality (Douglas et al. 1999). Here in King County,
unexpected frog mortality has occurred and been attributed to pond water quality while deformities in salamanders
from undetermined causes have also been documented. Wetland-breeding amphibians have been shown to be
especially susceptible to changes attributable to urbanization (Azous 1991, Richter and Azous 1995, Richter and
Azous 1997). The state endangered Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), for example, most likely has disappeared
from King County, Washington wetlands because of land use and associated aquatic habitat changes (McAllister and
Leonard 1997). '
Indeed, ecological and physiological characteristics of amphibians associated with free water or wet environments
and specifically species with aquatic eggs, larvae, and adults may be particularly sensitive to habitat disturbance,
desiccation, pollutants, ultraviolet radiation, pH, and diseases. These biological attributes make these taxa ideal for
bioindication of wetland health. Simultaneously, amphibians are charismatic and interesting animals with large,
easily identifiable egg masses that are readily- and often joyously- surveyed by volunteers.
Monitoring Goals
The main objective for the Wetland-Breeding Amphibian Monitoring Program is to provide King County and its
citizens with long-term, up-to-date amphibian and wetland information for planning and regulatory purposes through
an active public outreach and education program. The specific goals are to:
Identify the occurrence of the State-endangered Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) a species that requires
special consideration for environmental protection in Washington State and King County's permit review
program.
Determine land uses compatible with wetland and amphibian conservation objectives, including protection
and recovery of wetland habitats and amphibian species most sensitive to human activities.
• Provide data to help develop and implement regulations for the protection of amphibians and their habitat.
Identify the population distribution status of other County declining species, such as the western toad (Bufo
boreas), red-legged frog (Rana aurora), and northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile).
18
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Obtain standardized baseline inventory data on the distribution, abundance and health of amphibians in
King County wetlands, and then continue to monitor over regular intervals to assess amphibian, wetland
and watershed health.
Provide information to King County, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State
Department of Ecology, and Federal Resource Agencies for developing regional wetland and wildlife
management programs.
Develop an effective public outreach and education program to train citizens to monitor amphibians and
wetland conditions and to foster wetland stewardship.
Methods
Public Outreach and Education
I initiated the Wetland-Breeding Amphibian Monitoring Program by targeting wetlands in the East Lake
Sammamish Basin in 1993. This watershed basin was chosen because it exhibited one of the highest development
rates in the County, and because of the large numbers of wetlands expected to be impacted by development.
Moreover, since I was developing an entirely new volunteer program I felt it would be best to initially start within
one specific area to develop our citizen outreach and technical survey protocols prior to expanding the program to
other watersheds. In 19941 added wetlands in a second (Big Bear Creek), and in 1995 wetlands in a third (Evans
Creek) watershed because of escalating development pressures in these areas and increased volunteer interest.
Although this outreach and education program initially targeted citizens in these three priority basins, we included
volunteers from throughout the Puget lowland region within King County as additional funding and staff became
available. We then also collectively recruited participants through public announcements of the Volunteer
Monitoring Program in the Surface Water Management and WLR Newsletter, Downstream News, the Water
Tenders Newsletter (reaching Bear Creek volunteers), and personal contacts.
Within each watershed I initially selected wetlands with open water, aquatic bed, and emergent vegetation habitat
classes (Cowardin et. al. 1979) from the King County Wetland Inventory (King County 1991b). I chose wetlands
with these specific habitat classes because of their high probability of supporting breeding amphibians (Richter
1998). We then chose a subset of wetlands from each watershed based on their accessibility, existence of supportive
property owners, and an absence of dogs and fencing. Wetlands without breeding amphibians were surveyed only
one or two years.
In February of each monitoring year we sent brochures to previous volunteers announcing trainings and asking them
to continue in the program. We conducted follow-up phone calls to anyone who didn't respond. Evening refresher
courses were offered to familiarize past volunteers with amphibian identification and to provide clarification on
additional information required in updated data sheets.
We held a one-day workshop in late February or early March prior to each survey season. For the workshop we
prepared a standardized package that included a field equipment list, waterproof survey data sheets, diagnostic
amphibian identification guidelines, egg development charts, keys to larvae, copies of relevant articles, sampling
protocols, and maps to the assigned wetlands (Richter and Ostergaard 1999).
The morning of each workshop was dedicated to a slide presentation and hands-on laboratory session describing
amphibian ecology and discussing adult, egg, and larval identification. We emphasized the species characteristics
for identifying all potentially occurring subadult and adult wetland-breeding amphibians, particularly differences
between similar species (i.e., Oregon spotted and red-legged frogs, northwestern and long-toed (Ambystoma
macro dactylum) salamanders, and long-toed and western red-backed (Plethodon vehiculum) salamanders). We also
highlighted the identification of large, easily spotted, egg masses of northwestern salamander, red-legged frog, and
western toad as well as the smaller egg masses of the long-toed salamander and Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla}.
Volunteers were provided with laminated photographs of red-legged frog, Pacific treefrog, northwestern and long-
toed salamander and their egg masses for use for field identification. Hence, we are confident of the identification of
species using adult morphology and egg mass characteristics.
In the afternoon of each workshop, we visited select wetlands to demonstrate monitoring protocols. We practiced
methods for searching, identifying, and censusing adult and amphibian egg masses. We clarified the description of
habitats and other important wetland features, and filled out wetland survey data forms. Each participant was
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
19
-------
Conference Proceedings
assigned one or more wetlands to monitor. New volunteers re-surveying wetlands previously surveyed were
provided with the earlier surveyor's field notes to facilitate monitoring and to guide re-censusing Of known breeding
locations. Volunteers were either assigned a partner from within the program or encouraged to invite another
interested person. Consequently, two people were always at a wetland to help each other in case of emergencies, to
assist with surveys, and to provide companionship. Volunteers checked with private property owners prior to
surveys. If property owners did not want volunteers at their wetland, we assigned volunteers to a different site.
Field Surveys
Upon arrival at a wetland we instructed volunteers to conduct a visual search of the shoreline and shallow standing
water with binoculars for adults and juveniles along the shore. We then asked volunteers to slowly wade and look
for amphibians and eggs in slow-flowing or still water up to 90 cm (~3 ft.) deep among areas of thin-stemmed
emergent and thin-stemmed woody vegetation. At potentially favorable sites, volunteers were specifically instructed
to carefully search for amphibian eggs attached to vegetation below or at the water's surface. These search methods
are similar to those recommended by scientists for basic amphibian surveys (Thorns et. al., 1997).
One measure of the health of amphibian populations was determined by examining egg masses. We therefore asked
volunteers to describe unusual egg conditions including sterile eggs, dead embryos and fungal material in egg
capsules, all of which suggest death. We assumed egg mortality values exceeding 5% of total eggs as abnormal
based on reference sites that have shown at least some mortality among egg masses (Richter, unpublished
manuscript). We considered wetlands and watersheds to be impaired when detections of native species declined
within a wetland, adults were sighted but no eggs were found, the percentage of unhealthy clutches to that of total
clutches exceeded 5% of all masses, and bullfrogs were present.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
I deliberately selected amphibians with easily sighted and identifiable life stages (i.e., red-legged frog and
northwestern salamander adults with large, unique egg masses) for volunteers to monitor to minimize the chances of
misidentification. We checked all surveys and recordings for unusual observations. Unusual sightings were verified
by checking documentary photographs and with follow-up site visits by qualified staff. Staff dip-netted larvae to
confirm amphibian use identified by volunteers. Staff also visited a number of wetlands in late summer to determine
water permanence and thereby confirm the possibility of northwestern salamander and bullfrog sightings at
wetlands, as both these species require wetlands with year-round standing water for successful reproduction.
Volunteers identified all of the species confirmed by us to be present from dip-net surveys. However, dip netting did
not detect one species seen by volunteers at some sites - the long-toed salamander. This may have been either
because long-toed salamander larvae were misidentified as northwestern salamander larvae (the two salamanders
have a very similar larval form), or because very few salamander larvae were captured in dip-nets.
Results
Public Outreach and Education
From 1993 through 1997 our Wetland-Breeding Amphibian Monitoring Program surveyed a total of 81 wetlands
within 26 watershed basins using 126 volunteers. Initially 10 volunteers participated in 1993, then 43 in 1994, 51 in
1995, 33 in 1996, and 64 in 1997. Thirty-two new volunteers participated in 1997. The average volunteer
participated for nearly two years (mean 1.75). With the exception of 1993, demand for participation exceeded
acceptances. Preference was given to volunteers monitoring within priority watersheds. Thus others wishing to
monitor were sometimes turned away.
Our volunteers came from many diverse backgrounds. They included nature enthusiasts; mothers with young
children; elementary, junior and senior high school students; members of service organizations; people interested in
changing careers; students requiring community service; citizen activists; residents curious about the wetland in their
own backyard or down the street; and people wanting to help restore amphibian populations. Volunteers are wetland
consultants, engineers, elementary, junior and senior high school teachers, government employees, and other
professionals.
Discussion
The seven wetland breeding species of amphibians observed by volunteers are consistent with the seven species
found during 10-year intensive surveys of 19 wetlands throughout King County using multiple census techniques
(Richter and Azous 1995). Volunteers usually did not detect western toads or bullfrogs during early spring surveys,
consequently the presence of these species was determined from additional surveys in late spring and summer.
20
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
These surveys document the presence of amphibian species at wetlands, but do not necessarily indicate the absence
of others. Hence, there may be more species at monitored wetlands than identified, although it is suspected their
numbers may be low. For example, the volunteers have not documented the presence of the Oregon spotted frog.
This is unfortunate in light of the fact that the lower Puget Sound basin of King County encompasses the range of
this species, which is currently listed as endangered in Washington State, and is being considered for federal listing
by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many wetlands providing potential habitat for this species remain un-
surveyed and may yet contain isolated populations of this species. Perhaps in the future, volunteers at additional
wetlands may encounter them.
Repeat volunteer surveys enabled, us to identify amphibian population trends at wetlands. Sightings of damaged and
dead eggs enabled us to immediately indicate impaired wetland condition. Our surveys suggest that many
amphibian egg masses are characterized by a small amount (<5% of total eggs) of mortality. Greater numbers of
dead eggs and dying embryos may be attributable to changes in wetland water level fluctuations which expose eggs
to freezing and desiccation, poor water quality resulting in attacks by fungi and disease, or by a combination of
physical and biological stressors associated with other changes in wetland condition. Alternatively, observations of
sterile eggs may indicate amphibian infertility attributable to adult condition; water quality, or watershed land use
activities. Collectively, this volunteer information is valuable in that it has identified healthy wetlands and their
amphibian biota. It has also documented the decline of amphibians at other sites suggesting that wetland health at
these may be imperiled. Volunteers are continuing to monitor as many wetlands as possible.
Volunteer participation in environmental monitoring is becoming increasingly important in providing information to
public agencies with multiple demands and tight budgets. While our impacts on the environment continue to
increase with growth and development, our ability to monitor changes has been diminished because of the effort and
expense required to assess complex interactive environmental changes. Our wetland-breeding amphibian program
demonstrates that volunteer participation significantly contributes valuable information to resource agencies for
environmental planning and impact assessment. Field reports returned by volunteers have been invaluable to King
County in monitoring the distribution and abundance of amphibians in rapidly developing landscapes. These reports
also provide the only regularly gathered survey data on the status of amphibians and select wetland conditions in
King County. For the first time, we have up-to-date field data on the actual distribution, relative abundance, and
health of amphibian populations as well as information on wetland vegetation, water characteristics, and other.
habitat factors. Moreover, regularly gathered data is providing us with information on changing amphibian and
wetland conditions from which we are able to determine whether our land use activities, policies, and regulations
are consistent with our goals of wetland protection and responsible development.
Specifically, this program has made valuable contributions to County planning activities. Amphibian surveys, in
conjunction with hydrologic and wetland habitat descriptions, continue to be instrumental in environmental review
and site restoration strategies for recently purchased County properties. Survey data was instrumental in the recent
construction of an amphibian breeding pond and the restoration of upland wildlife habitat. Similarly, amphibian data
collected in a Rhododendron Species Garden Pond is providing guidelines for pond maintenance and fountain
construction. Finally, volunteer amphibian data has been used to develop management plans for other sites.
Since its" inception in 1993, the Amphibian Monitoring Program has become one of the most successful volunteer
programs offered by King County. Citizen volunteers from all over the County have been eager to participate in the
workshops to monitor amphibians- learning about their ecology, distribution, and health- and also to assess the
wetland conditions in which amphibians breed. Nevertheless, participation in the program was limited by qualified
staff, program preparation, teaching time, available facilities, and our goal of providing a "hands-on-program" with a
field-monitoring component that minimizes wetland disturbance. Volunteers representing federal agencies, other
counties, cities, private consulting firms, parks departments, local zoos, schools, and youth groups all participated in
the program and educated their constituents.
Despite these early benefits, this program is just beginning to provide rigorous, scientifically defensible population
and amphibian baseline and health trend information. It will become increasingly valuable as monitoring continues.
Our review of field notes, familiarity with many of the wetlands, and our QA/QC results suggest that our volunteer
data is reliable and that our early findings are highly valuable for some planning purposes.
Nevertheless, program improvements are recommended. These should include providing better instructions as
currently too much material is presented in to short a time period. Volunteers should also be switched between some
wetlands as the absence of amphibians at a site discourages volunteers from continuing to monitor their site
regardless of the potential scientific importance of documenting "no sightings." Our program could also benefit
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
21
-------
Conference Proceedings
from better recruitment strategies aimed at encouraging volunteers to monitor specific wetlands for information of
interest to the County but not necessarily of interest to volunteers themselves. Finally, the program needs to be
institutionalized by the County with permanent support. Only through such actions can we continue this highly
productive and valuable volunteer program. . •
Literature Cited
Adamus, P. R. 1996. Bioindicators for Assessing Ecological Integrity of Prairie Wetlands. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.
Report No. EPA/600/R-96/082. Corvallis, OR.
Azous, A. L. 1991. An analysis of urbanization effects on wetland biological communities M.S. Thesis. University
of Washington. Seattle, WA.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Goulet, and R. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
Danielson, T. J. 1998. Indicators for monitoring and assessing biological integrity of inland, freshwater wetlands.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Draft Report No. EPA843-R-
98-002. Washington, DC.
Douglas, F J., T. L. Propst, E.L. Stover, J.C. Helgen, R. B. Levey, K. Gallagher, and J.G. Burkhart. 1999. Effects of
pond water, sediment, and sediment extracts from Minnesota and Vermont, USA, on early development and
metamorphosis ofXenopus. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10: 2305-2315
King County. 199la. King County Wetlands Inventory. King County Environmental Division, Parks, Planning and
Resources Department. Seattle, WA.
King County. 1991b. Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan Update and Area Zoning. King County
Planning and Community Development Division. Seattle, WA.
McAllister, K. R. and W P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State Status Report for the Oregon Spotted Frog.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA.
National Research Council 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Richter, K. O. 1998. Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats of lentic-breeding amphibians of
the Pacific Northwest. P 72-94 In Macdonald K.B. and F. Weinmann (eds.) Wetlands and Riparian Restoration:
Taking a Broader View. Publication EPA 910-R-97-007, USEPA, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Richter, K. O. and A. L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound Basin.
Wetlands 15:306-312.
Richter, K. O. and A. L. Azous. 1997. Amphibian distribution, abundance and habitat use. p. 84-96. In Wetlands
and Urbanization, Implications for the Future. Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
Management Research Program. Azous, A.L. and R.R. Horner (eds.) Washington State Department of Ecology,
King County Water and Land resources Division and the University of Washington. Seattle, WA.
Sparling, D,W., A. Calhoun, D. Hoskins, M. Micacchion, and K. O. Richter. In press. Using Amphibians in
bioassessment. US.EPA. Biological Assessment of Wetlands Working Group. Washington, DC.
Thorns, C., C. C. Corkran, and D. H. Olson. 1997. Basic amphibian survey for inventory and monitoring in lentic
habitats. P 35-46 In: D.H. Olson, W.P. Leonard and R.B Bury, editors. Sampling Amphibians in Lentic Habitats.
Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Olympia, WA.
22
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
SIGNS OF LIFE: MONITORING THE
HEALTH OF WETLANDS
Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation
Project
Background:
the Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Project
is a partnership between citizens, local governments
and local educators working in cooperation with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Dakota
County Environmental Educational Program, two local
nature centers, and the wetland consulting firm of
BRW, Inc. Dakota County, Minnesota is located just
south of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Twin Cities area.
Most of the county is in the northern hardwood forest
ecosystem.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Charlotte Shover
Dakota County Environmental Education Program
4100 220th Street West, Suite 101
Farmington, MN 55024
phone: 651/480-7734
fax: 651/463-8002
e-mail: cshover@extension.umn.edu
For information:
www .extension.umn.edu/county/dakota/Edprog.html
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road; St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Mark Gernes, 651/296-3363,
mark.gernes@pca.state.mn.us - vegetation metrics
Judy Helgen, 651/296-7240,
judy.helgen@pca.state.mn.us - invertebrate metrics
Guidance and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
available from Charlotte Shover
In concept, the Wetlands Health Evaluation Project is
similar to citizen-based stream monitoring programs
around the country. In content, however, this project
focuses on wetland biology, ecology, and the
landscapes surrounding wetlands. Citizens monitor in
June for invertebrates and July for vegetation, times of
peak importance for their respective biological groups as determined by state biologists.
The goals of the program are:
• To develop methods for biological assessment of wetlands by citizens that are grounded in science and
based on technical assessment methods.
To provide local government with useful, cost-effective information about wetland health that can be used
in management decisions.
The 1999 project grew out of a partnership that began in 1995 between the Minnesota Audubon Council and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to test a protocol that citizen volunteers could use to gather data on wetlands.
We have now completed three years of monitoring in Dakota County, and we will have 11 teams monitoring in
eleven communities in 2000. Funding for the program has come from USEPA Region 5 and the Minnesota
Legislature.
Monitoring structure:
The structure of the Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Project is built on city teams. Teams of adult
volunteers are recruited in each community. Ideally, these teams would have 10-15 members. Each team has a team
leader, usually a secondary school science teacher or nature center staff person. We also have two citizen
monitoring coordinators who work with each team in the field and laboratory to assure the quality of the
methodology and data. They are also responsible for ordering equipment and preparing a report, the wetland
consulting firm of BRW does quality assurance/quality control checks and prepares data analysis reports. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency offers three training opportunities:
• field techniques,
macroinvertebrate protocol and ID, and
• vegetation protocol and ID
Monitoring parameters:
Teams analyze the critters collected according to invertebrate metrics linked to wetland quality. Each of the metrics
is assigned a numeric score. The results of the vegetation sampling are run through metrics that highlight specific
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000-Austin, TX
23
-------
Conference Proceedings
parts of the plant community linked to wetland quality. Again, each metric receives a numeric score. When a
quality rating for each wetland is determined, each site is classified as:
• high quality: fully supporting aquatic life,
• moderate quality: aquatic life is threatened, or
• poor quality: not supporting aquatic life.
Monitoring results:
Approximately 35 wetlands were monitored by citizen teams in 1999. Generally, the vegetation and invertebrate
ratings were very similar, with most wetlands rated as Moderate quality. Results have been similar each year, with
most wetlands scoring in the Moderate range.
In 1988 we compared scores from city teams and BRW using the same citizen method. For vegetation, 75% of the
observations resulted in similar point scores. Overall, the vegetation scores calculated by the city teams and BRW
were similar for most wetlands evaluated. Again in 1988, comparing citizen to professionally-collected data for
invertebrates, approximately 61% of the wetland invertebrate scores were similar. It is likely that sampling
location, sampling depth, observer experience, number of bottle traps recovered, predation, and number of dip net
samples played a role in the observed variation. Certainly the scores for vegetation and invertebrates were similar
enough to promote citizen monitoring as a screening approach to wetland health.
What we've learned: Training
We found it helpful to:
• Balance the amount of technical and non-technical information
• Separate field training from protocol and ID training
• Use self-quizzes to help build confidence
• Have teams bring their own invertebrate sample to training. (This reduces workload on the trainer and
builds upon the learners' curiosity about what they found).
• Provide identified reference collections to the team leader to use following the training.
• Collect sufficient fresh vegetation to provide each team a labeled set (identified to-the genus level) and an
unlabeled "unknown" set.
• Provide written training materials to participants ahead of time.
• Provide two ID training sessions for each plant or macroinvertebrate community, a primary 6 hour session
and a follow-up 2-3 hour refresher session.
• Hold three public information seminars on wetlands in the winter/early spring to help expand knowledge
about wetlands and the summer monitoring program.
What we've learned: Coordination
• Having secondary school science teachers and nature center staff serve as team leaders has benefit to the
program as well as in the formal or informal educational setting.
Paying team leaders a stipend ($100 per metric per wetland) is well worth it. This is a big job.
• Buy-in and support from city,staff are critical. People need to know that someone cares about their work
and the results they are getting.
• Requiring teams to make presentations to local policy makers in their city ensures that cities consider the
data and the value of volunteers in their community.
24
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Promoting the program and results through local media lets the rest of the community know about the
project.
• Celebrating the volunteers through dinners, door prizes, and publishing results from summer monitoring is
key to keeping volunteers.
What we've learned: Improved results
Preparing and adhering to a guidance and QA/QC document that is clearly laid out in an intuitive fashion.
Avoiding redundancy is essential.
Having a citizen monitoring coordinator doing QA/QC checks in the field and in the lab helps the teams do
a better job.
• Have microscopes for invertebrate ID.
Use a simple scoring system
• Increase the number of replicate samples citizens collect
• Have one team sample another team's wetland as a quality check
• Provide examples of completed data sheets for teams to see proper data entry
• Have teams sketch their wetland showing where they sampled and principal plant communities of their
wetland
What we've learned: In general
• It is important that state agencies provide the scientific underpinning of the sampling and that the
development of wetland biological criteria is on-going.
Always conduct sampling within the recognized "index periods."
• One size of waders does not fit all. We need to provide several waders of differing sizes.
Always provide participants with the opportunity to sample a high quality wetland so they can appreciate
how biologically rich wetlands can be.
Make sure that teams work well together and have fun.
Have fun arid recognize the volunteers,
Fe'edback from volunteers:
It is important to recognize why citizens volunteer for a monitoring program. In a survey, the citizens said they:
Were interested in preserving wetlands
• Met a lot of people
• Liked the hands-on learning
, • Expanded their knowledge
Liked the training sessions
• Liked wading in wetlands
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
25
-------
Conference Proceedings
"It was an opportunity to learn about wetlands, do something important for the environment, and to meet people with
those interests." It is not hard to find citizens who care about the environment and are willing to work with their
local city to learn more about wetlands in their community.
"To immerse myself in a pond with nothing on my mind but invertebrates, plants, the sunset, and water was
refreshing and renewing." We have to remember, that people do monitoring because it fills something special for
them.
Closing:
The Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Project (WHEP) is one piece of a bigger picture — protecting the
quality of our natural environment as a whole. We are proud to be on the cutting edge of doing wetland monitoring
in Minnesota. We hope what we are learning will encourage and support others interested in wetland health in then-
area. The ultimate dream is that by evaluating the health of all the waters in our community, including wetlands, we
will be able to make decisions today that will ensure a healthy natural environment for tomorrow.
Reference materials used in training, in the field, and in the laboratory:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reference materials available for use during training. Dakota
County WHEP provides reference materials to the teams for use in the field or laboratory.
Reference Materials
Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, James R. Karr and
Ellen W. Chu, Island Press, 1999.
Used in
training
*
Provided
to teams
X
Vegetation:
Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, by Steven
Eggers and Donald Reed, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.
A Guide to Aquatic Plants: Identification and Management, by MN Dept. of
Natural Resources, Ecological Services Section
A Manual of Aquatic Plants, by N. C. Fasset, The University of Wisconsin Press
Vascular Plants of Minnesota: A Checklist and Atlas, by G. T. Ownbey and T.
Merely, UM Press, 1992
Key to the Common Aquatic Plants of Minnesota, Special Publication No. 53, by
Richard Carlson and John Moyle, MN Dept. of Conservation
A Field Guide to Wild/lowers of Northeastern and North Central North America,
R. Peterson and M. McKenny, Houghton Mifflin Company
How to Know the Aquatic Plants (2'"' Ed.), The Pictured Key Nature Series, Wm.
C. Brown Company Publishers
Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada,
H. A. Gleason and A. Cronquist, New York Botanical Garden
MPCA developed fact sheets and identification keys for plants
Aquatic Wetland Plants of Northeastern North America, Crow and Hellquest
Tlirough the Looking Glass: A Field Guide to Aquatic Plants, Susan Borman,
Robert Korth, Jo Temte, Reindl Printing, WI Lakes Partnership, UW Extension
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
if available
X
X
X
no, outdated
*
9
?
9
*
X
9
X
26
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Reference Materials
Used in
training
Provided
to teams
Invertebrates:
Aquatic Entomology, by W. Patrick McCafferty, Jones and Bartlett Publishers
Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin, 3"' Ed., Publication No. 3 of the Natural History
Museums Council, University of Wisconsin-Madison
An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3"' Ed., R. W. Merritt
and K. W. Cummins, Kendall Hunt Publishing
Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, 3"' Ed., Robert Pennak, John Wiley
and Sons.
Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates, James
H. Thorp and Alan P. Covich, Academic Press
MPCA developed fact sheets and identification keys for invertebrates
"Wonderful, Wacky Water Critters," University of Wisconsin-Extension
A Golden Guide: Pond Life, George K. Reid, Gold Books
X
X
X
X
X
X
? '
?
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = reference is used
? = may not be suitable or practical for team or training setting
* = copy available at the Dakota County Environmental Education Program office and the Dakota County Wescott Library in Eagan
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
27
-------
Conference Proceedings
MURKY WATERS? MAKING SENSE OF WATER
CLARITY MEASURES
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Jeff Schloss, UNH Cooperative Extension
Presenters:
Jeff Schloss, UNH Cooperative Extension
Murky Waters? Gaining Clarity on Water Transparency Measurements
Bob Craycraft, UNH Cooperative Extension
View/Scopes and Secchi Disk Measurements
Jennifer Klang, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Using the Transparency Tube in Minnesota's New Citizen Stream-Monitoring
Program
(abstract only)
28
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
MURKY WATERS? MAKING SENSE OF
WATER CLARITY MEASURES
Murky Waters: Gaining Clarity on Water
Transparency Measurements
CONTACT INFORMATION
Jeff Schloss, Coordinator
NH Lay Lakes Monitoring Program
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
131 Main Street, 124 Nesmith Hall
Durham, NH 03824
phone: 603/862-3848, fax: 603/862-0107
email: jeff.schloss@unh.edu
Does your program measure water transparency?
Turbidity? Water clarity? Secchi Disk Depth? Aren't
these all the same thing? Why do some groups report
turbidity as JTU while some use NTU and others use
FTU or even FNU? Is it possible to convert Secchi Disk measurements to turbidity? What about those "turbidity
tubes" everyone is using? What do they actually measure? This introduction will provide an overview of the above
mentioned methods. It is meant to provide a lead into the two following presentations that will present more specific
studies regarding water clarity measurement protocol and the use of "turbidity tubes" in volunteer monitoring
programs.
The Secchi Disk
Father Peitro Angelo Secchi was a Jesuit astronomer and science advisor to the Pope. The commandant of the
Vatican fleet, Commander Cialdi, requested that Secchi study the water transparency of the Mediterranean Sea.
Aboard the papal steam ship L 'Imamacolata Concezione on April 20, 1865 Cialdi recorded the first documented
measurements of water transparency made by Secchi. Fr. Secchi lowered a white disk attached to a line down into
the water:and noted the depth of its disappearance from view. Thus, the "Secchi Disk" was born. Why were sailors
interested in ocean water clarity? The clarity of the water could indicate what current the ship was in. For example,
the Sargasso Sea in the Atlantic Ocean is extremely clear compared to coastal upwelling currents, which have much
higher productivity of plankton and thus less clear waters. So water clarity would help determine which, current the
ship had encountered, important information for navigation.
Secchi and Cialdi experimented with two types of disks, a 43 cm disk of white clay and a 60 cm diameter disk of
sailcloth painted white and stretched over an iron ring. He also experimented with different colors including yellow
(the color least absorbed by ocean waters) and brown (red is the color most absorbed but red dyes tend to be
unstable). The standard oceanographic Secchi Disk used today is 40-60 cm in diameter dependent on the typical
Secchi depth measured. It is all white. The standard limnological (lake) disk is smaller, 20 cm (8 inches) with
alternating black and white quadrants. This is attributed to Whipple who in 1900 modified the white disk since lakes
could have bright or dark bottoms depending upon their depth, geology and bottom cover. Larger black and white
disks have been used by scientists measuring transparency in the clearest lake waters like Crater Lake, where Secchi
depth can reach 144 feet (44 meters!).
Secchi Disk Depth is a function of the absorption and scattering of light by particles and dissolved substances in the
water (Figure 1). The particles include algae, sediments and detritus (organic particulates). The dissolved substances
are the organic acids that result from the breakdown of plants and algae. They may-be from the plants and algae of
the waters or may originate from the drainage of wetlands or wet humic soils somewhere in the watershed. For more
turbid systems the Secchi depth is affected more by the particulate components in the water but our research shows
that in clearer waters the Secchi depth can be greatly influenced by the dissolved components (see further discussion
of this below). For all extensive purposes the Secchi Disk acts as a contrast "target" and the Secchi Disk depth is the
point where there no longer remains any contrast between the disk and the water background. For this reason, the
intensity of the light within a certain range will not necessarily greatly impact the readings obtained.
Secchi Disk Methodologies: Things get murky
The Secchi Disk is perhaps the oldest, most durable, the most controversial and potentially
indispensable tool of the contemporary limnologist. ... If it weren 'tfor volunteer lake monitoring
programs, the Secchi Disk might have slowly been lost from the inventory of limnological
instruments. — Dr. Bob "Secchi Dip-In" Carlson (1995).
Why such a contradicting commentary from the organizer of the Great North American Secchi Dip-In (an event that
occurs every year during the first two weeks of July; refer to http://dipin.kent.edu)? It is true that the most common
parameter measured by all volunteer lake monitoring programs is Secchi Disk transparency. Also, the concept
Maying Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
29
-------
Conference Proceedings
Water Clarity
(Secchi Disk Depth)
Absorption &
Scattering of Lighlj
*
Sediment
Algae
Detritus
Dissolved Color
Figure 1
behind the measurement and the concept of water clarity is very intuitive and can be easily explained to the general
citizenry. However, his additional comments refer to the inconsistencies in the methodology used and the potential
difficulties in the comparison and interpretation of the resulting data produced.
Although Secchi Disk measurements are as old as the science of limnology, there is still no one agreed upon
protocol of measurement. First of all, the definition of the Secchi depth has varied between practitioners. Some use
the depth at which it is "just visible"; others have noted the depth of disappearance. Most current limnology field
manuals and Secchi researchers suggest using the average of the depth of disappearance and the depth of re-
appearance when the disk is raised. Even Secchi was well aware of the reasons for variations in transparency depth.
During his studies he employed umbrellas and used the shadow of the ship for shading and compared measurements.
He concluded that the critical factors in the measurement of the Secchi depth were the diameter and spectral
reflectance of the disk, a calm or stormy sea, angle and reflections of the sun, reflection of the sky on the water
surface, and shadows on the submerged light path. As for sun angle, it is generally agreed that the measurements
should be made as closest to true noon as possible. Secondarily, it is important to take measurements before the sun
approaches the angle where most of the light reflects off of the water's surface instead of penetrating the water. This
will vary depending on time of year and season but many programs recommend readings between 10am and 2pm
while some allow readings between 9am and 3pm. In the latter case, be aware of daylight savings time changes,
which may require a shift to true time readings.
The reflectance of the disk is a factor that comes to play during the construction of the disk and it is generally
recommended to use a "flat" finish of paint and not a "glossy" one. The former will diffuse the reflection off the disk
at all angles while the latter can complicate measurements made when the disk is slightly "off angle," as it will
deflect light unevenly. Theoretically, the reflectance should be standardized but that would be a daunting task. The
use of an all black Secchi Disk, promoted by the New Zealand limnologist R. J. Davies-Colley, best tackles this
problem, as well as some of the other theoretical optical intricacies involved, although it has not caught on in the
research community in other countries—let alone volunteer programs. Another construction consideration (and
measurement protocol) of the disk involves the use of non-stretching line or fiberglass tape if a marked line is to be
used. This can also be avoided if a measuring stick is used to measure the line but that involves taking out yet
another piece of equipment for sampling.
Even more controversial than a black vs. white, vs. black and white disk is the effort to deal with the optical state of
the water's surface (reflection, glare, glitter). The easiest approach, but one less practical, is to only measure on days
of perfect conditions. A more common approach is to employ the recommendation of Father Secchi and take
readings off of the shadowed side of the boat. While this often solves the surface interference issues it may actually
introduce larger errors especially in cases where the Secchi Disk depth is shallow or ranges through the depths
30
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
shaded by the boat's shadow. The optical oceanographer J.E. Tyler in his 1968 review of Secchi Disk optics goes
into great detail on why taking a reading on the shadow side is problematic and employs a column full of equations
and diagrams. In essence, his conclusion is that due to the optical properties involved, readings become less
comparable with each other under changing time, sun angle (and boat type) and even brightness (which typically is
not a factor that normally influences proper Secchi Disk measurements). Bob Carlson indicates that this shadow
factor can vary Secchi Disk readings by as much as 15%.
To be able to make readings on the sunny side of the boat and deal with the interference from glare, reflection and
glitter, many groups employ a "view scope". This usually is a 4" or greater diameter tube with or without a lens on
its bottom end or a face seal on its upper end. An attached handle facilitates holding the tube just below the surface
of the water to view the descent of the disk. To minimize reflection within the tube the interior is painted black. A
plexiglass lens on the bottom end will keep water from entering the tube and splashing around. These apparatus can
be homemade or obtained from commercial sources. A recent design modification in the commercially made scopes
places the lens at an angle to the end of the tube to keep reflection off of the lens to a minimum. A good face seal
(neoprene works well) at the top end or shading of the observer's head can also minimize this reflection. Some
practitioners have used face masks, view boxes and even children's pool toys (inflatable "fish scopes" and view
rafts) but a rigid scope has the most utility for most applications. The length is not a factor for a wide enough tube
but care must be taken to only submerge the tube bottom a shallow, set distance. This is often accomplished by
marking a line on the outside of the bottom end of the tube or submerging the tube until the end cap that holds on the
lens is just under the surface.
European limnologists and pioneer American limnologists employed view-scopes in their Secchi measurements but
there are many volunteer programs that have not. Theoretically the scope accounts for many of the non-clarity-
related interference already discussed above. Independent investigations by volunteer monitoring programs in
Minnesota and New Hampshire (See Bob Craycraft's paper, ViewScopes and Secchi Disk Measurements "What's
the Difference"}, and most recently, by researchers on reservoirs in New York have demonstrated that higher
precision of measurement can be achieved between observers by using a scope. Our results in New Hampshire also
indicate that the scope allows for a greater sensitivity in Secchi measurements for lakes with deep Secchi depths.
Does that mean that groups currently not using a scope should start? That all depends on the goals and data
objectives of your program. If you have already been taking many measurements and have a long-term program,
changing your methodology will complicate multi-year comparisons. You may want to live with a potential loss in
the precision of your measurements. If you monitor systems that have very shallow transparencies or are only
interested in large water clarity changes, the scope may not make any difference at all in the interpretations of your
measurements. If however, you monitor pristine systems or are interested in documenting subtle differences in water
clarity or are concerned about precision between observers, you may want to consider using the scope.
Can you convert or compare Secchi measurements?
Theoretically, on a calm day with little glare or reflection on the water surface, the Secchi depth measured, with or
without a scope, should be comparable. We are currently examining the results of a multi-year comparative effort
that involved volunteer monitors and professionals in a wide range of lakes and conditions and have found that the
conversion is not just a simple correction factor. Sky, sun, wind, water conditions and time of day all play a part in
the difference, as would be expected. The important take-home message is to make sure that no matter what your
Secchi Disk protocol of choice is, you document the conditions that occurred and the time of the measurement. This
will eventually allow for conversion or comparison using reported factors or your own methodology comparisons. "
. What Are We Measuring Anyway?
One of the reasons for using a Secchi Disk stated above is that it is an easy to understand measurement. Water clarity
by itself can be important: many people will not even think of swimming in a lake, river or ocean if they can't see
their toes! Also, a change in transparency over time indicates something is occurring in the water. Thus, Secchi Disk
depth vary seasonally, after rain events, or with heavy recreational use. These variations can indicate water quality
impacts. Water quality trends over the years can also be documented with a time series of Secchi depths. In fact,
independent studies done on Vermont and Minnesota volunteer program data disclosed that Secchi Disk depth data
was better able to detect long-term trends than either phytoplankton (as measured by chlorophyll d) or nutrient (total
phosphorous) monitoring.
We should expect Secchi depth to be related to light extinction through the water column. Our research indicates a
very good correlation between Secchi depth and sunlight extinction measured using an underwater irradiometer
(essentially a waterproof light meter). In fact, some programs use the results of the Secchi Disk depth to determine
the extent of the integrated water sample that is to be collected for lab analysis. Since many lake programs are
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
31
-------
Conference Proceedings
interested in assessing lake productivity (phytoplankton and plant growth) the estimated depth of the photic zone
(waters in which photosynthesis takes place) is an important factor. Limnology texts suggest me Secchi Disk depth
represents relative light depths ranging from 1 to 15 percent of the surface light. Our measurements made in a wide
range of New Hampshire Lakes with Secchi Disk transparencies ranging from 1.8 to 14 meters disclose the Secchi
depth occurred at 1.3 to 11 percent of the surface illumination with a mean of 5.5 percent and median of 5.0 percent
(n=66). The aforementioned texts report the photic zone to range between 2 to 3 times the Secchi Disk depth. Our
results for NH lakes indicate that it is probably closer to (or just less than or greater than) twice the Secchi depth for
our lakes. Values at that depth range from less than 0.1 percent to 1.3 percent with a mean of 0.4 percent and a
median of 0.3 percent.
Secchi disk measurements alone are often made as a surrogate for other more complicated or expensive
measurements. Many states have Secchi Disk- based criteria or standards. A few use clarity as the primary basis for
management decisions. This is fine if you are very sure of how your system works and either phytoplankton (floating
algae) or suspended sediment always exclusively dominate as particulates. Or, it may be that it is just the clarity of
the water you are concerned about. If this is not the case, care must be taken when it comes to interpretation of
measurements. It may be a phytoplankton bloom one week, a sediment event the next and an influx of colored water
from an adjoining wetland the next.. Similarly, relying on a Secchi Disk measurement alone to calculate a trophic
state index may be risky. To add to the confusion, certain conditions such as the thin layering out of phytoplankton
at the thermocline of a stratified lake (termed metalimnetic layering) can make the disk instantly disappear well
before the upper water conditions would dictate. This phenomenon will wreck havoc with modeling, indexes and
water quality criteria based on Secchi Disk alone.
To address the "what" is being measured by the Secchi Disk dilemma some groups turn to apparent color
measurements. Apparent color is the color of the water due to both particulate and dissolved components. It differs
from dissolved "true color" which is measured after filtration so it can not be ascertained in the field. The underlying
assumption is that algae tend to impart golden, green, blue-green or reddish brown hues while sediments in water
tend to be gray or yellow to light to dark brown in color. The apparent color, as seen by viewing the white quadrant
of the disk (sometimes set to one half of the Secchi depth) is matched to a color on some sort of color strip or color
chart. The Ohio program developed the "Custer Color Strip" (named for its originator Clyde Custer) based on
standardized Pantone colors (available at printing centers) that is used by other programs as well. Some groups use
the standardized colors found on "Munsel" soil color books while others use a series of paint chip samples. A few
field science and educational supply houses sell a standardized color chart devised for stream bottom color
description that may also be used for this purpose. By documenting the color at the time of measurement, some
insight as to what is affecting water clarity may be gained.
Our program has volunteers monitor Secchi Disk depth, along with chlorophyll a (an estimate of algae biomass) and
dissolved water color (particles filtered out). Sediment is not directly monitored as it is difficult to get accurate
suspended sediment yields in our generally pristine waters unless large volumes of water are filtered. However, by
comparing all of our results together we can generally interpret what influence each of these plays on water clarity
(while sediment is not measured directly, a decrease in water clarity that does not correspond to an increase in
chlorophyll a or dissolved color can be attributed to sediment). For New Hampshire lakes we have found for the
most part that neither chlorophyll a or dissolved color alone explain the variations in Secchi Disk transparency as
well as the combination of the two (Table 1). Also, dissolved color tends to gain in influence at levels at or greater
than 20 standard color platinate units and at Secchi depths greater than 10 meters.
Table 1. Secchi Disk (SD) as Surrogate for Chlorophyll (CHL) and Dissolved
Color
Treatment
1/Seccchi Disk v hi Chlorophyll a
1/Secchi Disk v hi Color
1/Secchi Disk v hi Color , hi Chlorophyll a
R-Square
0.690
0.545
0.791
N=61; UNH Lake Survey Data 50 Lakes June-August 1999
32
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Turbidity
While some programs refer to Secchi Disk transparency as a turbidity measurement, this is not correct. The origin of
turbidity measurement dates back to about 1900 when Whipple (the same guy who painted the Secchi Disk black
and white) and Jackson devised a method that involved holding a flat-bottomed, calibrated glass tube over a special
candle and pouring the water sample into the tube until an observer looking from the top of the tube could no longer
see the image of the candle flame. Unlike the Secchi Disk measurement where just the distance (depth) was noted
these measurements were calibrated to a known standard of suspended material. The tube was calibrated in Jackson
Turbidity Units (JTUs) with measured dilutions of a standard solution of silica (diatomaceous earth) in distilled
water. The number of JTUs varies inversely and nonlinearily with the height of the sample (e.g., a sample which
measures 2.3 cm has a turbidity of 1,000 JTUs whereas a sample measuring 72.9 cm has a turbidity of 25 JTUs; 1
JTU represented Ippm of silica). This facilitated the measurement of water samples from systems too shallow or
with too great a flow to utilize a Secchi Disk. Over the years other materials were calibrated to JTUs (clay, Fuller's
Earth, acid washed stream bed sediments) and the system was modernized by replacing the candle with a light bulb
and increasing sensitivity using a series of neutral density filters. The major limitations that lingered, however, was
that the minimum detectable limit remained at about 25 JTUs and there was not an acceptable primary standard that
insured comparability of measurements. -
By the early 1970s, Formazin, a chemically created polymer, was established as the new primary standard for
turbidity. A certain design of Turbidity Meter, the Nephelometer, became the preferred instrument of turbidity
measurement. It offers much greater sensitivity and minimizes differences between observers as it measures turbidity
photometrically. The basic design requires that the instrument measure the amount of light scattered at 90 degrees
when a beam of light is transmitted through the sample. Most current nephelometers employ two light detectors
(Figure 2) one at 90 degrees to the incident light, and one directly in the beam's path to measure transmitted and
forward scattered light. The second detector is used to minimize the inferences of color and larger particles. This
instrument employs the ratio between the two detectors to calculate the sample turbidity. Units are reported as
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU; the most popular), Formazin Turbidity Units (FTU) or Formazin
Nephelometic Units (FNU) which are all equivalent. Due to Formazin's short term stability and toxic nature,
secondary standards that have been formulated in comparison to the primary standard are in more common use.
These substances offer many times the shelf life and less danger of poisoning. For those groups that have data
quality objectives that require EPA or state acceptance, there are set design standards that a nephelometer must have.
They include the following:
• The detector should be centered at 90 degrees +/- 3 degrees to the incident light path.
• The maximum distance traversed by the incident and scattered light within the sample tube is 10 cm.
• Instrument sensitivity should permit detection at a turbidity difference of 0.02 NTU or less in water less
Nephelometry
Figure 2
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
33
-------
Conference Proceedings
than 1 NTU.
• The detector and any filter system are to have a spectral peak response between 400 and 600nm.
• The light source should be a tungsten lamp operated at a color temperature of 2,-200 to 3,000 Kelvin
Some recent Nephelometers, Turbidometers and in-situ Turbidity probes, even some with higher precision and
sensitivity than EPA approved units, do not meet the above requirement of a tungsten lamp as they employ a more
monochromatic LED light source (generally in the red or near infra-red wavelengths). These may be acceptable
under the international ISO standard for turbidity, ISO 7027. However, unless there is a move to performance based
standards or you can demonstrate inter-calibration between these and an approved unit, your data may be considered
"qualified." We have actually compared these LED-units to tungsten lamp units and found the LED based units have
a greater accuracy as they tend be less affected by high levels of dissolved color which causes more interference at ~
the blue end if the spectrum than at the red end.
As expected, due to the optical principles employed, the turbidity of a water sample will generally correlate very
well with suspended sediment content. Many states have existing standards or criteria for turbidity that may cover
contact recreation, drinking water, aquatic habit or general surface water quality. Some lake, river and coastal groups
use nephelometers in their monitoring programs but typically these units are cost limiting, generally running
between $500 and $ 1,000 for accurate meters.
Turbidity Tubes
A relatively new apparatus on the scene, the "turbidity tube" is gaining in popularity in its use by volunteer stream
monitoring groups and teachers and students involved in Project GLOBE. It consists of a transparent plastic or glass
tube (usually between 1 and 2 inches diameter) that has some sort of visibility target (often a "mini" Secchi Disk) at
its bottom end that is open at its top. The observer pours water into the tube until the target can no longer be seen.
This is sort of a hybrid process that combines the Secchi Disk and Jackson Turbidometer approaches. The height of
the water level is documented using some sort of scale that is marked or etched on the side of the tube. Some tubes
are fitted with a drain hole located at or near the bottom while others add a short length of tubing and a hose clamp
or even a large syringe to more accurately control the water level during measurement.
The first documented use of a turbidity tube has been attributed to Noel Morgan who in 1991 employed a 2 liter
plastic soda bottle marked and calibrated in NTUs to estimate turbidity in the storm runoff of Australian farms. Cost
effectiveness was the major underlying factor in his design and these were typically very turbid systems being
monitored. Sometime around the same time or slightly after, an article in the GREEN Program Newsletter
documented the use of a long glass tube fitted with a syringe level control to measure river water turbidity in Africa.
This unit was calibrated in centimeters above the visibility target. By 1994 the "Aussies" had developed a mass
production model of the turbidity tube at a cost slightly over $10 a piece. This unit was a comparatively sleek model,
two feet of polycarbonate tubing about 1 'A inch in diameter with a black painted target (wavy lines) on a white
background. The units were calibrated in NTUs. The Australian Waterwatch Program conducted a nation-wide
turbidity monitoring event during national Water Week employing over 700 tubes.
In 1996 an Australian delegation from Waterwatch attended and presented at the 5th National Volunteer Monitoring
Conference in Madison Wisconsin. In addition to teaching us all of the verses of "Waltzing Matilda" (and explaining
the majority of the words!) they left some of their turbidity tubes in their wake. Interest in the use of these tubes
peaked and programs in this country started experimenting with these tubes. Currently, stream volunteer groups and
GLOBE participants use a tube calibrated in centimeters. This is the general preference as this type of linear scale
offers a greater ease of taking a reading and a higher precision of measurement. The NTU scale is a non-linear,
logarithmic one that has different distances between major markings and therefore makes interpolation between the
calibrated marks difficult. It is much easier to develop a conversion equation for obtaining estimations of turbidity
from the centimeter scale. While this should be done for your own specific waters, there are general conversion
graphs for GLOBE participants by scientist advisors at the University of Arizona that have been made available.
These conversion factors generally work best in the higher range of turbidity encountered (10 to 400 NTU in this
case).
In effect, the "turbidity tube" is actually more a "transparency tube" in terms of the underlying optics of the
measurements, especially since these days turbidity is synonymous with nephelometry. However, tube readings do
generally correlate very well to turbidity and suspended sediment for within system measurement and for low color
waters as indicated by reports from the Minnesota monitoring program (see Jennifer Klang's paper, Using the
34
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Transparency Tube in Minnesota's New Citizen Stream Monitoring Program ). This is most likely due to the fact
that sediment tends to be the predominate particulate in the rivers and streams monitored.
As with Secchi Disk measurements, care needs to be taken in standardizing your protocols. Consideration should be
given to:
• Whether the readings are taken, in the shade or sun
The position of the observer in relation to the sun.
Appropriate target design and length of tube to cover the range of clarity.
• Whether a standard diameter of tube should be used.
While there have been no recommendations on the best way to approach measurements, preliminary research by our
program suggests these considerations are of consequence while taking turbidity measurements: Readings in a
bright environment can be significantly different than the same sample viewed under more subdued light. This may
be a function of the observer's acclimation to bright light or due to stray light from the side of the tube causing
interference. Using the head of the observer to shade out the sun above was important in minimizing glare during
measurements. Only at high dissolved color levels or for clearer water conditions that necessitate the almost filling
of the tube did the "mini-Secchi" target make measurements easier to determine compared to the wavy line target of
the Australian tube since. The small distance between the lines on the latter target was problematic for determining
the reading in those measurements. No significant difference was found when using tubes of different diameter (1.5
and 2 inches) over a range of different turbidity and color levels.
Dissolved color greater than about 15 platinate units started to influence the comparability of "transparency tube"
measurements and turbidity values. The minimum detection level for the manufactured tubes used in our studies was
about 10 NTU. This may be improved through the use of a longer tube. However, the longer the tube, the more
cumbersome the measurement may be. Perhaps an improvement in design that employs a mirror and prism set that
can be economically designed to measure more pristine waters without necessitating an oversized tube can be made.
With the "transparency tube" river and stream and river monitors now have a low cost water clarity device akin to
the Secchi Disk of lake and coastal monitors. But just as with Secchi measurements, care needs to be taken in
standardizing the monitoring protocol and in interpreting the results.
Last Words
So, are things becoming clearer? Or are they just more transparent? Just remember, even with the simplest of
measurements complications can ensue. Thus, standardization and supplemental observations will remain the key in
understanding the optical dynamics of your waters and the interpretation of changes measured. Be sure never to call
a Secchi Disk measurement turbidity if I am around—there are many other proper options like clarity or
transparency. Theoretically the proper way to measure Secchi Disk depth is by using the average of the depths of
disappearance and reappearance of a flat painted, standard sized disk off of the sunny side of the boat with the sun
overhead and a viewscope in hand (Phew!). But then again, you need to consider the impact to your already existing
program of a change in protocol. You can interchange NTU, FTU and FNU at will but JTU implies a lack of a
specific primary standard referenced. More expensive Nephelometers will be required to measure very low turbidity
levels. However, the "TRANSPARENCY Tube" (take note of this important name change) may make a fine
addition to your monitoring program.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
35
-------
Conference Proceedings
MURKY WATERS? MAKING SENSE OF
WATER CLARITY MEASURES
ViewScopes and Secchi Disk
Measurements
CONTACT INFORMATION
Robert Craycraft, Educational Program Coordinator
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
Spaulding Hall Room G18
131 Main Street, 124 Nesmith Hall
Durham, NH 03824
phone: 603/862-3546
fax: 603/862-0107
email: bob.craycraft@unh.edu
Water transparency (Secchi Disk) readings are
probably the most commonly collected measurements
among volunteer water quality monitoring programs
stemming from their simplicity and their low costs.
When used properly, the water transparency measurements can be a good estimator of other water quality
measurements including microscopic plant "algal" growth, suspended sediments and dissolved "tea" colored waters.
However, there is no standardized method of collecting Secchi Disk transparency measurements, thus making
comparisons among water quality monitoring programs difficult and diminishing the interpretive power of the water
clarity readings.
Some water quality monitoring programs require that Secchi Disk transparency measurements be collected on the
"sunny side" of the boat while other water quality monitoring programs require the Secchi Disk measurements be
collected on the "shady side of the boat". Furthermore, some water quality monitoring programs advocate the use of
a ViewScope (PVC pipe, sometimes fitted with a lens) which the volunteer looks through when collecting the water
transparency measurements, while other programs do not.
Anecdotal information collected by volunteer monitors participating in the University of New Hampshire Lakes Lay
Monitoring Program noted a sharp contrast between Secchi Disk measurements collected with and without a View
Scope, particularly under sub-optimal conditions including waves and very sunny days during which glare made
water transparency measurements extremely difficult. Additional data collected by professionals (University of New
Hampshire research team) further suggested that precision was reduced in the absence of a ViewScope especially
under adverse weather conditions. A water transparency study was subsequently initiated, to determine the best way
to collect water transparency measurements, and to determine the impact of both the sky (i.e. clear, cloudy) and lake
surface (i.e. calm, ripples, waves) conditions on Secchi Disk transparency measurements.
Study Conditions:
University of New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program participants were invited to participate in the study
and included a total of 33 New Hampshire lakes ranging from nutrient poor (oligotrophic) to nutrient enriched
(eutrophic) lakes with a Secchi Disk transparency range of 0.5 to 13.7 meters (1.7 - 45.2 feet). Supplemental Secchi
Disk comparison data were also collected by the UNH research team at selected lakes for comparison with the
volunteer monitor data. Water transparency measurements were collected under each of four different conditions on
each sampling date:
• Sunny side of the boat without the ViewScope
• Shady side of the boat without the ViewScope
• Sunny side of the boat with the ViewScope
• Shady side of the boat with the ViewScope
Table 1: Secchi Disk Transparency Study Weather Data.
Replicate water transparency measurements were collected for each treatment as time permitted to determine
precision. The Secchi Disk used in
this study was a 20 cm diameter plate
with alternating black and white
quadrates while the ViewScope was
approximately 0.75 meters with
black interior and a Plexiglas plate
on the end that was flush with the
water during observations. Secchi
Disk transparency measurements
were recorded to the nearest tenth of
Sky:
Lake:
Wind:
Clear
Calm
Calm
Hazy
Ripples
Breezy
Cloudy
Waves
Gusty
Overcast
White Caps
Windy
36
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
a meter (4 inches). The study also consisted of the collection of weather data on each sampling occasion as
summarized in Table #1. Weather data were collected in three general categories (sky conditions, lake surface
conditions and wind conditions) to test three general assumptions:
Reproducibility (precision) will be reduced in the absence of the ViewScope under adverse weather
conditions.
• Increased glare will result in decreased water transparency measurements in the absence of a
ViewScope. ,
• The difference between Secchi Disk Transparency measurements collected with and without a-
ViewScope will increase with increasing wave size.
Results:
The median precision was high among the four water transparency study conditions when measured by both the
volunteer monitors (3% for each of the four conditions) and by the UNH research team (1 - 2% for the four
conditions). However, closer examination of outlier data points (those water transparency measurements that
exceeded 10% precision) indicate the results become less reliable in the absence of a ViewScope when collected by
both the volunteer monitors and the UNH research team (Figures 1 and 2). The most reliable volunteer monitor
results were obtained on the sunny side, of the boat when using the ViewScope followed closely by measurements
collected on the shady side of the boat with the-ViewScope.
Figure 1: Percent volunteer readings exceeding
10% precision. "
shady sunny
Treatment
No Scope
Scope
Figure 2: Percent professional readings
exceeding 10% precision.
shady sunny
Treatment
No Scope
Scope
Upon further examination of 644 paired water transparency readings collected by the volunteer monitors, it is
evident that water transparency measurements collected in the absence of a ViewScope are not as well dispersed,
particularly in the ultra-clear lakes, as water transparency measurements collected with a ViewScope (Figure 3). The
"compression" of data in the absence of a ViewScope, particularly for extremely clear lakes, might result in a
decreased ability to detect water clarity changes. Thus, the data collected as part of this study indicate water
transparency measurements collected while using a ViewScope are preferable to water transparency measurements
collected without a ViewScope based on the precision data. The "compression" of water transparency data in the
absence of a ViewScope also suggests a potential shortfall of water transparency data collected without a
ViewScope. New volunteer monitoring programs should consider the use of a ViewScope when developing their
protocols while preexisting monitoring programs that do not currently use a ViewScope might consider collecting
measurements both with and without a ViewScope. This would facilitate direct comparisons with the historical data
while the data collected with the ViewScope would increase the precision of future measurements.
So what is the impact of weather conditions on the Secchi Disk transparency measurements? While water quality
monitoring programs strive for consistency in their Secchi Disk transparency measurements, there might be times
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
37
-------
Conference Proceedings
Figure 3. Secchi Disk Comparison
Box and Whisker Plots - Entire Volunteer Dataset
n = 644
15
12
Without Scope
With Scope
shady
sunny
shady
sunny
where external variables can impact the measurements.
For instance, groups might collect their readings on the
sunny or the shady side of the boat but during high noon
there might not be a shady side of the boat or on a
cloudy day there is no true sunny side. If water samples
are collected under such "undesirable" conditions, how
comparable is that data to the data collected under
"desirable conditions? Furthermore, do the differences
increase as the lake conditions shift from a calm surface
to a surface characterized by ripples or waves? Analysis
of over 500 paired water samples collected by volunteer
monitors indicates the Secchi Disk transparency
measurements (particularly when collected with the
ViewScope) were generally higher on the shady side of
the boat, but these readings generally differed by no
more than ten percent (Figure 4). Water transparency
measurements collected without the ViewScope
included more outlier data points, and appear to be
more sensitive to whether they are collected on the
sunny or shady side of the boat. As wave action
increased, the volunteers could see considerably deeper
on the shady side of the boat, particularly when a
ViewScope was not used (possibly the result of
increased glare that was minimized/eliminated when
using the ViewScope). Thus, while the water
transparency measurements are normally comparable
whether collected on the sunny or on the shady side of the boat, the difference does increase under wavy conditions.
One might consider collecting the lake surface condition data, if you are not already doing so, to help you interpret
your water clarity data in the future.
So how comparable are water transparency measurements collected with and without a ViewScope? This question
becomes most important if you want to compare your water transparency data to another water quality monitoring
program's data, yet you use a ViewScope and they do not. Volunteer monitor data collected under various lake
surface conditions ranging from calm lake surface conditions to wavy conditions indicate that measurements
collected with the ViewScope (whether on the sunny or shady side of the boat) are generally higher than the
measurements collected without the ViewScope. Furthermore, the difference between readings collected with and
without a ViewScope become greater as the lake surface becomes rougher and the difference is often in excess of 15
to 20%. It is also worth noting that if the Secchi Disk readings are deeper than approximately six meters, the
difference between measurements collected with and without a ViewScope become more variable (Figure 5). Thus,
one must use caution when comparing water transparency data collected using different methods, particularly when
the water transparency values are extremely deep.
Future Considerations:
Note: an outlier datapoint of 12.8 meters, collected on the sunny side
without the ViewScope was removed from this analysis
Figure 4. SD Transparency Readings under Calm
Conditons
Figure 5. SD Transparency Readings under Ripple
Conditons
38
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
While the data previously examined indicates the ViewScope does increase precision and is preferable to water
clarity measurements collected without the ViewScope, we must keep in mind that the water transparency
measurements are often used as a surrogate for microscopic plant "algal" and suspended sediment levels. Future
analyses will look more closely at the relationship between the Secchi Disk measurements and other water quality
parameters to determine whether or not the ViewScope significantly increases the interpretive power of the water
clarity data.
We also intend to take a closer look at the possibility of conversion factors that would facilitate "direct" comparisons
among water transparency measurements collected using different methods. Future analysis of the water
transparency data will look at the effect of sky conditions (i.e. sunny day, cloudy day) in conjunction with the lake
surface data to better understand the complex interaction of sky and surface conditions. Continued data collection by
both volunteers in the UNH Cooperative Extension Lakes Lay Monitoring Programs and the professional field staff
will fill current data gaps and allow for further analysis of the data.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
39
-------
Conference Proceedings
MURKY WATERS? MAKING SENSE
OF WATER CLARITY MEASURES
Using the Transparency Tube in
Minnesota's New Citizen Stream-
Monitoring Program
CONTACT INFORMATION
(corresponding author)
Jennifer L.K. Klang
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN 55155
phone: 651/282-2618, fax:,651/297-8324
email: jennifer.klang@pca.state.mn.us
Steven A. Heiskary
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN 55155
phone: 651/296-7217, fax: 651/297-8324
email: steven.heiskary@pca.state.mn.us.
Laurie Sovell, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
1230 South Victory Drive, Mankato, MN 56001
phone: 507/389-1925, fax: 507/389-5422
email: laurie.sovell@pca.state.mn.us.
Minnesota offered a statewide Citizen Stream-
Monitoring Program for the first time in 1998. The
program centers on volunteer measurements of stream
water clarity using the transparency tube, originally
developed in Australia, as a simple tool for monitoring
stream water quality. Looking down into a tube filled
with a stream water sample, water is released through a
valve until the black and white symbol on the bottom is
visible. The water depth is recorded (in centimeters)
when the symbol becomes visible, which are marked
on the side of the tube. During each stream visit,
volunteers rank their stream for stage (Low, Normal, High), Appearance, and Recreational Suitability. In addition to
weekly stream readings, volunteers track precipitation on a daily basis, and are asked to take more frequent stream
readings following rain events when possible.
Data collected by volunteers are permanently stored in the EPA's water quality database, STORET. Statistically
significant relationships have been identified between stream transparency and turbidity, and transparency and Total
Suspended Sediments (TSS). In the same way as Secchi transparency allows for the estimation of chlorophyll-a and
total phosphorous, relationships among stream transparency, turbidity and TSS could provide a basis for citizens and
the state to characterize the health of a stream by estimating these significant water quality parameters with a simple
tool. Future work will focus on continued development of the volunteer program statewide, and further evaluation
of relationships among transparency and other water quality parameters through studies currently being conducted
on Minnesota rivers.
40
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
YOU FOUND WHAT? ROUSING REPORTS AND
POWERFUL PRESENTATIONS
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Marie-Francoise Walk, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Presenters:
Marie-Francoise Walk, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Developing a Data Presentation Plan
Joan Martin, Huron River Watershed Council
Creating Engaging and Effective Creek Reports
Joe Payne, Friends of Casco Bay
(no paper submitted)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
41
-------
Conference Proceedings
YOU FOUND WHAT? ROUSING
REPORTS AND POWERFUL
PRESENTATIONS
Developing a Data Presentation Plan
Data presentation should not be first thought about
when a volunteer monitoring program is finished ,
collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. It's at the
study design stage that program managers need to plan
their data presentation strategy.
Every (respectable) program has clear goals for its
surveys, whether those goals are to build a solid water
quality database for future trend analysis or to
document a pollution source in the watershed. While
state agencies' monitoring goals are usually to assess a
water body's health, volunteer monitors tend to be more
the results.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Marie-Frangoise Walk
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Blaisdell House
UMass Box 30820, Amherst, MA 01003-0820
phone: 413/545-5531, fax: 413/545-2304
email: mfwalk@tei.umass.edu
Resources:
For a copy of "Ready, Set, Present!", a data
presentation manual for volunteer water quality
monitoring groups written by Jerry Schoen, Marie-
Francoise Walk, and Michele Tremblay in 1999, send a
$5 check to MassWWP at the above address
To enquire about availability, call 413/545-2842
action oriented'-trying to get people to do something about
In the study design, we identify our data users and how (we hope) they will use our data. Having done that, we can
decide the best approach to deliver our data to those users (in order to get the desired action out of them): Will they
want a report? Would they prefer an entertaining slide show? Or are they more likely to use information they find on
a web site?
Knowing in advance how we will present our results is not necessarily going to change how we conduct our surveys,
•but it is going to help immensely in gathering the tools we'll need to do a fantastic job in presenting our data, and it
will make it easier to get our audience to act as a result.
At the planning stage, we think not only about which packages (reports, slides, exhibits) and venues (town meeting,
empty store front, newspaper, Trout Unlimited Annual Dinner) we will use, but also how our audiences think and
how they can be persuaded. This step guides our decision in gathering materials throughout the monitoring season:
Should we develop background educational materials such as fact sheets or a watershed ecology primer? Or, should
we take emotionally charged photos of dead fish, cows relieving themselves in a stream, or squashed toads on the
road? (For a more in-depth look at tools, venues, and motivation strategies, see "Ready, Set, Present!", Schoen et al,
1999, see contact box above.)
A data presentation plan will include the following items:
• Description of program issues
• List of data use objectives
• List of data users
Processing style of data users - and IEP factor (Inform, Educate, or Persuade)
• Breakdown of knowledge points needed for audience to act (see example below for list of six knowledge
points)
• List of presentation types used
• List of venues
• List of toolkit elements to prepare
42
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Taking an example to illustrate this plan, let's look at the Deerfield River Watershed Association's (DRWA)
bacteria sampling program, concentrating on a single issue:
Description of program issues:
DRWA wants to document whether the river and tributaries meet Massachusetts water quality standards for primary
contact recreation; in other words, is it safe to swim in the river?
List of data use objectives:
DRWA wants river users to make appropriate decisions about recreating at various locations in the watershed.
List of data users:
There are two major data users:
• The swimmers themselves
The local Boards of Health (BOH), who have a direct interest in the safety of local waters.
Processing style of data users
From here on, we will distinguish between the swimmers and the Boards of Health.
• Swimmers need information they can process at a glance: short blurbs, visuals.
BOHs need precise and well documented information, such as a report, maybe supported by a live
presentation, or a personal communication.
There is also the issue of how to use data with these audiences. There are basically three ways data can be utilized:
to inform people of conditions, to educate them on how conditions occurred and will affect their enjoyment of the
river, or to persuade people to act on survey results. We refer to this concept as the "IEP" factor.
In the DRWA situation:
Swimmers will mostly need to be informed if the river is polluted, and perhaps educated about sources and
consequences.
BOHs will also need to be informed, but may need to be persuaded to take action (by eliminating the
source, perhaps, or post the area as unsafe for swimming).
Breakdown of knowledge points needed for audiences to act:
For good watershed decision making, decision makers must:
• Kno w the condition of the water body,
• Understand watershed ecology,
• Know the causes of any problems,
Know the sources of problems,
• Know the impacts and consequences of conditions, and
• . Know what solutions are possible. ~~ .
Of those six points, DRWA thinks it needs to focus on:
For swimmers, condition and impacts: they should know whether the river is polluted, and if it is,' that they
may become sick with ear infections or intestinal distress.
For BOHs, condition, sources, solutions: they should also be informed of the current conditions, .and may
appreciate hints about where the problems originate and how they can be solved.
List of presentation types used:
There are a variety of presentation types which can be used: reports, live talks, exhibits, articles in the media, flyers
and newsletters, radio/TV shows, web postings, and more.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
43
-------
Conference Proceedings
From the little research performed through the steps above, DRWA concludes that the appropriate presentation types
are:
• For swimmers-exhibits and newspaper bites.
For BOHs- report, live presentation, phone call.
List of venues:
Once we know what type of presentation we will use, we can decide where we will take those presentations: at a
fair, on-site, at the library, in the bank lobby, in the mail (report), in the news/entertainment media, on our web.site,
at a club dinner, a committee meeting, in a brochure or a newsletter?
DRWA chooses the following:
• Swimmers: On-site exhibits: some simple display at the actual swimming locations; local newspaper
articles or factoids (a brief news update).
• BOHs: Formal report sent in the mail with a follow-up phone call; live presentation at the BOH monthly
meeting.
List of toolkit elements to prepare:
Now we have all the information required to decide what "tools" we will need for our various presentation strategies.
Monitoring groups benefit from building a toolkit over time, allowing them to be prepared for presentation
opportunities. If we have already produced the right pieces, we can quickly respond when someone, requests a
dinner speaker, when we get a call from a newspaper reporter, or when a town meeting comes up. The toolkit may
include a formal written report, an informal report, a press kit (contact name at various media, instructions for
producing letters, interviews, press releases, etc.), a prepared slide show, and/or ready-to-use exhibit or display. The
toolkit should also contain the basic components to use in the packages: graphs, maps, photographs, fact sheets,
props, art work. ,
DRWA needs:
• Graphs
• Signs (such as a swimmer in a circle with a removable bar across it)
• Map of sites
• Written blurb
• Report
• Slides or overheads
Through the simple example above, we can appreciate that having prepared all year toward its data presentation
package, a group is much more likely to actually use their data and convince potential data users to take action: there
is no (or less) last-minute panic to put together a talk for the local Audubon Chapter's annual meeting or an exhibit
for the Fall Festival.
In short, planning a program's data presentation strategy does add a little work up front, but this small investment of
time and brain cells really pays off if it results in actions to enhance the watershed. All that is necessary for
planning is: first, focus on a message; second, define data users; third, determine how data users process
information; and last, prepare a list of venues and a toolkit for pre-canned presentation packages.
44
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Table 1: Data Presentation Worksheet, with Deerfield River Watershed Association example.
•D
o
•D
o
1
£
Q.
0)
D)
o '°
1
ra
u_
y
iformation
recessing
Style
.£ a.
w
1_
S
ra
O
0) C»
(0 .>
to !a
DO
a>
jn
-.-§
.£ "T^»
c "§. 1| .2
- 1 §, g \ s
If I 111
O -Q 55 £ ^5 o
as
1 §
=§ "^ 8,
^i ®"l
SiSi.
CO
11
•3 o
§-S.-tf
ill
1 CD i '(5
V C CM 0
•t; co" -{a to"
C r- C c: Co
8 o «o S o
-------
Conference Proceedings
YOU FOUND WHAT? ROUSING
REPORTS AND POWERFUL
PRESENTATIONS
Creating Engaging and Effective Creek
Reports
CONTACT INFORMATION
Joan Martin
Huron River Watershed Council
1100 North Main, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, Ml 48104
phone: 734/769-5971, fax: 734/998-0163
email: jmartin@hrwc.org
The Huron River Creek Report, discussed and quoted
in this paper, is available from the Huron River
Watershed Council (above).
Marie-Fran9oise has explained how to decide which
kinds of presentation types to include in your toolkit. A
common choice is the written report, which was a
primary presentation choice for our goals.
The Huron River, which is in southeastern Michigan, is in pretty good shape. Part of it is a state-designated Natural
River and it is widely recognized as a good smallmouth bass fishery. The watershed covers 900 square miles, much
of which is rapidly developing farmland. The goal of our Adopt-A-Stream Program is to help people to protect the
river system. We work primarily by supporting Creek Groups and other local residents in their protection efforts.
Our monitoring program studies the ecological health of our river system. We study the physical conditions and the
benthic macroinvertebrates at over 50 sites. (We do not routinely measure chemical water quality parameters.)
Through monitoring since 1992, we have learned the quality of the various creeks relative to other parts of the river
and have identified some of the threats to the river. Now we need to let people know about their creek and what it
needs from them.
Our reasons for choosing the Report format
We need something that concerned folks can give to the people they talk to about their creek. We want to have
something that people can take away, that they will both read and learn from. While additional forms of presentation
would be useful, this is the one we started with because we can distribute it to all three of our audience categories
(volunteers, community "decision makers," and residents in the communities who will promote the river issues).
How shall we present the data?
My first thought was to compile all the information we had gathered into neat tables and write about the facts, trying
to explain them. The first draft contained pages of words plus a few tables of data and a sketched map. It was NOT
inviting to the average reader. As we moved toward the goal of affecting the readers' behavior, as well as their
understanding about rivers, we changed the format drastically. Our transformation was greatly helped by the
suggestions made by many early readers. We distilled the data into pictures of the conditions of the local creek. We
separated out the explanations of concepts to sidebars. The result was an engaging report that the intended audience
is actually reading. One elected official said that she had never paid any attention to the creek before, but this report
was so informative she thought it should be given to all the school children in the watershed.
Focus on the purpose of the report:
• The major threats are people's behaviors and the rapid pace of land development in southeastern Michigan.
• We primarily want to change what happens during all phases of development, including design,
construction, and maintenance.
• We also want to change resident behavior, including landscaping and maintenance.
Therefore, we included 1) data about the local creek, 2) what the creeks need.in order to be healthy, and 3) what the
community can do for the creek.
Write for the audience:
• The volunteers: (The volunteers are adults and families, with an occasional small scout troop.)
• The community Decision Makers in each of the 55 communities
46
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Residents in the communities who will promote the river issues.
This is not a river that has economic meaning or any other sense of urgency for most of our audiences. We have tried
to present the data and the river concepts in understandable language.
focus on what you would most like your audiences to do:
Improve the design of residential and commercial development.
• Adopt master plans and ordinances that protect all parts of the river system, including wetlands, flood
plains, riparian zones and flow regimes. '
Monitor the execution of good designs, and the maintenance of protective measures.
The format we have developed is filled with small pictures. The Huron River Creek Report includes:
A large photo of the creek on the cover.
A map of the entire Huron River watershed showing the location of the creek.
• Facts about the creek, including how the land is being used and what is unusual. For example:
"Most of the land is cleared and covered by buildings, pavement, and mowed lawns.
There are seven parks, some of which are undeveloped. The remaining portion of the
basin continues to be developed."
Note that each page of text has sidebars to explain unusual terms that appear bolded in the text. For
instance, on the first page we explain what a Drain Commissioner is. Small graphics accompany each brief
explanation to intrigue the reader to read them.
"The County Drain Commissioner's main duties are to manage storm water and prevent
flooding. This focus evolved from the desire of early settlers to farm swampy land."
A brief history of the creek.
"Malletts Creek flows north through a channel that was cut by the glacier 14,000 years
ago. The entire Huron River originally flowed south through this channel, before
changing to its current course. If you want to see a cross section of that ancient channel,
look from Arborland Mall west, along Washtenaw Road to the County Farm Park on the
far hill."
A map of the creekshed with locations where the public can enjoy it.
Special characteristics of the creek, including the results of studies previous to ours.
• A description of the physical characteristics of the creek. This may include some identified problems.
"Malletts Creek suffers from extreme variations in flow that can be characterized as
flashy. After storms, the water rises so quickly that the creek has carried huge objects like
automobile engine blocks, while during dry periods the creek is so shallow that children
can walk in it. For instance, on June 12, 1999, the creek went from a quiet flow of 1.5
cubic feet per second to 500 cfs in 1 'A hours!"
• An explanation of the methods and analysis used in the study.
"Some indicators of a high quality stream are stable banks with a broad corridor of trees
and shrubs, riffles free of silt deposition, fairly stable temperatures, and a benthic
population that includes several groups that are sensitive to organic pollution. The
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 -Austin, TX
47
-------
Conference Proceedings
population in a degraded creek will be restricted to those few types of creatures hardy
enough to survive."
The results are shown with small drawings on a map. The illustrations show the extent of diversity
compared to what it would be if it had the quality of the best site in the Huron system (Figure 1). We also
show a map of the location of highly sensitive creatures (Figure 2).
The conclusions point to the need to change the way land is developed and our own behaviors.
"All of us are responsible for the sorry state of Malletts Creek. Homeowners, businesses,
churches, the City, and the University all do things without realizing how they will hurt
the creek, such as fertilizing lawns, building parking lots, applying pesticides, filling wet
areas, and mowing stream banks."
If the creek has an active creek group, there are photos and short descriptions about what people are doing
for the creek.
"Ron has monitored Malletts and other creeks in the Huron system for many years. This
year he replaced his lawn with prairie plants to help the creek and the butterflies. "It's _
much more interesting than a lawn!" He said. "The neighbors love it. They walk by daily
to see what is blooming."
The last page describes What You Can Do.
Here is one idea to help a small staff cope with the challenge of writing reports on all of the creeks: Invite
watershed residents to help you gather information for reports on the creeks. We have circulated a form
requesting photographs and stories about the name, the history, the way land is being used, etc.
48
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
POPULATION DIVERSITY
The high diversity found in the West Branch indi-
cates a high quality creek. Diversity was good at
the Ford site but only mediocre at the sites further
downstream. The data shown here have been
adjusted for the size of the creekshed, in order to
compare sites of different sizes.
Diversity in the population
indicates good creek quality.
Greater diversity at a site means
that the conditions are good for a
variety of kinds of creatures. The %
shows how this site compares to the
best site in the Huron River system.
For example, a site with 33%
diversity has only one-third the
variety of creatures found at
the most diverse site
studied. Creeks that are
average for the Huron
have 71% maximum
diversity.
Ann Arbor
Geddes Site
EPT: Many of the EPT families require a high quality creek. "E"are mayflies (Ephemeroptera), "P"
are stoneflies (Plecoptera), and "T'are caddisflies (Trichoptera). If many kinds of EPT are present, the
site probably has high quality. The % shows how the EPT indicators of the site compare to the best
site in the Huron River system. For example, a site with 25% EPT has only one-fourth the variety of
EPT families found at the site with the most variety in EPT. Creeks that are average for the Huron
have 48% of the maximum EPT.
Figure 1: A map from a Huron River Creek Report illustrating macroinvertebrate diversity at
various monitoring sites.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
49
-------
Conference Proceedings
Figure 1. Does Fleming Creek Have the Quality Required by Very Sensitive Creatures?
The West Branch seems to have much higher quality since it supports more sensitive creatures
than does the rest of the creek.
\North Territorial
Figure 2: A map from a Huron River Creek Report showing the location of highly sensitive
macroinvertebrates.
50
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
HOW STATE AGENCIES USE VOLUNTEER DATA
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Tina Laidlaw, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA Region 8
Presenters:
Stacey Brown, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Cooperation and Partnerships: Virginia's Citizen Monitoring Program, Getting Data
to Use
Diane Wilson, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania's Citizens'Volunteer Monitoring Program
Esperanza Standoff, University of Maine Cooperative Extension
The Maine Shore Stewards Program Use of Data
Karen Font Williams, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon's Volunteer Monitoring Program
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
51
-------
Conference Proceedings
HOW STATE AGENCIES USE
VOLUNTEER DATA
Cooperation and Partnerships: Virginia's
Citizen Monitoring Program, Getting Data
to Use
CONTACT INFORMATION
(corresponding author)
Stacey Thurmond Brown
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240
phone: 804/698-4026 or 800/592-5482 ext 4026
email: stbrown@deq.state.va.us '
Jay Gilliam
Virginia Save Our Streams Program
7598 North Lee Highway, Raphine, VA 24472
phone: 540/377-6179
fax: 540/377-6179
email: strmiwla@cfw.com
Jody Johns-Cason
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
203 Governor Street, Suite 206, Richmond, VA 23219
phone: 804/786-9732
email: jjohnscason@dcr.state.va.us
For more information about Virginia's citizen monitoring
program please contact one of the above or check the
web site www.deq.state.va.us
Department of Conservation & Recreation
CONSERVING VIRGINIAS NATURAL &. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Cooperative and strong environmental leaders have
created the avenues for citizen data use. Their hard
work did not materialize into data use by state agencies
overnight. Instead, persistent and careful work was
needed to convince the state agencies to take note. The
trust, cooperation, and partnership that is the
foundation of the Virginia Citizen Monitoring Program
is embodied in the organization Citizens for Water
Quality and several letters of agreement. Both the
letters of agreement and the formation of the Citizens
for Water Quality have been the catalyst for creating
avenues for the state water quality agencies to use
citizen collected data. The effectiveness of citizen
monitors will continue to increase based on new
initiatives such as the development of watershed
councils.
Virginia's Monitors
Stewardship of land and rivers is a concept that comes
naturally and easily to Virginians. Many groups have
formed over the years to provide advocacy for the
natural resources of their region. Sometimes these
groups have been limited in membership to riparian
property owners but often they are diverse organizations with representatives of many stakeholder constituencies.
The Virginia Save Our Streams (VA-SOS) program became apriority project of the Virginia Division of the Izaak
Walton League of America (IWLA) in mid 1996. At that time, Jay Gilliam became the state coordinator for the VA-
SOS program. During his travels across the state, it became obvious that there were many grassroots groups
advocating better water quality. Large groups such as the Friends of the Shenandoah and Friends of the North Fork
of the Shenandoah had been doing chemical monitoring for many years. Smaller groups such as the Staunton River
Watch came together in reaction to perceived water quality problems in their area. Jay's own experience and that of
follow citizen monitors revealed that there were hurdles to collecting and using citizen water quality data. The
obstacles that these groups faced were that there was no real guidance on acceptable monitoring methods, design of
monitoring networks, quality assurance of data methods, and the management and use of citizen water quality data.
VA-SOS, in cooperation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), began to organize Citizen's for Water Quality Summits to provide a forum for sharing
ideas and concerns. In November 1996, the Citizens for Water Quality met for the first time. The outcome of this
first meeting was a consensus that there was a need for the Commonwealth of Virginia to create a statewide citizens
water quality monitoring coordinator. This request was presented to the Virginia General Assembly and the position
was created by budget amendment during the 1997 session. Stacey Brown was hired to work in DEQ's water
monitoring division in January 1998.
To further define the roles of the state agencies and citizen groups in promoting citizen monitoring in Virginia, VA-
SOS pursued Letters of Agreement with both state agencies. DCR signed a Letter of Agreement with VA-SOS in
January 1998. A similar agreement was signed soon after by the DEQ in April 1998. Both Agreements set forth a
strategy for mutual cooperation towards common goals for citizen monitoring.
Letters of Agreement
The "work plan" for developing a Citizen Monitoring Program hi Virginia was first embodied in these Letters of
Agreement. The goal of these Agreements was to enhance the state's ability to protect water quality by supporting
52
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
citizen monitoring efforts throughout the Commonwealth. These Agreements outlined specific tasks to obtain that
goal and to develop the base for a coordinated citizen monitoring effort in Virginia.
1998 Letters of Agreement
The agreements outline three areas of cooperation in order to further Citizen Monitoring efforts in the
Commonwealth:
• citizen monitoring support network,
• quality assurance and quality control, and
• data assessment.
These three items include specific tasks to be accomplished.
Citizen Monitoring Support Network
The tasks included within the citizen monitoring support network encourage collaboration among state agencies
and citizen monitors. The sum of these tasks included in this section formed the working organization Citizens
for Water Quality and established Stream Schools. Citizens for Water Quality serves as a forum for citizen
grassroots organizations to share experiences and knowledge about water quality and diverse issues around the
state. The organization has adopted by-laws and meets at least three times a year to facilitate communication.
Additionally, members are informed about statewide activities relating to water via blast e-mails and a web
page, currently hosted by DEQ (www.deq.state.va.us/cmonitor/cwq). One of the highlights of the first year of
Citizens for Water Quality is a "Declaration for Virginia's Waters" that was signed by over 50 grassroots
organizations and delivered to the Secretary of Natural Resources on the steps of the Capitol.
Some citizen monitoring organizations experience frustration trying to decipher the roles and responsibilities of
federal and state water quality agencies. Citizens must rely on the knowledge and/or experience of fellow
monitors, page through information on the Internet, or tackle the telephones in search of answers to their water
quality questions. Stream Schools are an attempt to present the roles and responsibilities of federal and state
water quality agencies. Additionally, the schools provide information on monitoring techniques (professional
and volunteer methods). In 1998 and 1999, thp stream school curriculum was successfully piloted on three
groups of DCR and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) employees. (To date, two public stream
schools have been presented in accord with the 1999 Letter of Agreement.)
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The tasks included within the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) section include tasks to make
citizen monitoring data more usable to water quality agencies. The items in this section include the
development of a statewide citizen water quality monitoring methods manual and the establishment of a
coordinated quality assurance and quality control review.
The Virginia Citizen Monitoring Methods Manual is unique. It offers a variety of methodologies for measuring
the same parameters. Virginia has had active citizen monitoring groups for many years. Because these groups
worked in a vacuum, they adopted different methodologies. Rather than throwing away the good work done by
these citizen organizations, the methods manual seeks to be inclusive of citizen monitoring methods throughout
the Commonwealth. The manual is a living document, with new methodologies being added as necessary. The
manual can be downloaded at www.deq.state.va.us/cmonitor and a hardcopy is available by request (contact
VA-SOS at 540-377-6179).
The beginnings of the quality assurance quality control project plan review process were developed in the 1998
Letters of Agreement. This item is continued in the 1999 Letter of Agreement. DCR and DEQ agreed to accept
either agency's review of a QA/QC plan and both agencies will accept a plan approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The streamlined EPA Volunteer QA/QC plan was deemed acceptable by both
agencies for the purpose of citizen monitoring organizations.
Data Assessment
One of the biggest boosts for citizen monitoring is creating avenues for data use at the state level. The most
notable items completed in this section of the Letters of Agreement are the development of a data use matrix
and identification of the appropriate agency response to pollution events discovered by citizen monitoring data.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
53
-------
Conference Proceedings
The data use matrix developed as a result of the 1998 Letter of Agreement was modeled after several state's
defined uses of citizen data. The matrix includes four uses of citizen generated data. A companion document
was developed to further define these uses. This document, QA/QC Tiers, identifies different levels of quality
assurance for citizen organizations. These two documents have recently been simplified into a Statement of
Citizen Data Use, outlining four uses of citizen data by the state water quality agencies.
Although DEQ has always had a pollution response policy, citizen monitors felt left out of the equation. There
was no mechanism for a citizen monitor to report a data collection event that fell outside the norm for any
particular site. The 1998 Letter of Agreement addressed this issue and determined that potential pollution
events identified by citizen monitoring data would warrant a site visit by DEQ field staff.
1999 Letter of Agreement
The 1998 Letters of Agreement were very successful. Most of the tasks outlined in the 1998 agreements were
accomplished. More importantly, a solid foundation for citizen monitoring activities was developed and coordinated
by three partners: VA-SOS, OCR, and DEQ. To continue the success of citizen monitoring in Virginia, and further
solidify this new partnership, a three-way Letter of Agreement was signed in October of 1999.
This new agreement has the same three components as the 1998 Agreements: citizen monitoring support network,
quality assurance and quality control, and data assessment. Some of the highlights to be accomplished under Citizen
Monitoring Support include:
• develop a funding guide for citizen monitoring activities,
• host a grant-writing workshop for citizen monitors,
• administer the Citizen Monitoring Grant established by the Virginia General Assembly, and
administer at least four stream schools (by basin) across the state. (An Upper James Watershed and
Shenandoah Watershed Stream School have recently been completed.)
Items identified under quality assurance and quality control include:
• develop appropriate biomonitoring methods for eastern Virginia,
• continue to update the Virginia Citizen Monitors Methods Manual,
• provide QA/QC training for citizen monitors, and
• develop an audit for citizen QA/QC plans.
Data Assessment items include:
• revising the data use matrix,
• convening meetings with DEQ and OCR data users to discuss future data applications, and
• providing citizen monitoring data on-line.
An additional element of the 1999 Letter of Agreement is to develop benchmarks for evaluating the success of the
Letter of Agreement and citizen monitoring throughout Virginia.
Data Use
Although the state was always committed to using citizen data, identifying those uses and receiving the endorsement
of our "professional" monitors did not happen overnight. Several things needed to be in place before citizen data
would be used by the state agencies. The desires of the agencies' management needed to buy into the value of
citizen collected data. This buy-in was documented via the 1998 Letters of Agreement. While most of the
"professional" monitors welcomed citizen collected data, a few were wary of the data. The eagerness of citizen
monitors to provide high quality data and to work with the state agencies to fill data gaps convinced all involved that
defining avenues for data use is a worthy effort.
54
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
While four uses of citizen data have been identified (detailed below), this is a work in progress. As the agencies get
more used to using citizen data and the quality of citizen collected data increases, the uses applied to citizen data will
change (and increase).
• Background Information— Citizen monitoring data can be used to provide background information where no
other monitoring data exists. Chemical, biological, and physical data can be used to establish background
conditions. The most useful data should be collected under a QA/QC plan, a state approved QA/QC plan is
not necessary but is encouraged.
Assessment Information- Citizen monitoring data will be used by state agencies in statewide water quality
assessment reports. Citizen monitoring data collected under approved QA/QC project plans will be used by
the state agencies in statewide water quality assessment reports (305(b) and Nonpoint Assessment Report).
, In the biannual 305(b) water quality report, citizen collected data will be evaluated to determine the
pollution potential of the monitoring site. Citizen monitoring sites with high pollution potential will be
included in the Part IV of the 3 03 (d) list (threatened waters). Future agency monitoring will be directed to
those sites included on the 303(d) threatened waters list.
• Red Flag for Pollution Events- All data collected that indicates unusual conditions for the site will be
referred to the Regional DEQ office for further investigation. A site visit will be made by DEQ personnel
(either at the regional level or by the Citizen Monitoring Coordinator). This site visit will be made in a
timely manner and written results of the DEQ site visit will be reported back to the citizen monitor as soon
as possible.
• Special Studies- Citizen monitoring data can be used for a variety of special studies. Those studies that
should be developed in cooperation with DEQ and DCR include studies on TMDL identified stream
segments and studies to determine the effectiveness of BMPs in a watershed. Methods, parameters, site
locations, sampling times, and QA/QC measures will need to be developed on a case by case basis
depending upon the needs of the state agencies and abilities of the monitoring group.
Citizen monitors can develop a TMDL special study that provides useful information to the TMDL process. The
best information citizen monitors can provide about TMDL"listed water segments are physical characteristics of the
waterway (information about the physical makeup of the stream channel and habitat characteristics) and current
information about surrounding land use.
Monitoring Councils
In 2000, VA-SOS, in cooperation with DCR and DEQ, initiated a new citizen monitoring strategy which focuses on
giving monitors the information and tools they need to provide useful data to state agencies and local governments.
The development of "monitoring councils" will allow VA-SOS and the agencies to target monitoring efforts in areas
with the greatest need for data. Monitoring councils are composed of trained citizen volunteers dedicated to
collecting useful environmental information in their watersheds. VASOS, DCR, and DEQ are working collectively
to provide water quality monitoring training to interested citizens across the Commonwealth. Citizens are schooled
in chemical, biological, and physical monitoring methods.
VASOS, DCR, and DEQ hope to organize as many monitoring councils across Virginia as possible. Citizen interest
and agency heed will determine where the monitoring councils are formed. When interested citizens have received
adequate training and are prepared to organize a monitoring network, VASOS, DCR, and DEQ will first assist the
group in determining the scale of the watershed to be monitored. Once the monitoring area has been determined,
students at Washington and Lee University, with Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology, will prepare
watershed maps. VASOS, DCR, and DEQ granted funds to Washington and Lee University for the purchase of a
GIS plotter. In return, Washington and Lee has agreed to prepare watershed maps for each of the monitoring
councils. These maps will exhibit impaired stream segments, nonpoint source pollution potential ranking, DEQ
monitoring sites, permitted discharges, location of flow gauges, and land use information.
With the watershed map as a tool, one or more representatives from VASOS, DCR, and DEQ will meet with the
monitoring council and work one-on-one with the monitors to design a monitoring plan. A monitoring plan describes
the monitoring scheme and outlines the rationale behind it. Specifically, the monitoring council, in consultation with
VASOS, DCR, and DEQ will:
• identify data needs and uses
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
55
-------
Conference Proceedings
analyze available manpower
• determine sample location accessibility
• estimate the cost of equipment and sample processing
• identify goals and objectives
• outline parameters to be monitored
• organize a schedule of tasks
• develop a quality assurance quality control project plan.
All of these elements will be embodied in the resultant monitoring plan. Together, DEQ and DCR will define
agency data needs. DEQ and DCR will use the Annual Ambient Monitoring Report and the 305(b) and 303(d) water
quality assessments to determine where and what type of monitoring, if any, is occurring, and the location of
impaired and threatened segments. The agencies will also consider the watershed's nonpoint source ranking as
determined by the 1997 Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Report, watershed assessment
priorities outlined in the 1998 Unified Watershed Assessment and Restoration Priorities and project, special studies,
and citizen collected data.
In the past, one of the difficulties for citizen monitors has been the coordination of data submission to the state
agencies. The lack of local leadership stymies the transmission of citizen monitoring data to the state agencies.
Local leaders are needed to help maintain the schedule of tasks and report the data. Monitoring councils may help
fill this role within the watershed. Virginia has 46 soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs). In some areas,
SWCDs may be able to provide local leadership for the monitoring council. Colleges, businesses, and grass roots
organizations may also be effective local leaders.
Monitoring councils will improve coordination between citizen monitors and state agencies and increase the amount
of environmental data available to support the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and/or
Watershed Action Plans. VASOS, DCR, and DEQ have begun to provide training and support in watersheds.
Examples are the Maury River Watershed with the Maury River Watershed Group, the Appomattox River
Watershed with Clean Virginia Waterways, and the Nottoway River Watershed with the J.R. Horsely Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Cooperation and Partnership
VA-SOS, DCR, and DEQ have accomplished many of the goals set forth in the 1998 Letters of Agreement.
Collectively, VA-SOS and the agencies continue to set additional goals for the citizens monitoring initiative. This
partnership is bearing fruit. State and federal agencies, colleges, private foundations, business groups, local
governments, and many soil and water conservation districts are joining the effort. Interested groups meet
approximately three times a year as the Virginia Citizens for Water Quality. The Citizens for Water Quality are
dedicated to proving that interested citizens can work cooperatively with state agencies to magnify their capabilities.
The success of Virginia's citizen monitoring program does not lie with one entity. It takes cooperation, partnership,
and trust to ensure success in a program with such varied interests. The support of the Secretary of Natural
Resources, the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Director of the Department of
Environmental Quality have been invaluable. The trust and cooperation between citizen organizations and the state
agencies have been elemental to the recent progress of the citizens monitoring initiative. Virginia's program of
cooperation and partnership in the citizen monitoring program is becoming a model for other states- wishing to obtain
the same success.
56
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
HOW STATE AGENCIES USE
VOLUNTEER DATA
Pennsylvania's Citizens' Volunteer
Monitoring Program
CONTACT INFORMATION
Diane Wilson, Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring
Program Coordinator
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
phone: 717/787-3730
fax: 717/787-9549
email: wilson.diane@dep.state.pa.us
Introduction
Pennsylvania has a rich history of grassroots volunteer
water monitoring. A recent survey by Pennsylvania's
'Department of Environmental Protection's Citizens'
Volunteer Monitoring Program indicates that there are at least 140 groups, comprising 11,000 individuals, who
collectively spend more than $1,000,000 on monitoring activities. A number of the community based monitoring
groups have gone beyond water quality monitoring to restoration activities. The goals and activities of the Citizens'
Volunteer Monitoring Program, which was initiated in 1996, are attuned to the goals and needs of the community
based monitoring groups. Some of the actions taken by the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program to meet the
needs of local groups include: the formation of a statewide Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Panel, an extensive
training program tailored to individual group's goals, and a handbook for community based monitoring. The
handbook is unique in that it does not prescribe standardized protocols for all. Instead it advocates the use of a study
design process and a choice of monitoring methods appropriate to the goals of the individual group. The program
has partnered with the Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement, the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, and
the Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps on the organization of a stream monitoring program with standardized
protocols and a quality assurance project plan for senior citizens. The program has also undertaken an extensive and
ongoing study of potential uses of volunteer collected data in state assessments.
Data Use by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
In order to see how community based monitoring can be used in state assessments in Pennsylvania, it is important to
first clarify how the Department of Environmental Protection collects and uses data. The Department's data
collection focuses primarily on monitoring the ecological health of the waters and impacts of toxic pollutants on
public health. One of the monitoring activities carried out in assessing the state of the waters is a long-term water
quality network of 150 fixed monitoring stations on rivers, streams and lakes throughout the state. These stations are
located in major streams, selected reference waters, and selected lakes. Each of the stations is sampled for stream
discharge, or lake height, and for a variety of chemical and physical indicators. A biological evaluation using
benthic macroinvertebrates is carried out once per year at routine stations and three times per year at reference
stations. This water quality network does not cover the majority of Pennsylvania's 84,000 stream miles.
Consequently the state has undertaken an Unassessed Water Strategy to evaluate all of these waters with priority
given waters where there is potential for non-point source pollution. The Department of Environmental Protection
also carries out Aquatic Life Special Water Quality Protection Surveys. The purpose of these surveys is to assess the
need for special protection and to revise the state water quality standards if necessary. The Department of
Environmental Protection also conducts Cause/Effect Surveys to determine if specific sources of point or non-point
source pollution are causing known problems. Use Attainability Studies are carried out, if necessary, to review and
revise water quality standards to ensure that designated fish and aquatic life uses are protected. The Department of
Environmental Protection also carries out lake assessments and maintains an Ambient and Fixed Station Network
Monitoring Program to monitor the general quality of groundwater.
The Role of Community Based Monitoring in State Assessments
Traditional Pathways
Volunteer monitors in Pennsylvania sample daily, monthly, semi- annually, and quarterly at over 3000 sampling
stations throughout the state. The information can be used to supplement the 150 stations on the water quality
network. It also has been used as a screening tool to raise a red flag to trigger a Cause/Effect Survey or a Use
Attainability Study.
Data collected under a written quality assurance/quality control plan that follows strict criteria concerning age of
data, identification of a stream segment, and frequency of sampling has been used in the compilation of the Water
Quality Assessment 305(b) report and resulting 303(d) list of impaired waters.
The handbook— Designing Your Monitoring Program, A Technical Handbook for Community-Based Monitoring in
Pennsylvania—has an entire tract dedicated to describing how a monitoring program must be designed and
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
57
-------
Conference Proceedings
implemented if the goal is to have data usable in the 305(b) report and 303(d) list if the stream segment is not
attaining the applicable water quality standard. The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program, in collaboration with
the Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Water Quality Assessment and Standards, solicited
outside sources of data to be utilized by the Department in the 303(d) listing process. Watershed associations,
community based monitoring groups, and others were sent a letter with detailed guidance on data collection and
reporting requirement. Ten groups responded, with five submitting data usable for the year 2000 303(d) listing. A
training session will be planned and implemented by the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program in the year 2000 to
offer specific guidance to groups who want to collect data for use in the year 2002 305(b) report and 303(d) listing.
Other Pathways
There are pathways that go beyond these more traditional avenues for use of data collected by community based
monitoring groups. The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program conducted an extensive review of programs within
the Department of Environmental Protection to solicit additional uses for citizen collected data. The list of existing
uses includes:
• Macroinvertebrate Monitoring - A group of anglers noticed a sharp decline in the macroinvertebrate
population in their trout stream and alerted a regional office of the Department of Environmental Protection.
It was determined that the catastrophic decline in the macroinvertebrate population was due to a pesticide
spill. The anglers formed a monitoring group and are now assisting a department biologist in collecting and
identifying macroinvertebrates to study the recovery of their stream.
• Funding Allocation - Volunteers are being asked to provide water quality data in support of grant
applications for state funding of watershed restoration projects.
• Abandoned Mine Land Project - Community based monitoring groups are performing watershed
assessments to site remediation projects undertaken by the Department of Environmental Protection in areas
impacted by abandoned mine drainage. They also do pre and post project monitoring for the same
remediation.
• Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corp - Senior volunteers monitor chemical, physical and biological
indicators, along with habitat assessments in over 100 watersheds throughout the state. The data is made
available to the Department of Environmental Protection to be used as a screening tool to determine where
further study may be needed. They also act as "eyes and ears" for the Department in the watershed.
Watershed Snapshot - Thousands of volunteers from all over the state of Pennsylvania monitor chemical,
physical, and biological indicators during a 10-14 period in April and send their data to the Citizens'
Volunteer Monitoring Program for inclusion in an annual report.
The list of potential uses include:
Riparian buffer monitoring - Volunteers would monitor the effects on stream quality when buffers are
restored.
•' Wetland monitoring - Volunteers would check wetland losses and function changes (forested to emergent),
monitor replacement sites, monitor advanced compensation wetlands, and assess watersheds to locate areas
for wetland restoration projects and inclusion in the wetland registry.
• Habitat monitoring - Volunteers would monitor habitat loss including streams, wetlands, and lakes over
time.
• Survey stream obstructions - Volunteers would locate obstructions in the watershed including debris
blockages, constricted culverts, etc.
• Watershed field views for abandoned mine land projects - Volunteers would do field views of watersheds
impacted by abandoned mining, locate seeps, and field test seeps for quality.
Lake monitoring - Volunteers would do lake trophic studies including physical and chemical profiles.
58
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Habitat surveys for TMDL remediation - Volunteers would perform follow-up biological and physical
habitat surveys on streams targeted for TMDL remediation (qualitative biomonitoring and physical habitat
evaluation).
Stormwater management plan sampling - Volunteers would acquire physical data for stormwater planning
in a watershed.
Monitoring stormwater facilities - Volunteers would monitor the workings of stormwater facilities such as
ponds, swales and ditches, and monitor their impacts on local watersheds.
Zebra mussel monitoring - Volunteers would check streams for zebra mussels and their impacts, check
special substrate samplers for zebra mussel infiltration.
Stream walks - Volunteers would do stream walks to observe local conditions and to observe problems
such as malfunctioning on-lot systems. This would also give agencies an idea of land use and impacts
along the stream.
Observe flood protection projects - Volunteer would check flood protection projects to make sure the
structures are operational, also check function during and after flood events.
Winter stoneflv monitoring - Volunteers would monitor adult stonefiies in the winter to give an idea of
stream quality and will assist in setting up additional monitoring in summer/fall.
• Watershed field views for nonpoint source remediation projects - Volunteers could do watershed surveys to
check on the success of nonpoint source restoration/remediation projects, observe stream conditions near
the projects, land use and best management practices.
Conclusion
In addition to these existing and potential projects, the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program will be making a
special effort to work with groups that get Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Management grant) funding. Volunteers
will monitor the impacts of watershed restoration projects completed with the 319 funding. With all the activity in
the volunteer monitoring community, there are a large number of monitoring projects that communities and the
Department of Environmental Protection could undertake together to protect and enhance water resources across the
state. '
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
-------
Conference Proceedings
HOW STATE AGENCIES USE
VOLUNTEER DATA
The Maine Shore Stewards Program Use of
Data
CONTACT INFORMATION
Esperanza Standoff, Statewide Water Quality
Biologist, Director of the Maine Clean Water Program
University of Maine Cooperative Extension
Knox-Lincoln Counties Office
PO Box 309, 235 Jefferson Street
Waldoboro, ME 04572-0309
phone: 800/244-2104 (in Maine) or 207/832-0343
fax: 207/832-0377
email: esp@umext.maine.edu
Introduction
Since 1988, citizen volunteers have been successfully
engaged in environmental monitoring along the Maine
coast (the Maine coast is illustrated in Figure 1). It all
began with two midcoast groups that decided to
investigate the nature of local water pollution problems. These groups started their own local monitoring
programs- working in partnership with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMCE) and receiving
technical support from the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) and the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). This take-charge model of environmental stewardship soon expanded statewide as more
communities saw that they too could make a difference in preventing or remediating pollution problems in their
coastal areas. A primary concern and measurable result of these local efforts has been the reopening of shellfish
growing areas.
By the late 1980s, DMR recognized this untapped, person-power resource and began calling on these local
volunteers to assist with collecting water samples for analysis at the DMR labs to identify pollution sources and
get more acres of shellfish flats open for harvesting. In 1998 and 1999, 43% of all the bacteria samples analyzed
were collected by volunteers (Figure 2). Over 100,000 acres of clam-flats have been opened for harvest over the
past five years in large part due to the efforts of the volunteers. The Maine Department of Marine Resources
surpassed their 2000 goals of opened shellfish area by 1997. The Maine DMR is the only state agency which is a
member of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference that uses volunteers in the collection of data to classify
shellfish growing areas.
The Maine Phytoplankton Monitoring Program
In 1996 the University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMCE), in collaboration with the Maine Department of
Marine Resources (DMR) and the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), created an innovative volunteer-
based phytoplankton monitoring program. The identified need was to enhance the capacity to detect harmful algal
blooms (HAB's) that have caused closures of shellfish harvest areas Gulf-wide, due to possible lethal toxicity,
which can result in extreme revenue loss to shellfish harvesters. Until this phytoplankton monitoring program was
Figure 1: State of Maine
60
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
initiated, HAB monitoring at DMR was based solely on toxicity
levels in shellfish. This program augments traditional biotoxin
monitoring programs by looking for phytoplankton species in the
water column that might be responsible for shellfish toxicity.
This novel approach to HAB monitoring is not mandated by law,
and has not been supported by governmental funds. This
program has empowered citizens through their participation in
providing vital information to decision-makers.
Potentially toxigenic species of phytoplankton have been detected
in the Gulf of Maine, and are a potential threat to public health
and economic resources. HAB's can also present serious issues to
aquaculturists. Fish, particularly those reared in pens, are
susceptible to oxygen depletion caused by some species of
phytoplankton, skin damage and damage to gill tissue (Martin
1997). Scientists now believe that Harmful Algal Blooms
(HAB's) are increasing in severity, geographic distribution, and
in species being adversely affected.
Figure 2: Water Quality Samples: 1999
(Shore Stewards are comprised of DMR volunteers and
Clean Water/Partner in Monitoring volunteers)
The major goals of this project, modeled after the USFDA protocol used in other states, are:
to assist shellfish management agencies with marine biotoxin monitoring efforts by providing early-
warning detection of toxic species of phytoplankton
• to determine if a correlation exists between potentially toxigenic phytoplankton in the water and a toxic
event in shellfish through the collection of baseline data
To date, the program has 25 monitoring groups covering 40 sampling locations along the coast of Maine with
approximately 80 volunteers. Volunteers monitor weekly from April through October, and send data reports
directly to the biotoxin team at the Maine Department of Marine Resources where, to date, there are over 1800
data entries on phytoplankton populations from the volunteers.
Volunteer groups have, each year, found Alexandrium spp. in the water column days before the shellfish were
found to be toxic. This program has also proven to be an important educational tool for schools and citizens while
collecting needed scientific data pertaining to phytoplankton and HAB's. Through the success of our program, we
have been able to assist with the development of other phytoplankton monitoring efforts in the Gulf of Maine;
aiding in the development of a new phytoplankton monitoring-program in New Hampshire and providing support
to the phytoplankton monitoring program in Massachusetts.
The monitoring groups have collected data on the abundance and distribution of phytoplankton in Maine waters
that could potentially affect public health. Over time, these data will help scientists identify trends in abundance
and distribution of phytoplankton. The amount of coverage volunteer monitors achieve through weekly sampling
could not be replicated by the limited monetary and personnel resources available to the scientific and regulatory
community.
Data collected through our program has drawn the attention of research scientists currently working in the Gulf of
Maine. In 1998, volunteers observed the presence of large numbers ofDinophysis spp. in Maine, a genus known
to have species responsible for causing Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). This prompted researchers to direct
efforts to address these findings. The results indicated the presence of another toxic species in Maine,
Prorocentrum lima, also known to cause DSP. This epiphytic species has a different life history, and we will be
developing a protocol to sample for it this year. We are also participating in the ECOHAB project with the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) by taking coastal quantitative samples. This relationship to the scientific
community strengthens the credibility of the program, and empowers citizens by linking them to research in the
Gulf of Maine.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
61
-------
Conference Proceedings
HOW STATE AGENCIES USE
VOLUNTEER DATA ^^
Oregon's Volunteer Monitoring Program
CONTACT INFORMATION
Karen Font Williams
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
1712 SW 11th Avenue,' Portland, OR 97201
phone: 503/229-5983, fax: 503/229-6924
email: williams.karen@deq.state.or.us
Introduction
The Volunteer Monitoring Program at the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) operates
within the Water Quality Monitoring Section of the Laboratory Division in Portland, Oregon. Laboratory staff
collect and analyze air, water, soil and biological samples for DEQ offices across the state. The Water Quality
Monitoring Section manager oversees several monitoring coordinators, including the Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator.
The Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator is funded by the Oregon Plan, a 1997 initiative to restore and protect
native fish populations and the quality of the state's waters. Coho, chinook, and chum salmon as well as steelhead
and bull trout have been listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A successful
Oregon Plan depends on the cooperation of citizens, industry, municipalities, state and federal agencies,
agriculture, forestry, and environmental groups. Volunteer monitoring fits well into the Oregon Plan as volunteers
carry out public education and encourage local participation in watershed issues.
The Oregon Plan website emphasizes the importance of community-based action:
Government, alone, cannot conserve and restore salmon across the landscape. The Plan
recognizes that actions to conserve and restore salmon must be worked out by communities and
land owners, with local knowledge of problems and ownership in solutions. Watershed councils,
soil and water conservation districts, and other grassroots efforts are vehicles for getting the
work done. Government programs will provide regulatory and technical support to these efforts,
but the bulk of the work to conserve and restore watersheds will be done by local people.
Education is a fundamental part of community-based action. People must understand the needs
of salmon in order to make informed decisions about how to make changes to their way of life
that will accommodate the needs of the fish.
One goal of the volunteer monitoring program at DEQ is to facilitate the collection of data of sufficient quality to
meet volunteers' needs. DEQ also attempts to integrate volunteer data collection into agency monitoring efforts.
For example, volunteer data may be used in studies to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for streams
placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list. DEQ must complete TMDLs for 91 sub-basins by 2007, as illustrated
by Figure 1. Hundreds of stream segments are listed for temperature exceedence because cold water aquatic life is
one of the most sensitive beneficial uses of Oregon waters. Other common parameters for which water bodies are
listed are sedimentation, habitat modification, dissolved oxygen, and bacteria.
Technical support provided by the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator includes assistance in developing quality
assurance plans, training volunteers to use monitoring equipment, verifying their sampling techniques, and
assisting them with data submission to DEQ. The Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator works closely with three
regional monitoring coordinators in the Laboratory to coordinate volunteer efforts with DEQ data collection.
Volunteer monitors in Oregon usually work through watershed councils and organizations of stakeholders and
citizens recognized by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). OWEB originated in 1988 to
provide technical and financial support to stakeholders actively restoring Oregon waters. Several watershed ,
councils secure funding from OWEB for a paid monitoring coordinator or receive interns from a program called
Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE). Technical groups such as soil and water conservation
districts and other state and federal agencies work with the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator to collect and store
consistent water quality data.
DEQ purchased high quality monitoring equipment for volunteers with a grant from OWEB in 1998. Purchasing
the equipment in bulk and distributing it to volunteers saved tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to the
financial savings, the consistency gained from having all volunteers using identical equipment, capable of
attaining the accuracy and precision criteria adopted by DEQ, is critical. Volunteers agree to submit a sampling
plan, follow certain protocols, and share data with DEQ in exchange for the equipment.
62
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
LoiocrSnaka- '
A»tln*
# of sub-
Target basins
1999-2
2000 - 6
2001 - 1-5
2002 - 7
2003 - 20
I] 2004 -10
2005 - 6
2006-13 .
2007-12
91
'Indicates sub-basins without
wateitodies listed on the I9Q8
303(d)list
Revised Target Dates 9/14/99
Figure 1: Schedule of TMDLs (for 91 subbasins in Oregon)
Methods of Volunteer Training
Established monitoring protocols are crucial for maintaining consistency among volunteers' techniques. The
Oregon Plan monitoring team, comprising representatives from DEQ, and Oregon Departments of Agriculture,
Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, and Water Resources, compiled water quality monitoring protocols in a guidebook.
Volunteers using DEQ equipment agree to follow the Oregon Plan protocols for measuring pH, conductivity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and collecting macroinvertebrates. The Technical Water Quality
Monitoring Guidebook also has chapters to help volunteers design their study, choose sampling locations, and
understand the importance of quality assurance and quality control.
Volunteers attend trainings in which they learn to calibrate, maintain, and use the equipment according to Oregon
Plan protocols. Trainings also cover Quality Assurance plans, modeled after the EPA Volunteer Monitor's Guide
to Quality Assurance Project Plans. DEQ provides an example plan on its website from which volunteers may
develop their own plans.
Duplicates and split samples between DEQ and the volunteers serve to improve consistency of measurements and
data quality. The Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator may duplicate field measurements with volunteers or bring
samples back to the DEQ laboratory for analysis. This auditing bolsters volunteer confidence and validates their
data to potential users.
DEQ asks that volunteers manage their own data and provide initial quality control checks like duplicate sample
agreement or temperature audits of data loggers. Volunteers then assign a data quality level based on these factors
as well as meeting the data quality objectives in their sampling plans. If volunteers want their data input into the
DEQ Laboratory database, they must submit locational information, e.g. latitude and longitude, river basin, and
hydrologic unit. DEQ provides a spreadsheet entitled Data Reporting Format on its website to assist volunteers in
organizing their data. Table 1 contains the essential information that must accompany volunteer data.
DEQ attempts to maintain contact with approximately 40 volunteer groups throughout the year, recognizing that
participants change, forget methods, and benefit from repeated instruction. The DEQ laboratory website posts
copies of the Oregon Plan monitoring protocols and a volunteer monitoring newsletter. The newsletter is a
combination of technical articles and those written by volunteer monitors about their projects.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
63
-------
Conference Proceedings
Table 1: An example of information that should accompany volunteer data submitted to
Oregon DEQ. HUG = Hydrologic Unit Code; WRD = Oregon Water Resources Department
ORGAN-
IZATION
Volunteer
Creek
WSC
:=
LAT/LO
NG
SOURCE
uses,
Juniper
Butte, OR,
7.5" Quad,
1:24,000
SITE
DESCRIP
-TION
(Location)
Volunteer
Creek @
Highway
10
—
RIVER
BASIN
Willamette
ELEVA-
TION (ft.)
1500
:^=^=
SUB-
BASIN
Yamhill
LAT.
DEC.
45
ssss^ss:
HUC (4th
field)
17090008
LAT.
MIN.
15
SSS^SSS^S
RIVER
MILE
25.5
LAT.
SEC.
7.7
^^^•n^^^MBI^B^^H
RIVER
MILE
SOURCE
WRD,
Hood
Drainage
Basin,
Map 4.6
LONG.
DEC.
123
m^^^^SSSS^Sm
STATIO
NID
VC-5
LONG.
MIN.
10
SS^^SSSSSS^S
DATE
06/09/98
LONG.
SEC.
27.2
j^H^^SS53
TIME
14:30
Volunteers'Motivation and Use of Data
Oregon volunteers begin monitoring for a variety of reasons, but most consider it one of their highest priorities to
educate their communities and increase public understanding of the link between land use and water quality.
Many take pride in the ownership that comes from testing water quality in their own backyards, whether their
interest lies with control of noxious weeds in a coastal lake or tracking the temperature increase in a stream from
the forested headwaters to arid range lands. A completed monitoring season is a tangible accomplishment to bring
back to the community and may be an element of a watershed council's Action Plan. One volunteer identified a
goal of their program: "be safe and have fun." Another group hasn't missed a monthly sampling since summer of
1998 because "we all feel the information has value, we enjoy getting out looking at our streams, and we enjoy
each other's company. If one of us can't make it, we always request a re-schedule so we don't miss out!"
Water quality monitoring presents a unique opportunity to involve land owners. The Long Tom (Eugene, OR) and
North Fork John Day (Monument, OR) watershed councils have focused on land owner involvement as a portion
of their monitoring projects. The Long Tom council is assisting agricultural land owners in collecting samples of
runoff from their property and evaluating whether or not land use changes (e.g. planting buffer strips, timing
fertilizer application) are resulting hi water quality improvements. The North Fork John Day volunteers include
enthusiastic science students at Monument High School who serve as water quality ambassadors to land owners in
this high desert environment.
Many watershed councils come from areas where the Oregon Department of Agriculture is developing water
quality management plans to reduce agricultural non-point source pollution. Several councils are using volunteer
data as baseline measurements. They will compare with measurements taken after certain agricultural practices
are changed. The Yamhill watershed council, for example (McMinnville, OR), located in the fertile Willamette
Valley, has monitored continuous temperature for two years at 20 sites. This data from agricultural lands
supplements temperature data collected at the headwaters by the Bureau of Land Management.
Volunteers may begin monitoring because research indicates very little water quality data exist on which to base
judgements. This prompted monitoring by the Clatsop watershed councils, located along the north coast, and the
North Santiam council, located on a tributary from the Cascade Mountains to the Willamette River. Filling in data
gaps can be useful in completing a watershed assessment and in building an understanding of seasonal fluctuations
in water quality.
Watershed councils often use their data to identify areas in which riparian restoration is most needed and will
bring the most benefit to the aquatic community. The Applegate watershed council (Jacksonville, OR) reviewed
three years of field monitoring baseline information and determined that sedimentation, temperature and dissolved
oxygen were the parameters of greatest concern. This year they are monitoring tributaries intensively for these
parameters. Their priority is to identify, enhance, and protect cold water refugia for salmon.
Volunteers use traditional and electronic means to communicate information. Several councils maintain web
pages and update them with current monitoring information. Newsletters circulated to the council and interested
64
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
citizens are popular for highlighting monitoring as well as other accomplishments. Local newspapers are also an
effective resource to recruit new volunteers, announce workshops, and report findings. Volunteer monitors make
regular presentations to their watershed councils, speak at public meetings, and educate the next generation of
water quality stewards through local schools.
Agency Use of Data
Watershed councils often intend that an agency use their data. Volunteers must adhere to strict quality assurance
and overcome skepticism about volunteer data quality to accomplish this. Volunteer data are more likely to be
used if the volunteers have met with DEQ at the beginning of the project to discuss their goals and proposed
methods.
Though many volunteers' first contact is the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, councils may also work directly
with the DEQ regional office near them. The South Coast/Lower Rogue watershed council and Curry Soil and
Water Conservation District worked with the DEQ, Coos Bay office on an assessment of riparian conditions. This
group supplemented interpretation of aerial photographs with measurements of stream channel characteristics and
riparian vegetation. Their results were used to predict site potential for shade and consequently temperature
reduction. They also completed inventories of forest logging roads, analyzing such sediment-contributing factors
as undersized culverts, poor drainage, and excess erosion.
A volunteer with the Williamson watershed council (Chiloquin, OR) in south central Oregon installed 12
continuous temperature data loggers in the Williamson River and its tributaries. DEQ hired a remote sensing
contractor that uses Forward-looking Infrared technology (FLIR) to detect heat given off by a stream and hence,
its temperature. The data the volunteer collected is being used to verify the remote sensing information. Figure 2
presents a component of the volunteer-collected Williamson River data.
This season, DEQ will be working intensively in the Nehalem River watershed because the TMDL for this basin is
due in 2001. DEQ is using at least two years of continuous temperature data collected by the Upper and Lower
Nehalem watershed councils to decide which areas in the watershed need the most intensive sampling this
summer. DEQ followed a similar process in 1999 with data collected by the Nestucca-Neskowin watershed
council. This council has also provided valuable storm-related bacteria data, being able to respond quickly when
storms occur.
V* S*
Figure 2: Maximum daily temperatures recorded on the Williamson River -
50 yards upstream (W10) and 3/4 miles downstream (W11) of a tributary, the
Sprague River (W9). Data collected and processed by Jim Walthers, Williamson
Watershed Council, Chiloquin, OR.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
65
-------
Conference Proceedings
Conclusions
The Oregon DEQ Volunteer Monitoring Program is part of the Water Quality Monitoring Section of the
Laboratory. A Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator provides technical resources and guidance to approximately 40
groups. Volunteers have access to high quality monitoring equipment and follow established protocols, which
increases the precision of the data collected statewide.
Volunteer monitoring presents challenges to both DEQ and the volunteer participants. As with many volunteer
activities, responsibilities often fall on a small group of people, or the watershed council coordinator. Leaders
may struggle to maintain interest and commitment among volunteers. Combining monitoring with other
watershed activities like tree planting or estuary clean-ups is often successful in keeping volunteers and
communities engaged. Volunteer monitors are also occasionally called upon to build bridges with land owners
that perceive their relationship to monitors and state agencies as adversarial.
Funding is limited and councils may have to scale back their programs to match their budgets. DEQ has no
budget for assisting watershed councils other than the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator position. Financial
support for equipment comes from OWEB each biennium. This requires that DEQ anticipate the needs of
councils over the next two years or that councils secure their own funding for resupply or equipment replacement.
The Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator works statewide and is not always successful in providing sufficient
support and technical guidance to all watershed councils involved. One volunteer commented that "DEQ
technical support is a bit nebulous," when the council needs help interpreting the data they collected.
DEQ's largest challenge lies with volunteer data management. Loading volunteer data into the agency database
depends on the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator preparing hundreds of sample locations for entry. Once data
has been entered, this database, though containing public information, is not yet accessible via the Internet to the
public.
The DEQ volunteer monitoring program begins its third year with the summer 2000 season. Each year brings
increased participation and data submission., The potential benefits to communities, DEQ, Oregon's water quality,
and ultimately endangered fish populations outweigh any temporary challenges.
References
Oregon DEQ website: www.deq.state.or.us
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook, July 1999. Order from OWEB,
255 Capitol St., NE, 3rd Floor, Salem, OR 97310-0203.
The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans, U.S. E.P.A., September 1996. Publication
number EPA 841-B-96-003.
66
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE Cs HAVE IT: COLLABORATION,
COORDINATION, COMPARABILITY
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Abby Markowitz, Tetra Tech
Presenters:
Connie Fortin, Fortin Consulting, Inc.
Minneapolis-St. Paul Area Volunteer Monitoring: A Coordinated Approach for 2000
Ric Lawson, Great Lakes Commission
Coordinating Monitoring in the Lake Michigan Basin
Eric Mendelman, Texas Watch
Coordinating Monitoring in Texas
Across the country, monitoring efforts are focusing on three important Cs- collaboration, coordination, and
comparability- as ways to increase the accessibility, efficiency, and effectiveness of data collection arid analysis.
Volunteering monitoring programs are playing a key role in many of these strategies. •
Many of these collaborative efforts are targeted in specific jurisdictional areas (Texas, Minneapolis-St. Paul) while
others are watershed or basin based (Lake Michigan). By inviting all the monitoring entities in a given area to sit
at the same table and work together to develop and implement integrated and coordinated monitoring strategies,
these collaborations are one of the ways that volunteer monitoring is moving into the mainstream.
This session included presentations about three collaborative monitoring efforts: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Lake
Michigan, and Texas. After the presentations, participants engaged in discussion and explored some of the factors
that lead to success as well as some of the institutional obstacles, challenges, and pitfalls that exist in developing
and maintaining the three Cs.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 -Austin, TX
67
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE C's HAVE IT: COLLABORATION,
COORDINATION, AND
COMPARABILITY
Minneapolis-St. Paul Area Volunteer
Monitoring: A Coordinated Approach
CONTACT INFORMATION
Connie Fortin
Fortin Consulting
215 Hamel Road, Hamel, MN 55340
phone: 763/478-3606
email: fci@iaxs.net
This paper describes the evolution of volunteer stream monitoring in the Minneapolis/St.Paul seven county metro
area. The seven county area drains to the Mississippi River. We are the headwaters state for the Mississippi River
and by improving our citizen involvement in river monitoring we hope to have a positive impact on the water
quality of the mighty Mississippi. A new coordinated monitoring program has been planned and implementation
is just beginning. The program has many goals and objectives. One noteworthy goal is to integrate professional
and volunteer monitoring data. '
Evolution of Volunteer Stream Monitoring in the Twin Cities
Volunteer stream monitoring has probably always existed in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. For years, people
have gone to the stream to look at the water. Data collected was generally unused except for education and
personal interest.
• 1995 - Hennepin Conservation District started a macroinvertebrate monitoring program. Each year the
program has over 1000 high school and college students in the streams.
. 1997 _ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources introduced a volunteer trout stream monitoring
program. This involved citizens in several counties, adjacent to Hennepin County. Hennepin County
(Minneapolis's County) has no trout streams. This has been a very successful program.
1998 _ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency started a citizen stream monitoring program. The primary
method is transparency tube readings after rain events. This is still a small program with only one site in
the metro area.
1998 - Metro Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts ask for legislative money to start a
coordinated volunteer stream monitoring program. No funds were allocated.
. 1999 _ A steering committee comprised of agencies, nonprofits and private industry was formed to look
at how to get a coordinated program started in the metro area.
. 1999 _ The Metropolitan Council, a seven county regional agency, awarded funds to plan a metro wide
coordinated volunteer stream monitoring program.
• 2000 - The metro monitoring steering committee asked for legislative money for the coordinated
program. No decision has been made yet.
• 2000 - The Metropolitan Council awarded $400,000 to start the coordinated program.
• 2000 - The Metropolitan Council agreed to develop and maintain a database that could support the
volunteer monitoring program.
In addition to the bulleted items, it is important to note that starting in about 1997, requests for training, advice on
how to start a program, and requests to be part of a program started to come in and have steadily increased. This
has placed a stress on the existing monitoring resources. At the same time, the agencies were getting increased
requests to use volunteer monitoring data. This was difficult for them because each program used different
protocols and quality assurance measures, and stored the data differently. It was obvious to everyone involved
that it was time to work together and plan a coordinated volunteer monitoring program.
Five year plan for a coordinated monitoring program
A strategic plan was written in 1999 in response to the need for a more coordinated approach to volunteer stream
monitoring in the twin cities area. Four goals were brought forth:
68
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Engaging volunteers
• Involving agencies
• Collecting and managing quality data.
Implementing the plan - .
The purpose of the plan is to:
Provide support for new and existing volunteers, as well as the organizations that support volunteer
monitoring.
• Connect water quality monitoring efforts.
Provide opportunities to compile and interpret data already being collected and expand monitoring to all
metro streams.
Provide meaningful involvement for volunteers by helping citizens access information and identify
actions they can take to protect rivers in their communities.
Build support among citizens and agencies for local and state river protection decisions.
Implementation of the plan
Implementation of the plan starts in 2000. Resources will be obtained through staff or contract means. Initial
recommendations are for a water chemist, a water biologist, and an outreach specialist. Supervising and guiding
the workforce and the program development will be the metro monitoring steering committee. The Steering
Committee reports to an umbrella organization called Watershed Partners. Watershed Partners is a group of
organizations interested in watershed education. It was the wish of the monitoring community that these efforts
remain collaborative and not reside under the direction of any one organization.
It is the goal of this program that the "staff empower and assist the local monitoring programs, direct interested
monitors to appropriate programs, and help organizations start new local monitoring programs. This program will
not "take over" any existing programs. Rather, it will strengthen existing programs by offering technical, financial
and marketing assistance. We hope that this program will be the hub of the monitoring community and will be
able to facilitate discussions among the state, regional, and local monitoring communities.
Combining professional and volunteer monitoring data
In the past, there was little collaboration among volunteer monitoring programs and between the programs and
agencies. The monitoring community recognized the need to coordinate monitoring locations, protocols, and data.
The good news is there are examples, prior to the completion of the plan, where volunteer monitoring data was
already being integrated with professional monitoring data. Integration took place in cases where the volunteer
group met with the agency, prior to sampling, to agree upon methods and quality assurance. A few examples of
this partnership include:
1997 - Hennepin Conservation District wanted MPCA to use their volunteer macroinvertebrate
monitoring results in the 305b report to Congress. HCD was able to interpret the results in a manner
consistent with other professional data sets so that the results could be combined. According to MPCA
"This is the first time we know of that information was derived from student's macroinvertebrate
collections about the condition of the stream resources was used for the 305b report"
• 1998 — Stream put on TMDL list for chlorides. Volunteers wanted to monitor chlorides. Local
conservation district called a meeting of the watershed, the volunteers, MPCA, and USGS to talk about
methods. Recommendation was to have volunteers do a watershed survey of conductivity that could
assist professionals in where to conduct their chloride monitoring.
• 1999 — River group wanted information on the river before the turn of the century. Asked MPCA to
assist them in selecting a protocol. MPCA and volunteer river group worked together to gather the
samples, another nonprofit paid for samples to be analyzed. Since sampling was done using MPCA
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
69
-------
Conference Proceedings
• protocol, results will be used in MPCA's basin assessment study in addition to being used by the river
group.
Using the information learned from the above efforts, the group knew that it was possible to cooperate with
agencies to make use of volunteer monitoring data. One of the steering committee organizations, the Metropolitan
Council, has agreed to develop and maintain a database for the volunteer monitoring data. This database will be
read-accessible to citizens, agencies, or anyone interested in viewing the data. The database will be linked to GIS
so that a map of volunteer and professional sampling sites can be produced. The database has not yet been
designed and will take a while to be completed. While the database is being designed and built the local
monitoring groups will be responsible for keeping track of their data.
Applications beyond the seven county area
The seven county coordinated volunteer stream monitoring program will be implemented this year. The
recommendations and strategies in this plan could be applied to monitoring other resources (lakes, wetlands,
groundwater) in the metro region or in other basins of the state. The need exists statewide and nationwide for
meaningful volunteer involvement, unproved communication, increased quality assurance, greater use of
volunteer collected data, efficient use of resources and a more comprehensive evaluation of our waters.
The future of Minnesota, and of the world, depends on informed citizens making the proper
decisions
- John R. Tester.
References
Watershed Partners 1999. A strategic Plan for Coordinating Volunteer Stream Monitoring in the seven-county
T\vin Cities Metropolitan Area.
John. R.Tester 1995. Minnesota's Natural Heritage. University of Minnesota Press.
70
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE C's HAVE IT: COLLABORATION,
COORDINATION, AND
COMPARABILITY
Coordinating Monitoring in the Lake
Michigan Basin
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ric Lawson
Great Lakes Commission
400 Fourth Street, Ann Arbor, Ml 48103
phone: 734/665-9135
fax: 734/665-4370
email: rlawson@glc.org
For more information:
A website has been established for the Lake Michigan
Monitoring Coordination Council at
http://wi.water.usgs.gov/lmmcc/index.html.
The Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring Project final
report will be released in early June on the Great
Lakes Commission website at http://www.glc.org. For
further information on either of these projects or the
future projects presented in this paper, contact the
author.
Additional information on Lake Michigan, including the
LaMP and AOC programs, is available online at
http://www.great-lakes.net/places/watsheds/lmich.html.
Several projects have been recently undertaken in the
Lake Michigan basin to coordinate monitoring efforts.
Both are collaborative approaches with the overall
intent to enhance the use of monitoring information
collected by a vast array of organizations in the basin.
These projects include the Lake Michigan Monitoring
Coordination Council and the Lake Michigan
Tributary Monitoring Project. Both projects offer
opportunities for volunteer monitoring programs to
gain wider use and support for their data collection
efforts.
Background
Pursuant to the 1987 protocol to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA), Lakewide Management
Plans (LaMP) are presently being developed for four of
the five Great Lakes. The Lake Michigan LaMP effort is being led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), Region 5, in cooperation with its partners in the states of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin,
the public and other federal and tribal agencies. Additionally, Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) are being prepared
for ten Lake Michigan tributaries designated as Areas of Concern by the parties to the GLWQA.
While the current draft Lake Michigan LaMP focuses strongly on toxic pollutants, the participating agencies and
stakeholders recognize that other stressors contribute to impairments of the lake and the tributaries that feed into it.
In response, the LaMP is expanding its scope to address a broader array of management issues, including loss of
habitat and biodiversity and introduction of damaging exotic species". The soon to be released draft of the LaMP
will include the results of a number of studies and monitoring efforts to determine the fate of pollutants entering
the Lake, and how they move through air or water or sediments into the food chain.
A critical component of this broader approach will be a monitoring regime that is coordinated from one
jurisdiction to another and sufficiently pomprehensive to support the ecosystem indicators which inform
management decisions. The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study will provide important data on the amount of
several critical pollutants entering the lake, their movement and how they are made available to fish and plant life.
An outstanding need remains, however, to assess the status and scope of monitoring being conducted at the state •
and local levels on major tributaries to Lake Michigan; to develop a plan for coordinating and enhancing these
efforts; and to address gaps and unmet needs in the collective monitoring and reporting regime that hamper
decision making at all levels.
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council
Overview
In the summer of 1999, several federal, state, local, and tribal agencies along with a number of non-governmental
organizations formed the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (Council) to support resource
management efforts in the Lake Michigan basin. The Council responds to the need for enhanced coordination,
communication and data management among the many agencies and organizations that conduct or benefit from
monitoring efforts in the Lake Michigan basin. The Council provides a forum to identify gaps and establish
monitoring priorities; exchange information and form partnerships; and promote standardized methodologies for
collecting and managing data to reduce costs and facilitate access to information across agency and jurisdictional
boundaries. The Council will work in cooperation with the Lake Michigan LaMP in developing and periodically
updating a monitoring plan for the Lake Michigan basin.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
71
-------
Conference Proceedings
Background
The Council reflects and responds to similar initiatives underway at state and federal levels. In 1992 the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) was formed to review water quality
monitoring activities in the United States. The ITFM's final report recommended a strategy for improving
nationwide water-quality monitoring efforts. Specifically, the strategy highlighted the need for comparable and
scientifically defensible information, interpretations, and evaluations of water-quality conditions to support
decision making at local, state, tribal, interstate and national levels. The 1998 Clean Water Action Plan echoed
these recommendations and called for the development of comparable data standards, resource classifications,
inventory methods and protocols.
In 1997 the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) was formed as the permanent successor to the
ITFM. The NWQMC's purpose is to support water quality information aspects of natural resources management
and environmental protection and to coordinate the voluntary implementation of the ITFM's recommendations.
The NWQMC includes representatives from federal, interstate, state, tribal, local, and municipal government
agencies, industry, environmental groups, universities and volunteer monitoring groups. The NWQMC is co-
chaired by USGS and U.S. EPA, with secretariat support provided by USGS. The council is a subgroup of, and
reports to, the federal Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). ACWI advises the federal government
on activities and programs designed to meet the nation's water information needs. The Water Resources Division
of USGS chairs the ACWI and has overall responsibility for the federal government's Water Information
Coordination Program. (Additional information on these groups and the Water Information Coordination Program
is available at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/uidex.html.)
Several states, including Maryland, Colorado and Arizona, have formed water quality monitoring councils to
promote collaborative efforts aimed at facilitating the effective collection, interpretation, and dissemination of
environmental monitoring data. The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council is the first such entity to be
based on an ecosystem rather than political boundaries.
Mission
The mission of the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council is to provide a forum for coordinating and
supporting monitoring activities in the Lake Michigan basin and to develop and make broadly available a shared
resource of information, based on documented standards and protocols, that is useable across agency and
jurisdictional boundaries.
Objectives
• Document monitoring activities, identify data gaps and contribute to the development of a monitoring
framework for the Lake Michigan basin in conjunction with other plans.
• Establish and maintain collaborative partnerships that link federal, state, tribal, local and non-
governmental monitoring organizations and initiatives in the Lake Michigan basin to allow for the
assessment of ecosystem resources in the basin.
• Foster the implementation of monitoring activities that document data quality and are comparable
throughout the basin.
• Support information networks that link basinwide information systems and allow efficient sharing and
updating of monitoring information.
• Provide guidance and assistance to members of the Council so they can improve general awareness of the
value of monitoring.
• Assist council members and workgroups with techniques to announce, distribute, and promote their .
products for use by the Lake Michigan monitoring community.
Membership
Council members are regularly elected and include representatives from the following groups: eight state agencies;
seven federal agencies; tribal authorities/associations; business, industry and consultants; agricultural groups; local
volunteer or environmental groups; Sea Grant Programs or university-based institutes; Lake Michigan LaMP
Forum; local government/planning agencies; and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
72
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Status and Activities to Date:
A preliminary meeting was held in April 1999 to establish a process for forming the Council, to discuss the
Council's scope and to begin drafting the Council's proposed mission, objectives, and membership structure.
Following this meeting, membership was sought from interested organizations and the inaugural meeting held in
September. The Council's mission, objectives, formal membership and voting rules, and initial workgroups were
drafted at this meeting. Council co-chairs were elected from the USGS and Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality following the September meeting. Most of the progress has been accomplished through
the workgroups discussed below.
Workgroups
Four workgroups were created at the September meeting of the Council. These workgroups met twice following
the meeting, and their progress was further discussed at the April meeting of the Council. The general focus and
progress in each workgroup is presented below.
Data Inventory and Assessment. This group assists the Great Lakes Commission in isolating issues and
key contacts for conducting an inventory and assessment of monitoring in the Lake Michigan basin. The
first draft of the inventory has been produced, and is now being reviewed by the workgroup. This group
will further assist the Commission to ensure full coverage of the basin, provide advice on database and
website design to enhance usage, and assist in the assessment and integration of the inventory results.
Monitoring Objectives. This group explores the key questions and driving forces (e.g. TMDLs, 305b
reports, Clean Water Action Plan, etc.) of monitoring projects, and determines which questions are being
answered and which are not. Determining where research objective compatibilities and incompatibilities
exist is an important function of this group. The group has developed a draft survey for Council
members that will catalog the monitoring objectives of programs conducted by member agencies. The
workgroup plans to use this information to first examine programs in the area of surface water quality
monitoring.
Watershed Pilots. This group focuses to select collaborative efforts that could be instructive for regional
work. These projects can be assessed for lessons learned from successful and unsuccessful monitoring
collaborations, as well as recommendations for improvements. This workgroup first developed a list of
current collaborative projects in the basin that would be instructive, and selected the Lake Michigan Mass
Balance Project as the most useful Case study. The group generated a short list of potential follow-up
projects that could be carried out through the Council as a pilot effort. The workgroup will next select
the most feasible of these projects, and begin work on developing a proposal for carrying out the pilot
project.
Outreach. This group will collect examples of successful monitoring coordination efforts and will seek
the most effective ways to highlight the benefits of collaboration and coordination of regional monitoring
efforts. This work should encourage support for further Council efforts and establish benchmarks. This
workgroup has developed an informational brochure to be distributed widely. It was also determined that
this group would seek support for planning a Great Lakes regional monitoring conference to be sponsored
by the Council and held in the Lake Michigan basin in Spring 2001.
Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring Project
To better understand the range of environmental monitoring information available in the Lake Michigan
watershed, the U.S. EPA, Region 5, contracted With the Great Lakes Commission to initiate the Lake Michigan
Tributary Monitoring Project. The purpose of the project is to obtain a clear picture of local monitoring activities
and data being collected in major tributaries to Lake Michigan in the form of a basinwide inventory. Monitoring
was examined in the broadest sense, focusing not only on traditional water quality conditions, but also on habitat,
wildlife, land use, nonpoint source pollution and other measures of ecosystem health.
The Commission collaborated with locally-based groups in 14 tributaries around Lake Michigan to evaluate
monitoring activities at the local level (Figure 1). The participating organizations assessed monitoring being
conducted by local agencies, utilities, industries, volunteer and other citizens groups, as well as other entities in
their watersheds. The Commission assessed information collected on the Lake Michigan tributaries through state
and federal monitoring programs. A GIS-based database of monitoring activities was developed to facilitate
broader use of. monitoring information and to help decision makers and resource managers at all levels target
limited financial resources to critical monitoring needs.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
73
-------
Conference Proceedings
A draft report on this project has been developed
and is now hi the process of review and revision.
The report includes a comprehensive review of
monitoring programs at the federal, state and local
levels for the targeted watersheds; an analysis of
gaps, inconsistencies and unmet needs; an
assessment of the adequacy of existing efforts to
support critical ecosystem indicators; and a plan
for addressing major monitoring needs,
particularly those considered most important for
lakewide management decision making. The
report has also been used at a Spring Workshop to
train members of the Lake Michigan Forum,
PACs, and other stakeholders to better determine
current, local monitoring efforts and establish
community-based monitoring programs. This
workshop resulted in the support for a volunteer
monitoring network (discussed in a later section)
to expand and enhance the use of volunteer
monitoring data in the basin.
The results outlined in the report have been
integrated into the Lake Michigan LaMP, and are
helping to drive future monitoring work in the
basin. A few of the key results include the
following:
Manistique River
Menominee River,
Door County
Green Bay/
Fox River
Sheboygan
River
Milwaukee
Estuary
Waukegon
Harbor
Grand
Traverse Bay
White Lake
Muskegon Lake
Grand River
Kalamazoo River
St. Joseph River
Grand Calumet River
Figure 1: Tributaries participating in the Lake
Michigan Tributary Monitoring Program.
• The inventory indicates good coverage of
basic water quality measures and some toxic pollutants. Physical features such as stream flow and basic
chemical components such as suspended solids and nitrogen and phosphorus content are well-monitored
in the basin.
• Little information on volunteer monitoring efforts exists in an organized framework, such as a national or
regional database. Further work is needed to gain basic information on these programs and include
information in regional databases.
• Non-water quality information is not well integrated into the monitoring knowledge base. Information in
the areas of wildlife monitoring and land use is scattered and of varying quality.
Other geographic and parametric gaps exist. Northern watersheds in the basin have limited monitoring
coverage for all parameters, and a number of specific parameters exhibit a lack of monitoring coverage
throughout the basin.
The project also supported local efforts to restore environmental quality in the ten designated Areas of Concern
(AOC) along Lake Michigan. The AOCs include rivers, lakes and bays where significant pollution problems have
impaired beneficial uses of the water body. Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) are being implemented in each of the
AOCs to clean up sources of pollution and restore the beneficial uses. The tributary monitoring project involves
all of the Lake Michigan AOCs and is being coordinated closely with local groups responsible for developing the
RAPs.
Volunteer Connections
Building on the projects presented above are two future initiatives which would expand the use of volunteer
monitoring efforts in the Lake Michigan basin. The first — an Online Monitoring Database — is a natural follow-
up to the Tributary Monitoring Project. Its purpose is to deliver the monitoring inventory over the Internet in a
GIS form. The second — a Volunteer Monitoring Network — proposes to link volunteer monitoring efforts with
decision-making authorities in the basin. While the Online Monitoring Database is a funded project scheduled to
begin in June, the Volunteer Monitoring Network is a proposal in the process of development.
74
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Online Monitoring Database
The Online Monitoring Database project will develop the Lake Michigan Monitoring Inventory Database and
integrate it with a map-based Internet interface that can be linked to Lake Michigan watersheds through the Great
Lakes Information Network (GLIN) and U.S. EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" web site, among others. Such a
product will give decision makers and the public easy access to real-time information about monitoring efforts
throughout the Lake Michigan Basin. It also will allow volunteer monitoring efforts to get wider exposure and
use. This database and Internet delivery model can be used as a pilot project for similar designs in other lake
basins, ultimately building up to a national inventory of monitoring efforts. The database can also be developed
further to integrate actual monitoring data at stream-level specificity. This project will build on current monitoring
inventory work being conducted in the basin, bringing together information from local, state and federal sources.
Once complete, the online database will be presented in map form, allowing users to search out projects within
specific subwatersheds. Within the target geography, the database will be searchable by a variety of monitoring
program specifics. The database will include metadata (information about a data set) on monitoring programs that
will help users find data sets in which they are interested. The information presented will include linkages to data
set owners, monitoring coordinators, and in some cases, directly to a site containing monitoring data.
Volunteer Monitoring Network
Environmental monitoring is conducted by a wide array of entities at all levels of government, academia, the
private sector and citizen volunteers. Currently, there is relatively little effective dialogue or structured exchange
of monitoring information between government agencies and the public, and between volunteer monitoring groups
and decision makers. Enhancing public dissemination and interpretation of monitoring information by
government agencies is a widely recognized priority. Volunteer monitoring programs also represent an important
and largely unutilized resource. In short, there is an outstanding need to expand the reciprocal exchange of
monitoring information-both "up-down" from agencies to the public, and "down-up" from citizen volunteers to
government agencies, policy makers and elected officials (Figure 2).
The goal of the Lake Michigan Volunteer Network is to support ecosystem management efforts in the Lake
Michigan Basin by expanding and enhancing the collection, dissemination, interpretation and utilization of
environmental monitoring information among all relevant parties in the basin. The network's objectives are to
enhance local volunteer monitoring efforts and establish a cooperative volunteer monitoring program
within the watershed of each major tributary to Lake Michigan;
utilize volunteer monitoring information to support resource management decision making at the local,
state and federal levels;
expand and improve the dissemination and interpretation of monitoring information collected by public
agencies;
• standardize the collection of volunteer monitoring information so it is consistent and
-------
Conference Proceedings
I/
the Lake Michigan Basin; and
• address gaps and unmet needs in the collection, dissemination and utilization of monitoring information.
The initiative would leverage the resources already organized through the Lake Michigan Monitoring
Coordination Council. The Council strongly supports the idea, has the requisite technical expertise and includes
all necessary stakeholders and project partners. A partnering entity (e.g., water resources institute) will be
identified within each state to coordinate outreach to volunteer monitoring groups and provide training and
technical guidance. Basinwide and local industry groups (e.g., Council of Great Lakes Industries) will be solicited
to coordinate and/or provide financial support and technical services (e.g., lab analysis) to local volunteer
monitoring groups. This might include a basinwide sponsor; a sponsor for each state program; and a sponsor
within each watershed. Using GLIN as a primary vehicle., the Commission would develop a comprehensive
communications program for disseminating and interpreting monitoring information (both "up-down" and "down-
up").
Acronyms
ACWI
AOC
GLWQA
GIS
GLIN
LaMP
Advisory Committee on Water
Information
Area of Concern
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
Geographic Information System
Great Lakes Information Network
Lakewide Management Plan
ITFM
NWQMC
RAP
US EPA
USGS
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality
National Water Quality
Monitoring Council
Remedial Action Plan
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
United States Geological Survey
76
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE C's HAVE IT: COLLABORATION,
COORDINATION, AND
COMPARABILITY
Coordinating Monitoring in Texas
CONTACT INFORMATION
Eric Mendelman, Coordinator
Texas Watch Program
Southwest Texas State University
Department of Geography, ELA 369
601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: 512/245-1409, fax: 512/245-2095
email: em20@swt.edu,,
Texas Watch, Texas's statewide volunteer monitoring
program, is based in the Department of Geography at
Southwest Texas State University and is funded
through an interlocal contract with the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The Texas Watch contract is managed through TNRCC's Water
Quality Standards and Assessment Section-which implements both the Federal 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution
(NFS) program and the Texas Clean Rivers Program (CRP).
The CRP was initiated in 1991 by the Texas Legislature with the passage of the Texas Clean Rivers Act. The Act
was passed in response to growing concerns that water resource issues were not being addressed in a holistic
manner. The legislation requires that water quality assessments be conducted for each river basin in Texas using
an approach that integrates water quality issues within a river^basin or watershed. To fund the program, the
TNRCC assesses a fee from permit holders for water use and wastewater discharges. The legislation directs the
TNRCC to summarize basin-wide assessments into a comprehensive statewide assessment report in
even-numbered years. The Act also requires the TNRCC to develop rules and to implement a program to issue
wastewater discharge permits on a watershed basis. All permits within a given watershed are issued in the same
year.
Coordination
TNRCC integrates the assessment and permitting functions of the agency through a Statewide Basin Management
Schedule which includes a 5 phase approach to Basin Management. The 5 phases, which are implemented over a
5 year period, include issue scoping; data collection and assessment of water quality; targeting of prioritized
problems; and strategy development and implementation, including permit review and approval. The program is
implemented by TNRCC in partnership with 15 regional agencies, including river authorities, municipal water
authorities, and regional councils, who conduct regional water quality assessments in the 23 river and coastal
basins of Texas. In each of these basins there is a designated partner agency (the contractor) who has primary
responsibility for surface water quality assessment.
Annually, the partner agency and TNRCC conduct coordinated basin monitoring meetings to establish a
comprehensive monitoring schedule. This year, volunteer water quality monitoring sites will be included in this
planning process for the first time. The data collected through these assessments is submitted to the TNRCC and
used to produce the statewide water quality inventory, known as the 305(b) report, and the list of impaired waters
or 303(d) list.
Comparability
All programs collecting data under the NPS and CRP programs, including Texas Watch, are required to develop a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) which references US EPA approved methods and protocols. The CRP
provides partner agencies with a QAPP shell containing standardized QAPP language, including data quality
objectives and monitoring schedule tables, and a format for data management plans.
Collaboration
Collaborative monitoring projects which include both volunteers and professionals build trust, communication,
and respect. This serves as a foundation for drawing volunteer monitoring into the water quality assessment
mainstream. A collaborative project provides opportunities for volunteers and professionals to exchange valuable
information about a monitoring site and the water quality concerns associated with it.
This year Texas Watch is coordinating a one day Earth Day sampling event on April 18. Professionals and
volunteers are invited to sample on the same day and submit their information to Texas Watch where it will be
posted to the Texas Watch web page in real time. The goal for participation is 2000 volunteers and professionals.
Although the goal of this event is not necessarily to scientifically assess water quality statewide on April 18, it will
create unique opportunities for professionals and volunteers to be publicly recognized for their committed efforts
to protect water quality in Texas.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
77
-------
Conference Proceedings
Additional collaborative efforts include a joint sampling project on the Colorado River in which a Colorado
Riverwatch volunteer and TNRCC professional will sample the same segment of the Colorado River. Data
produced last year by the volunteer resulted in the segment's listing on the 303(d) list. This year the TNRCC will
be sampling upstream from the volunteer's site to verity the data which support the listing.
The Caddo Lake Institute in East Texas, formerly a strictly volunteer program, has been sampling under contract
with the CRP program. Monitors who began sampling as volunteers are now sampling as professionals. The
severity of the water quality risks near Caddo Lake, the urgent need for data, and the quality of the volunteer
sampling program were key factors in the migration of volunteers to professional status.
78
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
INNOVATIVE COASTAL MONITORING
TECHNIQUES
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Ellie Ely, Volunteer Monitor newsletter
Presenters:
Mary Enstrom and Sherry Dawson, The Nature Conservancy
Underwater Citizen Science in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Peter Milholland, Friends of Casco Bay
Test Kits- A Handout on Tricks of the Trade
Lori Scinto, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
The Shoreline Alteration Citizen Monitoring Protocol- A Project Developed by
Island County/Washington State University Beach Watchers
Riley Young-Morse, University of Maine Cooperative Extension
Real-Time Detection of Toxic Phytoplankton
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 "Austin, TX
79
-------
Conference Proceedings
INNOVATIVE COASTAL MONITORING
TECHNIQUES
Underwater Citizen Science in the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary
CONTACT INFORMATION
Mary Enstrom, Director, Volunteer Stewardship
Exchange
email: menstrom@tnc.org
Sherry Dawson, Volunteer Stewardship Coordinator
email: sdawson@tnc.org
The Nature Conservancy
2250 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL 33505
phone: 305/289-9060, fax: 305/289-9084
The Nature Conservancy is a non-profit conservation
organization that is dedicated to preserving plants,
animals, and natural communities that represent the
diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and
waters they need to survive. The Nature Conservancy
opened an office in the Florida Keys in 1987. The
Conservancy's work in the Keys is dedicated to working with public and private partner organizations to promote
environmental conservation and compatible human activities. To this end, the Conservancy has created the
Volunteer Stewardship Exchange (VSE). The VSE is a service that supports organizations working to protect the
natural environment. VSE acts as a source of information, fosters collaboration among a wide range of people and
organizations, and recruits, trains, and services a network of active conservation volunteers. Currently the largest
partner of The Nature Conservancy of the Florida Keys is the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
One of the great challenges facing the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is tp monitor ecological conditions
and detect significant changes in animal and plant populations, community composition, and ecological processes.
For this purpose, a small percentage of the Sanctuary area has been set aside as special reserves where human
activity is restricted or prohibited. Researchers are monitoring the abundance and size of organisms, as well as
other parameters, inside these zones and hi reference sites of comparable habitat. By comparing the results from
inside the zones with results from outside the zones, the effect of marine zoning can be determined over time.
To help meet the challenges the Sanctuary faces, The Nature Conservancy of the Florida Keys developed the Sea
Stewards program. This program is designed to help meet the objectives of the Sanctuary's Research and
Monitoring Action Plan by engaging Florida Keys residents in ecological monitoring activities. The program is
specifically focused on the needs of the Sanctuary's monitoring program by:
• Targeting species and ecological processes not otherwise monitored
* Providing useful data to the five-year evaluation of the protective zones within the Sanctuary
• Engaging keys residents and Sanctuary users in evaluating the condition of Sanctuary resources and the
effectiveness of Sanctuary management
Sea Stewards volunteers are assigned to a reef within a marine protected zone, known as a Sanctuary Preservation
Area, where human use is allowed but taking or disturbing any marine inhabitant is prohibited. They are also
assigned to a nearby reef with similar habitat where no restrictions are placed on human activity. Within each of
the assigned reef areas, Sea Stewards monitor a previously mapped area for the abundance of two species of
damselfish and four species of sea urchins. In addition they report the occurrence of "fish-cleaning stations,"
which are areas on the reef where fish and eels come to be cleaned of parasites, algae, and diseased skin patches
by cleaner shrimp and fish. Sea Stewards count and note the species of the "clients" and count the cleaners, such
as neon gobies, juvenile porkfish, banded coral shrimp, and spotted cleaner shrimp.
By comparing the data from the restricted and the unrestricted areas, scientists and managers hope to be able to
evaluate the primary or secondary effects of ending all fishing and other taking activities in the marine protective
zones. An example of primary effect would be an increase in the number and size of a species that, before
zoning, has been taken from the area—such as lobster or grouper. An example of secondary effect would be if the
increase in predators, such as grouper, caused a decrease in the number of prey species, such as damselfish.
The management plan of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary went into effect in July 1997 and must be
evaluated in 2002 to determine its effectiveness in protecting marine biodiversity and enhancing human values
related to the Sanctuary. The data collected by Sea Stewards volunteers will be an important component of this
evaluation.
80
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
INNOVATIVE COASTAL MONITORING
TECHNIQUES
Test Kits- A Handout on Tricks of the
Trade
Presentation highlights:
CONTACT INFORMATION
Pete Milholland, Citizen Stewards Coordinator
Friends of Casco Bay
2 Fort Road, South Portland, ME 04106
phone: 207/799-8574, fax: 207/799-7224
email: pmilholland@cascobay.org
Know your test kits!
- Gather all the information you can about the equipment in your kits
- Include Material Safety Data sheets, poison control hotline # for your state and local area
- Can you lock your kit so young children cannot get in them and harm themselves?
- What can you add to them to improve the accuracy of the data you are going to collect?
Dissolved Oxygen tips
- Add a third DO bottle to your kits to increase repeatability of the samples being processed
- Use a direct reading titrator tip to decrease the size of each droplet of thiosulfate to be 0.1 mg/1
- Include a graduated cylinder in your kit to accurately measure the exact amount of solution to be •
processed
Sampling Buckets
- If possible, splice a line onto the bail of your bucket to reduce the possibility of losing it while sampling
- Drill a hole at a specific height to assure a repeatable volume of water being sampled every time you
sample
- Also, by drilling a hole in your bucket, you can reduce the chances of sample contamination from
constantly putting your hands in the bucket.
Know your chemicals
- Find out what the shelf life is for EACH chemical reagent in your kit
- Label each bottle (and cap) with expiration date, and number each in the order of when it is to be added
to the sample
- Consider buying chemicals in bulk and save well-earned money
Extras to add to your kits
- Magnifying lens to see the markings on titrators and hydrometers better
- Stick with yarn as a wind indicator
- Bait bags to attach to the end of your Secchi disk
Working with your vendor
- If you are working with a water quality kit that does not quite meet your specifications, ask your vendor
if they .will help create a kit that includes all that you would want. Most vendors are willing to help
modify their kits- especially if they know that you are going to be purchasing many of them, or if there is
a need for these modifications by other groups.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
81
-------
Conference Proceedings
INNOVATIVE COASTAL MONITORING
TECHNIQUES
The Shoreline Alteration Citizen
Monitoring Protocol - A Project Developed
by Island County/Washington State
University Beach Watchers
CONTACT INFORMATION
Lori Scinto, Environmental Scientist
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
PO Box 40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900
phone: 360/407-7337, fax: 360/407-7333
email: lscinto@psat.wa.gov
Overview
In the spring of 1999, under a Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Fund contract with the Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Team, Island County/WSU Beach Watchers worked in conjunction with four other Puget Sound
citizen monitoring groups to develop a protocol for measuring shoreline alteration (also referred to as shoreline
armoring or hardening). The Action Team was concerned with measuring shoreline alteration because a 1994
British Columbia/Washington State Marine Science Panel Report cited near shore habitat loss as the greatest
environmental threat to the health of Puget Sound; shoreline alteration directly contributes to near shore habitat
loss. '
The Beach Watchers measured the extent of shoreline armoring on approximately 125 miles of Whidbey Island's
155-mile shoreline, producing a shoreline alteration percentage similar to that reported by professional scientists at
the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team distributed
Beach Watchers' final report on the protocol to appropriate planning staff and elected officials from counties,
cities and tribes in Washington State.
Project Development
Preliminary work for the project included development of a survey form and instruction sheet that Beach Watcher
volunteers could use in the field. Beach Watchers designed the survey form.to document man-made structures
including bulkheads, sea walls, docks, jetties and groins along the shoreline. This form can be used on variable
length beach sections as well as on 150-foot beach sections. (The 150-foot sections were already in use by two
other Puget Sound citizen monitoring groups that participated in the project. These groups use 150-foot segments
for monitoring various near shore and estuarine parameters because this is a common shoreline property lot size
delineation for the counties in Puget Sound).
Beach Watchers explored a variety of tools for measuring shoreline hardening including TOPO! Interactive Maps
on CD ROM, Rolatape*, electronic chartmeters, etc. Beach Watcher volunteers used the Rolatape* to measure
stretches of shoreline containing shoreline alteration. (Volunteers used the instrument to measure both shoreline
hardening structures as well as unaltered segments between those structures on any given stretch of beach). They
used either the TOPO! software or the electronic chartmeter to measure long stretches of unaltered shoreline. The
TOPO! software contains a drawing function, which allows tracing of the high tide line on the map in order to
obtain a length for any given segment of shoreline. Beach Watcher volunteers also printed out copies of TOPO!
maps for use with the electronic chartmeter. The chartmeter was then used to trace the distance of any given
segment directly on the printed map. (The Beach Watchers found that measurements obtained through the use of
the TOPO! software and the electronic chartmeter were comparable. However, the TOPO! drawing program was
more user friendly than the chartmeter). After volunteers collected the data for 125 miles of shoreline, the Beach
Watchers developed a database and completed the process of data entry.
Training consisted of a demonstration of the measuring tools and an explanation of the survey form. Each
participant was given an instruction sheet explaining the protocol. A poster-sized map of Whidbey Island was
available at the training session for volunteers and project team members to select and mark off sections of
shoreline they wanted to survey. Interest from the Whidbey Island community was so strong that the Beach
Watchers ran out of shoreline before it could assign all of its volunteers.
Results and Products
The Beach Watchers measured the extent of shoreline armoring on approximately 125 miles of Whidbey Island's
155-mile shoreline. (The group intends to measure the 30 miles still remaining. There are some volunteers who
have not yet surveyed their sections and on some sections, there were access issues that the group is still working
to resolve).
82
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
The data showed that just over 22% of Whidbey Island's shoreline had been altered. This result was very similar
to Washington Department of Natural Resources' finding of just over 20% alteration for the entire 155 miles of
Whidbey Island shoreline. The Beach Watchers produced a 30-page report describing the project and results. The
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team published Beach Watchers' data in its biennial report on the health of
Puget Sound, the 2000 Puget Sound Update. The Action Team also recently distributed Beach Watchers' final
report on the protocol to appropriate planning staff and elected officials from counties, cities and tribes in
Washington State so that they would know that it is available for their use in activities such as gathering data for
revisions to county shoreline master programs.
Conclusion •
Beach Watchers' shoreline alteration survey shows that trained citizen monitors can quickly compile significant
data on a critical feature of near shore habitat. Long stretches of shoreline can be inventoried in a relatively short
period of time (in this case, in less than two months), providing a snapshot of conditions during a particular
season. Because the data can be easily compiled, it .would be possible to repeat the survey over time (e.g., every
three to five years) to monitor changes. This shoreline alteration data will be of interest to county planners, policy
makers, citizens who live on shoreline property and others.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
83
-------
Conference Proceedings
INNOVATIVE COASTAL MONITORING
TECHNIQUES
Real-Time Detection of Toxic
Phytoplankton
CONTACT INFORMATION
Riley Young-Morse
University of Maine Cooperative Extension,
235 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 309
Waldoboro, Maine 04572
phone: 207/832-0343, fax: 207/832-0377
email: rmorse@umext.maine.edu
Introduction
Phytoplankton species such as Alexandrium spp.,
Dinophysis spp., Prorocentrum spp., or Pseudo-
nitzschia spp. can pose a threat to shellfish safety and public health (Table 1). These types of phytoplanktoh may
"bloom" in a given area when conditions are right, and an active monitoring project can be extremely effective in
promoting shellfish safety to the public by identifying these organisms and determining when they are present. If
shellfish ingest the toxic phytoplankton they are not affected, but they carry the marine biotoxin. If a human
ingests the shellfish carrying the toxin, it may result in sickness, and in rare instances death, depending on the
toxin involved. Certain phytoplankton species can also pose a threat to finfish (Table 2). These species can cause
gill irritation, clog gills, or deplete the water of oxygen.
Table 1. Some toxic phytoplankton important in the U.S. (from The Volunteer Monitor, Vol. 10, no. 2 Fall
•98)
*Human Illness on Canadian east coast; marine animal illness on U.S. West Coast
Phytoplankton
Alexandrium
Pseudo-
nitzschia
Gymnodinium
breve
Dinophysis spp.
Illness Caused
PSP (Paralytic Shellfish
Poisoning)
ASP (Amnesiac
Shellfish Poisoning)
NSP (Neurotoxic
Shellfish Poisoning)
DSP (Diarrhetic
Shellfish Poisoning)
U.S. Outbreaks
New England; West
Coast
No human illness
reported in U.S.
Southeast coast;
Gulf of Mexico
No human illness
reported in U.S.
Symptoms
Numbness of lips and fingers; lack
of coordination. Respiratory
failure in severe cases. Can be fatal
Abdominal cramps, disorientation.
Permanent memory loss in severe
cases. Can be fatal
Gastroenteritis; painful
amplification of sensation. No
deaths have been reported
Gastroenteritis. Nonfatal.
Table 2: Effects Of harmful phytoplankton on finfish (from: Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae.
Hallegraeff, G.M. et al (eds.). IOC Manual and Guides No. 33, UNESCO 1995.
Species
Chaetocerous convolutus
Alexandrium tamarense
and
A.fundyense
Gyrodinium aureolum
Ceratium fusus
Noctiluca miliaris
Phaeocystis pouchetii
Mesodinium rubrum
Heterosigma spp
Harmful Concentration
>2-5 cells/ml for Salmonids , irritates
gill causing the production of mucus,
which may lead to blood hypoxia
Food web accumulation-not well
documented
Gill Damage
Gill Irritation
Gill Damage
Mucus clogs gills
Depletes O2
Strips gills of mucus, leading to
osmoregulatory problems
Reference
Bell, 1961;Rensel, 1993; Taylor,
1993
White, 1980; Mortenson, 1985;
Jennifer Martin, 1998
Rensel and prentice, 1979
Okaichi and Nishio, 1976
Gaines and Taylor, 1986
Jennifer Martin, 1998
Okaichi et al., 1989, Onoue et al.,
1990;Tanakaefa/., 1994
84
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
In Maine, monitoring for marine biotoxins is conducted by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR),
which monitors for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), caused by Alexandrium spp. Detection of PSP by
regulatory agencies has been responsible for causing closures of shellfish harvest areas Gulf-wide. In addition to
threatening public health, it can result in extreme revenue loss to shellfish harvesters. There are additional species
of toxic algae which could potentially be present in Maine waters, for which monitoring is not generally
conducted. These algae include; members of the Pseudo-nitzschia genus, which can cause Amnesiac Shellfish
Poisoning (ASP); some species of the Dinophysis genus, and Prorocentrum lima which can cause Diarrhetic
Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB's) caused by non-toxic species can also present serious ,
issues to both shellfish and finfish aquaculturists.
•HAB's are increasing in severity, geographic distribution, and in species being adversely affected. Volunteer
based monitoring efforts have proven to play an integral role in providing essential data on algae blooms which
aids the DMR in quantifying marine biotoxins in Maine.
The Maine Phytoplankton Monitoring Program began in 1996, when the need arose to enhance the capacity to
detect harmful algae, particularly Alexandrium spp. which carries the toxin known to cause PSP. The University
of Maine Cooperative Extension, in collaboration with the Maine Department of Marine Resources and the US
Food and Drag Administration, Worked together to create an innovative volunteer-based phytoplankton
monitoring program. This program was designed to supplement the traditional state-conducted biotoxin
monitoring programs by looking for phytoplankton species in the water column that are potentially carrying
toxins, and can be observed prior to the detection of toxicity in the shellfish. Toxic phytoplankton can show up
several days before the shellfish themselves become toxic. HAB's have also been observed to begin in one area
and spread out to other areas over time. This real-time data collection provides an almost instantaneous picture of
what is happening in the water column at the time the sample is taken.
This program has two major'objectives: to assist regulatory agencies with marine biotoxin monitoring efforts by
providing early-warning detection of potentially toxic phytoplankton; and to determine if a correlation exists
between potentially toxigenic phytoplankton in the water and a toxic event in shellfish.
The program in Maine currently has 25 monitoring groups covering 40 sampling locations along the coast of
Maine with approximately 80 volunteers. Volunteers monitor weekly from April through October and send data
reports directly to the biotoxin team at DMR, where to date there are over 1800 data entries on phytoplankton
populations from the volunteers. The monitoring groups have collected data on the abundance and distribution of
phytoplankton in Maine waters that could potentially affect public health. Over time, these data will also
contribute to the growing body of knowledge on phytoplankton in the Gulf of Maine, which can be utilized by
scientists to identify trends in abundance and distribution of phytoplankton.
The Maine Phytoplankton Monitoring program has been very successful with trained citizen groups conducting
this monitoring. Staff have developed standard operating procedures and sampling protocols and have conducted
a yearly refresher training program for all monitors. Guidelines have bepn established for volunteers to record their
observations on the various species of algae. Results are transmitted to DMR via fax, using data collection sheets.
The volunteer data are stored in a computer database at the DMR laboratory in Boothbay Harbor.
Methods
The volunteers conduct a qualitative count of phytoplankton, noting the relative abundance of target species, and
reporting these observations as undetected, rare, common or abundant.
Collection of samples: Using a 20 micron, 1-meter long plankton net, three minute tows are conducted.
The sample is concentrated into a collection bottle at the cod end, and removed for examination.
Additional measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity can be taken at this time.
• Examination of sample: Using capillary tubes, a small amount of the sample is drawn up from the
collection bottle. The capillary tube is placed on the stage of a field microscope and examined
immediately at 100X magnification. Three fields of view are counted for each capillary tube, and two
tubes are examined for each sample (for a total of 6 fields of view). The entire number of organisms
found in the field of view is noted, as well as the number of target species. In addition, dominant species
are noted on the data sheet.
• Real-time reporting: Data sheets are faxed to DMR upon completion. This allows the biotoxin
scientists at DMR to act immediately if potentially toxic species are detected in an area.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
85
-------
Conference Proceedings
Volunteers and students involved in this project sample at least one time per week (preferably twice a week when
blooms begin). If potentially harmful algae is detected in an area, additional samples are taken to further monitor
the presence and abundance of these organisms. This is important in gaining a broader understanding of when and
why harmful algae species are blooming, and factors that might be responsible for the blooms, such as light,
temperature, nutrients and food supply. (For approximate operating costs and list of equipment used see Table 3.)
Table 3: Equipment used and approximate operating costs.
Equipment
Field microscopes
Plankton nets
Collection bottles and capillary tubes
Thermometer
Additional Equipment
Refractometer (salinity)
Dissolved Oxygen meter
Digital Camera (to verify identification)
Video Camera (to verify identification)
Approximate Cost
$600
$100
$20
$5
Approximate Cost
$150
$1200
$200-$ 1000
$300-$800
Program Successes
The benefit of a real-time phytoplankton detection program has already been observed. Over the last few
sampling seasons, Alexandrium spp. cells have been detected days prior to toxicity showing up in the shellfish.
Another success of the program was the observation of the presence of large numbers ofDinophysis spp. in
Maine, a genus known to have species responsible for causing Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). Dinophysis
was known to exist in Maine, but not to the extent it was being reported by volunteers. This attracted the attention
of researchers, and resulted in efforts to address these new findings. The results of the study indicated that the
species ofDinophysis found in Maine were not toxic, and that another species known to cause DSP was present in
Maine, Prorocentrum lima (Morton 1999).
New Directions
This program has already increased knowledge of harmful algal blooms along the coast of Maine. Using
information from citizen gathered data, new protocols have been developed for quantifying cell counts and a
methodology is being developed for sampling an epiphytic species of phytoplankton believed to be associated
with diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) in Maine (Morton etal, 1999.)
This year, we will be incorporating more area aquaculturists into our growing network. HAB's are an important
issue for both shellfish and finfish aquaculturists. These sampling protocols can easily be used to monitor around
finfish pens and shellfish operations. It would be advantageous for aquaculturists to be aware of the presence of
toxic species, or blooms of species known to cause fish kills that might be occurring near fish pens and shellfish
farms so that preventative measures may be taken if necessary. This year, the Maine Phytoplankton Monitoring
Program is also participating in a research project with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute by taking coastal
quantitative samples of phytoplankton. This relationship to the scientific community strengthens the credibility of
the program, and empowers citizens by linking them to research in the Gulf of Maine.
Conclusion
To date, an extensive database containing information on phytoplankton populations along the coast of Maine has
been generated. With the help of these data, it might be possible correlate the toxic phytoplankton in the water
column with toxins present hi shellfish such as mussels, surf clams, and soft-shell clams. If a correlation does
exist, real-time information can be incorporated from this project into the PSP monitoring program and be used as
an early indication system for marine biotoxins.
Literature cited
Morton, S.L. et al. 1999. Evidence of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning along the coast of Maine. Journal of Shellfish
Research. 18:681-686.
86
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
INTRODUCTION TO DATA MANAGEMENT AND
THE STORET APPROACH
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Jeff Schloss, UNH Cooperative Extension
Presenters:
Jeff Schloss, UNH Cooperative Extension
Data Management Systems: Some Basic Considerations
Marty McComb, USEPA Region 8; Patrick Detscher; Florida Department of
Environmental Protection; Alice Mayio, USEPA
The STORET Approach
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
87
-------
Conference Proceedings
INTRODUCTION TO DATA
MANAGEMENT AND THE STORET
APPROACH
Introduction to Data Management: Some
Basic Considerations
CONTACT INFORMATION
Jeff Schloss
University of New Hampshire
Cooperative Extension-Water Resources
224 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main St., Durham, NH 03824
phone: 603/862-3848, fax: 603/862-0107
email: jeff.schloss@unh.edu
While the primary goal of this session is to provide you
with an overview of the STORET data base system, it is the first of a series of sessions that will deal with different
approaches and tools for data management. These additional sessions will include demonstration sessions for
STORET as well as spreadsheet software (Excel); additional data base systems such as ED AS (Ecological Data
Application System) and web based data entry. To better decide what approach is the best for your program, we
need to take a step back and consider the various factors that should lead you through the decision process.
In a perfect world, this decision would be a "no-brainer." As a model volunteer monitoring program you would
have already completed an extensive study design, consulted with your participants, stakeholders and data-users,
and received final input from your technical advisory committee and steering committee, to produce clear and
concise data collecting, analysis and reporting objectives. Of course this would all be documented in your Quality
Assurance Project Plan. But let's be realistic here! You most likely have a program well underway and now its
time to sort out how to deal with your data.
"Sort out" is a good lead-in to data management. Think of all of the things you need to keep track of: the who,
what, where, and how of your sampling program, the summaries of your data that will lead you through to your
findings and conclusions, the stories you want to tell from your data. This is the stuff that is written on field data
sheets, lab analysis results and chain of custody forms. In addition, how are you to capture weather and water
conditions, special observations, QA/QC samples, or sample preservation details from those field data sheets?
From your lab data sheets or reports do you have raw or calculated results or both? What are your reporting units?
Do you need to capture holding times or special comments? Would someone outside of your program using your
data know these details? Details about your data are termed metadata. Metadata becomes extremely important
when you coordinate data obtained through different programs or put out your data for sharing. Some database
systems, like ST ORET, can capture much of this metadata and display it on demand. Other volunteer programs
have found it more convenient to list these details in separate files made available to data users.
Metadata is just one consideration when evaluating data management systems. All systems offer some approach to
organizing our data. Most serve to archive our data for future use. Some allow us to streamline and validate the
data entry process. For example, the system will react to a pH that is entered above 14 by causing the computer to
beep or an error message to appear. Or a more complicated system may "flag" a secchi disk entry that is deeper
than the site depth previously entered. Differences also occur as how these systems sort and subset data for our
data summaries. Some can only offer basic summaries while others can calculate specific metrics and extensive
statistical summaries. Some allow for extensive "relational" selection, sorting and grouping through complicated
data queries that can search through the data and pull out only those entries that meet multiple criteria or can be
linked in some way. The latest systems can even include and display locational (spatial) data or work in
conjunction with Geographic Information Systems.
Many of us start at the most basic of questions- should our data management system be built using a spreadsheet
or database system? Some of the pros and cons to each type are listed in Table 1 below. Advances in hardware
and software are starting to blur some of these distinctions as spreadsheets now offer database functionality and
databases are becoming user-friendlier. Some programs choose to use both types of systems where one is used as
the data entry or archiving tool while the other is used to create summaries, reports or graphics.
In addition, there may already be a system out there that has already been developed for programs similar to yours.
There are important "big picture" considerations here that involve an assessment of your resources both monetary
and in the computer expertise your program has. Along the same lines, what is available as outside support? What
is the long-term outlook on these resources? If you are relying on a volunteer to support your data management
efforts and you lose that volunteer, will you still be able to run the system? If you are relying on someone else's
software, will it be upgraded and maintained? Then there are the best-fit considerations like how well the system
conforms to your data entry structure and data analysis and reporting needs.
88
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Table 1. Some Pros (+) and Cons (-) of Spreadsheets and Databases
Spreadsheets
+ Have an easier learning curve
+ Easier to calculate formulas and conversions
+ Easier to generate graphics
+ Can set up "templates" for consistent entry and
analysis
- Queries are more difficult and less powerful
- Hard to link different types of data sets
- Not as efficient for large data sets
Databases
- More training needed to use
- Harder to program
+ More efficient for large data sets
+ Can relate and connect different types of datasets
+ Can be designed to look like datasheets for ease
of data entry and can flag errors
+ Perform extensive relational queries
+ Can template summaries and report output
There are also many little details, all of which cannot be covered here, that need consideration. These range from
how the system handles missing data, below detection limit situations (TNTC, below detectable limit, secchi disk
bottom outs, etc), suspect values and comments. For data management you really need to sweat the small stuff, as
it will come back to haunt you (read: screw up your data analysis!) in the end. Most important, you need to
consider who your primary data users are and what their specific data needs are that must be met. Possible data
users include:
• Participants
• WatersheaVLake/River/Landowner Associations
• Volunteer and Elected Decision-makers
• State or Federal Agencies
Interest Recreational Groups/Sporting Clubs
• Industry
• Researchers/Educators
To have an agency utilize your data you may need to provide it in a very specific format or even a designated
database system. If the^ are not your primary data user, though, you may elect to utilize your own choice of data
management system that works best for your program and develop or obtain tools to upload or "batch" your data
from your system to theirs. However, if a single system can meet all of your needs it may be the way to go as less
time would be involved in data management
As you consider the data management systems presented at this conference be sure to evaluate them completely in
the context of your specific needs. Learn what they do as well as what they do not do. Do you have or can you
obtain what is needed to facilitate the use, adoption and/or conversion to the system? How have other monitoring
programs incorporated these systems? What were their (or what might be your) barriers to implementation and can
you surmount them?
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
89
-------
Conference Proceedings
INTRODUCTION TO DATA
MANAGEMENT AND THE STORET
APPROACH
The STORET Approach
CONTACT INFORMATION
For more information, contact STORET User
Assistance at phone: (800) 424-9067 or e-mail:
STORET@epa.gov.
Further information including the name and phone
number of EPA Regional Office STORET coordinators
is available through the STORET webpage at
www.epa.gov/storet
STORET is a national repository for water quality,
biological, habitat and physical data of documented
quality and is used by state environmental agencies,
EPA and other federal agencies, universities, volunteer
monitoring organizations, and many others. By organizing your data in STORET, you'll be able to maintain a
record of your monitoring efforts while sharing the information you collect with others. State, local, and federal
water quality specialists from around the country will use the data in STORET to evaluate water quality
conditions, make planning decisions, and generate reports. Volunteer monitoring programs should consider using
STORET if they would like their data to be used in this way along with other high quality state, tribal, local,
federal and university data.
STORET, which is PC-based and has been modernized from its original mainframe version, requires basic
information about your sampling efforts in order to ensure that the data are of documented quality. STORET asks
each organization to enter information on how it conducts the business of monitoring, such as who is doing the
monitoring and what, where, when, how, and why you are monitoring. Once you have made an initial investment
of time in entering these data - essentially customizing your copy of STORET to reflect your monitoring
program- data entry is relatively swift.
Data submitted to the EPA STORET warehouse are now available via the internet. With a standard web browser,
you can browse the data interactively or create files to be downloaded to your computer.
To enter data into STORET, you need a copy of the CD-ROM with the STORET software (which is available free
from EPA), as well as a copy of a commercially available relational database management software package
called Oracle. Your organization needs to decide whether it will be more effective for you to host your copy of
the database from a single computer or to place it on a shared network to be accessed by more than one user at a
time. Some EPA Regions and states are assisting their users in establishing network-based configurations.
Each EPA Region has a STORET coordinator who supports the implementation and use of STORET in that
Region. Your Regional coordinator should be able to assist you hi getting a copy of STORET and help you get
enrolled in a STORET training session. This 2 to 2.5 day course explains how to install, operate and maintain
STORET. It also covers accessing STORET data from the STORET Warehouse using a web browser and
incorporating the data into commonly used software such as spreadsheets. This course is intended for STORET
clients and can be customized to meet specific interests and needs.
90
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDY DESIGN: DECIDING WHY, WHAT, HOW,
WHEN, AND WHERE TO MONITOR
SESSION INFORMATION:
No individual papers were submitted for this overview and discussion session
Moderators and Presenters:
Geoff Dates
River Watch Program, River Network
6 Poor Farm Road, Hartland, VT 05048
phone and fax: 802/436-2544
email: gdates@rivernetwork.org
Angie Reed
River Watch Program, River Network
RR 4 Box 4250, Houlton, ME 04730
phone: 207/532-4889, fax: 207/532-2480
email: areed@rivernetwork.org
The purpose of this workshop was to help participants make nitty-gritty study design decisions.
Why do a study design?
Because variability happens! Not only that, there are several types of variability:
• Natural variability that is both time & scale dependent (e.g. dissolved oxygen, channel meanders,
biological community composition)
• Human-caused variability that is also time & scale dependent (e.g. pollution, hydro-modification)
• Variability caused by sampling & analysis (e.g inconsistent or inaccurate, techniques)
Monitoring and assessment is all about understanding these 3 types of variability. However, in order to truly
understand them, we would need to measure everything, everywhere, all the time! Since we can't do that, we
sample the environment and use these samples to represent the truth we will never know.
A study design is the process by which we make choices in how to sample the environment. We make these
choices to maximize the signals we're trying to measure, and minimize the noise from things we aren't.
What Is a Study Design?
Study design is both a process you use to make decisions about your monitoring, and a document you create that
puts your decisions in writing. The process looks like this:
Step 1: What Is Already Known About Your Watershed?
Step 2: Why Are You Monitoring?
StepS: What Will You Monitor?
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
91
-------
Conference Proceedings
Step 4: What Are Your Data Quality Objectives?
Step 5: How Will You Monitor?
Step 6: Where Will You Monitor?
Step 7: When Will You Monitor?
Step 8: What Are Your Quality Assurance Measures?
Step 9: How Will You Manage, Analyze, & Report the Data?
Step 10: What Are the Tasks, and Who Will Do Them?
Within each of these steps are myriad choices. For a description of these choices, see "Developing A Watershed
Monitoring Plan" in the proceedings of the 5th National Volunteer Monitoring Conference (EPA#841-R-97-007). .
92
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
FROM SAMPLING TO SUSTAINABILITY: USING
INDICATORS TO CONNECT MONITORING TO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
SESSION INFORMATION:
No individual papers were submitted for this interactive workshop and discussion session
Moderator:
Otto Gutenson, USEPA
Presenter:
Michele Witten
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy
104 East State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602
phone: 802/229-6070, fax: 802/229-6076
email: mwitten@gmied.org
Workshop participants explored the question, "If we adopted the framework of sustainability as the guide for our
monitoring efforts, what types of information/indicators/measures would we want to collect/monitor?"
Indicators are direct or indirect measures of some valued component, or quality, of a defined system, used to assess
and communicate the status and trends of that system's health. Indicators are used for a variety of purposes,
including Monitoring and Evaluation. For Monitoring and Evaluation purposes, indicators should answer the
question, "How is the system changing?" They may help users to identify areas to monitor related to goals;
determine measures of success; monitor changes in the community; or judge the effectiveness of actions taken. In
the context of a watershed management, a system of indicators has many potential uses:
• To monitor and communicate watershed status and trends
• To measure progress on watershed management plan goals and objectives
• To point toward reference data underlying the indicators, facilitating information, sharing and creating
synergy
• To demonstrate linkages between scientific research and policy decisions, and environmental results
To identify data gaps and research/policy needs
To demonstrate watershed or local-level commitment, and follow through to decision makers outside the
watershed
There are hundreds of components in a watershed system, many of which might have value for various reasons in a
watershed, but it is not reasonable to measure them all. Watershed managers need a way to organize the
components, and there are several frameworks available, including Pressure-State-Response, EPA's Hierarchy of
Indicators, Chesapeake Bay's Hierarchy of Indicators, Government Performance and Results Act, and so'on. The
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
93
-------
Conference Proceedings
Green Mountain Institute, working with sustainable community projects, has developed a framework that can be
useful for thinking about a system of indicators of sustainability.
Sustainability is defined as the ability to meet existing needs without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. Andrew Grigsby, from the City of Austin, discussed the Central Texas Sustainable
Indicators report with participants, including considerations and challenges related to developing water quality
indicators. There are several ways for watershed groups to connect with sustainability initiatives:
• hand over data that they already have; or
• participate in the larger discussion, help select indicators, provide supporting data; or
develop their own set of indicators within a sustainability framework.
To build an indicators system based on water quality monitoring, there are four essential phases, each guided by a
series of questions. These phases are:
1. Analyze your context;
2. Select your indicators;
3. Collect and manage your data; .and
\
4. Bring your indicators to life.
94
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
AGRICULTURAL ISSUES PANEL
SESSION INFORMATION:
No individual papers were submitted for this session.
Moderator:
Dan Smith, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA
PO Box 2890, Rm 6031-South Building
14th Street and Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250
phone: 202/720-3524, fax: 202/720-4265
email: dan.smith@usda.gov
Presenters:
Ned Meister, Director, Commodity and Regulatory Activities
Texas Farm Bureau, PO Box 2689, Waco, TX 76702-2689
phone: 254/751-2457, ax: 254/751-2671
email: nmeister@tfb-waco.org
Allan Stokes, America's Clean Water Foundation
750 First Street, NE, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20002
phone: 202/898-0908,fax:202/898-0977
email: a.stokes@acwf.org
Steve Taylor, Program Director, Missouri Corn Growers Association
Missouri Corn Merchandising Council, 3118 Emerald Lane
Jefferson City, MO 65109
phone: 573/893-4181, fax: 573/893-4612
email: staylor@mocorn.org
As volunteer monitoring moves into the mainstream, it becomes more important to strengthen partnerships among
volunteer monitoring programs and to reach out to other constituencies. Developing and strengthening partnerships
can lead to improved efficiency and success in our efforts to protect and improve water quality. Having a diverse
group of partners allows for a more holistic way of looking at our surrounding resources and deciding how to best
utilize and protect them.
This panel was organized to help establish a dialogue between the volunteer monitor and the agriculture
communities. Representatives from the Missouri Corn Growers, Texas Farm Bureau, and America's Clean Water
Foundation participated in the panel and engaged in an open discussion with the audience. Each representative gave
a brief presentation on the work their organization is doing and the connections that exist with volunteer monitoring
groups. Following their presentations, panelists and audience members began to explore some of the issues and
obstacles confronting the agricultural and volunteer monitoring communities. The discussion also yielded some
ideas for overcoming these obstacles and building partnerships.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
95
-------
Conference Proceedings
Each gave a brief presentation on the work their organization is doing and the connections that exist with volunteer
monitoring groups. Following the presentations, panelists and participants began to explore some of the issues and
obstacles confronting agriculture and volunteer monitoring:
• Agriculture and volunteer monitoring folks both cited lack of trust and cooperation as a key hindrance in
establishing partnerships. The Farm Bureau representative suggested that each state volunteer coordinator
contact that states' Farm Bureau Environmental Coordinator. Picking up the telephone to arrange a
meeting could be the first step to building a mutually beneficial relationship.
• All agreed that in order to build trust, both groups should resist the urge to polarize communities.
Emotionally-charged outreach tactics were cited as a commonly used tool (by both groups) to divide
communities.
• One major concern of agricultural landowners is confidentiality of water quality information from specific
locations. The farming community and the volunteer monitoring community may be able to work together
to promote aggregated data, or other types of data that are of a quality that is acceptable to both groups.
-,
At the close of the session it was apparent that this panel discussion had provided an important opportunity for the
two groups to begin an open dialogue. In order for volunteer monitoring to be increasingly accepted and respected,
it will be vital to keep open the lines of communication with a wide variety of partners- including those in the
agricultural community.
96
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
EYE ON RECOVERY: MONITORING
RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Wenley Ferguson, Save the Bay (Rl)
Presenters:
Leah Graff, Izaak Walton League of America
Volunteer Monitoring of Stream Restoration: Muddy Branch Case Study
Wenley Ferguson, Save the Bay (Rl)
From Fill to Phragmites: How Community Groups Can Assess and Restore Their
Tidal Marshes
Donna Meyers, Coastal Watershed Council
Helpful Hints: Designing a Complete Monitoring Plan for Your Restoration Project
Introduction to the Session:
Different definitions of restoration
1950s view of restoration involved "fixing" erosion problems by changing a natural system into a concrete channel
with a sole purpose of moving water away from an area as quickly as possible. After realizing the ecological,
economic and social problems that this method of dealing with streams caused, restoration has broadened to consider
the biological, chemical, physical and cultural integrity of watersheds.
• Society for Ecological Restoration: "Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and
management of ecological integrity. Ecological integrity includes a critical range of variability in
biodiversity, ecological processes, and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural
practices." [Not just the stream functions but also the human and cultural aspects]
National Research Council: "Restoration is reestablishment of the structure and function of ecosystems.
Ecological restoration is the process of returning an ecosystem as closely as possible to predisturbance
conditions and functions." [Implies that ecosystems are naturally dynamic. Cannot recreate a system
exactly. Restore the stream's self-sustaining, yet ever-changing (dynamic) nature.]
Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices: "Restoration... is a holistic process not
achieved through the isolated manipulation of individual elements... Restoration ... includes a broad range
of actions and measures designed to enable stream corridors to recover dynamic equilibrium and function at
a self-sustaining level. The first and most critical step in implementing restoration is to, where possible, halt
disturbance activities causing degradation or preventing recovery of the ecosystem. Restoration actions may
range from passive approaches that involve removal or attenuation of chronic disturbance activities to
active restoration that involves intervention and installation of measures to repair damages to the structure
of stream corridors."
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
97
-------
Conference Proceedings
A Process
Understand how the stream or wetland to be restored functions and recognize what is a healthy system
verses a system that needs restoration. Remember that restoration can mean doing nothing!
• Set project goals.
• Look at the whole watershed and fix the causes of problems first.
Stream example - fix stormwater issues first before installing a project to stop a bank from falling in. The
amount of water the stream now carries will be the same, so worse erosion downstream or ripping out of me
project will result.
Wetland example - educate people to stop planting invasive exotic species on their property rather than just
remove invasives from the adjacent wetland over and over again
• Fund raise
• Involve members of the community
• Develop a monitoring and maintenance strategy '
• Conduct pre-project monitoring and site analysis
Use monitoring information to design project
• Obtain permits
• Install project
• Conduct post-project monitoring and maintenance
The Role for Volunteers In Restoration
Many volunteer monitors get into restoration because they discover the stream or wetland is unhealthy through their
monitoring efforts and want to do more than just turn over data to a state or local government entity. Volunteers can
be involved in restoration in many ways:
• Through monitoring, they may realize a stream is in need of restoration and may start pushing for
restoration work to be done.
• Participating as partners in a watershed assessment process
• Overseeing restoration work to make sure ecological goals are achieved
• Raising funds
• Installing some restoration device techniques
• Conducting on-going monitoring
• Maintaining the site
Always seek technical help throughout a project. Also, the more partners with a variety of backgrounds that can be
involved in a project, the better the project will be.
How do you know if you have achieved restoration ?
Trying to evaluate a restoration project based on one of the definitions above would be difficult and meaningless.
For each project, goals need to be set that can be achieved given the constraints of time, money and land uses in the
watershed. Goals also need to take project scale into account. Are you working on an entire watershed, or just a
small stream segment?
98
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Monitoring is vital both to measure project success and to make the project successful. Monitoring should take place
before, during and after restoration projects. In addition, a reference site should be chosen and monitored for
comparison to the restoration site. Monitoring during and after a project can reveal problems with the project that
can be solved through maintenance. Therefore, it is important for monitors to communicate with the people
responsible for maintaining the site.
Challenges? . '
As the attention of flinders is shifting from monitoring to restoration, money often is not available for the monitoring
or maintenance needed to make restoration projects successful. As restoration is an evolving science, solid
monitoring data would benefit the entire field of restoration hi addition to allowing groups to track the success of a
particular project.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
99
-------
Conference Proceedings
EYE ON RECOVERY: MONITORING
RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
Volunteer Monitoring of Stream
Restoration: Muddy Branch Case Study
CONTACT INFORMATION
Leah Graff, Technical Coordinator
Save Our Streams
Izaak Walton League of America
707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878
phone: 301/548-0150 ext. 219
or (800) BUG-IWLA (284-4952)
fax: 301/548-0146
email: leah@iwla.org
Stream Doctor™ Project
In 1994, the Izaak Walton League's Save Our Streams
(SOS) Program developed a process for stream
restoration that compares the stream to a sick patient,
and the volunteer to the doctor taking care of the patient. The Stream Doctor™ Project suggests that the volunteer
first examines and diagnoses the stream through monitoring, cures the stream through restoration, and provides long-
term care through continued monitoring and maintenance. Save Our Streams started Stream Doctor™ as a way to
direct the energy of enthusiastic stream monitors into taking action to repair the streams they discover to have poor
water quality.
The Stream Doctor™ Project teaches citizens to restore streams through bioengineering. Bioengineering is a method
of streambank restoration that involves regrading slopes and planting native vegetation in engineered patterns. The
planting pattern adds structural stability to the slopes, which are strengthened by the root structures as the plants
begin to grow. The vegetation then provides wildlife benefits, in-stream food and shelter, cools the water
temperature, and keeps banks stable.
Restoration of Muddy Branch
Through monitoring workshops held at the League's national headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, SOS
volunteers discovered that Muddy Branch, the creek that runs through the League's property, has poor water quality
and severely eroded banks. Muddy Branch is a tributary of the Potomac River, which runs into the Chesapeake Bay.
For a long time, Save Our Streams used slides of the steep, barren banks of Muddy Branch as an example of the
types of problems that can addressed by volunteers through bioengineering.
SOS saw the League's national headquarters as a perfect opportunity to restore a stream, educate the public, and
develop a case study of stream restoration and ecological property management. The League received funding from
the Environmental Protection Agency's 5-Star Restoration Challenge Program, AT&T, Philip Morris Companies
Inc., and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The funding covered equipment, materials, and staff time to restore
about 400 linear feet of streambank, to educate 60 people in stream restoration techniques, and to provide a
volunteer work-day for another 60 people.
The League's partners in this project included the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection,
City of Gaithersburg, Montgomery County Conservation Corps, Wildlife Habitat Council, and the Izaak Walton
League's Maryland Division. Working closely with these partners brought many benefits to the project. At the first
meeting, the partners were asked what benefits they would receive from participating in the project and what assets
they could offer the project. All of the partners made generous in-kind donations of staff time and provided helpful
technical and networking assistance. In addition, the City of Gaithersburg donated plants and other restoration
materials while the Montgomery County Conservation Corps lent equipment, as well as labor, to the project. Both
the county and city had surveyed and evaluated the Muddy Branch watershed and prioritized site for restoration.
This data helped complement the macroinvertebrate data gathered by SOS volunteers.
Stream Restoration Workshops and Project Installation
The three-day restoration workshop introduces watershed and stream ecology and dynamics, how to recognize
potential problems, the advantages of bioengineering as an alternative to traditional structural engineering in stream
channels, and how to plan a restoration project. Participants also learn about the importance of monitoring and
maintenance to the long-term success of projects. Uses of a variety of monitoring techniques are explored.
Participants learn a variety of stream restoration techniques using bioengineering. In teams, participants complete a
site inventory and analysis, and design a restoration plan using monitoring and background data provided. On the
last day, participants install a restoration project, incorporating elements from the plans they designed in teams.
Over the course of two workshops and two volunteer workdays, more than 400 linear feet of streambank were
restored. Bioengineering techniques used included live pole cuttings, regrading banks and creating terraces, fascine
100
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
bundles, erosion control fabric, brush layering, and brush mattressing. Container plants of wetland emergents,
floodplain trees, and shrubs rounded out the project.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
Although Save Our Streams advocates taking a watershed approach to restoration, the Muddy Branch project site
was selected because it was on the League's property. The county and city had identified the portion of Muddy
Branch where the project is located to be in need of restoration, but a watershed wide assessment was not used to
determine the specific site location. SOS did start the restoration work with the segment furthest upstream on the
League's property and worked downstream. Also, SOS is waiting to attempt restoration of some of the more
degraded downstream segments until some storm water issues are addressed by the city.
The project would benefit from additional planning to assist local volunteers in setting up a regular monitoring and
maintenance schedule. The volunteers will need some direction. SOS plans to remedy this problem by holding
special monitoring and maintenance workshops on the property for the local volunteers.
During the first three-day restoration training workshop, participants accomplished much of the pre-project
monitoring. The second workshop eliminated most of the hands-on monitoring because, in the limited time,
participants wanted to focus more on restoration techniques. For the second three-day restoration training workshop,
SOS included brief monitoring demonstrations, and provided necessary monitoring data and background information
on the site in notebooks to help participants design appropriate stream restoration techniques as part of their team
exercises. This change in workshop format means that the project will rely more heavily on the monitoring and
maintenance efforts of the local volunteers.
Another monitoring challenge is that it can be difficult to teach workshop participants how to use monitoring data
directly for design. Some of the data that is more significant to the design process for stream restoration includes
stream flow, stream classification, channel morphology and other data not often collected by volunteers. Monitoring
macroinvertebrates is important- especially if a restoration goal is water quality or improved habitat- but
macroinvertebrate data does not address which specific design elements should be included in a project to prevent
bank erosion.
Future Involvement of Volunteers in Restoration Projects
Through the Stream Doctor™ Project, Save Our Streams plans to involve volunteers in multiple aspects of
restoration projects. Volunteers could play a key role in assessing watersheds to: prioritize sites for'restoration;
monitor sites before, during and after project installation; conduct project maintenance; install bioengineering
techniques; and perform some aspects of project design.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
101
-------
Conference Proceedings
EYE ON RECOVERY: MONITORING
RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
From Fill to Phragmites: How Community
Groups can Assess and Restore their Tidal
Marshes
CONTACT INFORMATION
Wenley Ferguson, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
Save The Bay
434 Smith Street, Providence, Rl 02908
phone: 401/272-3540
fax: 401/273-7153
email: wferguson@savebay.org
Background
Community groups and volunteers can play an integral role in every stage of a restoration project from identifying
human impacts to a salt marsh to conducting pre and post restoration monitoring. Save The Bay developed a tool
volunteers can use to assess the restoration potential of degraded salt marshes called the Narragansett Bay Method.
This assessment method is a quantitative and qualitative tool for characterizing the health of both tidal and formerly
tidal marshes. The assessment method was designed to be used by interested citizens, .land trusts, neighborhood
organizations and town boards. The protocol focuses on easily identifiable impacts to a salt marsh and its buffer.
Save The Bay adapted the method from the New Hampshire Audubon Society's Coastal Method. The goal of the
salt marsh assessment is to:
• evaluate relative health of salt marshes,
• build stewardship for salt marsh protection and restoration,
• provide important baseline information for future restoration efforts,
• identify areas that need land protection measures, and
• help local communities plan pro-active salt marsh restoration projects.
The assessment method is not meant to fully determine the technical or economic feasibility of restoring a particular
salt marsh. Rather, it is a useful tool for building a base of local knowledge about the current health of a marsh to
determine, in a preliminary way, a site's potential for successful restoration. The method also helps identify salt
marshes that are healthy but may be threatened by development adjacent to a marsh.
The protocol focused on easily identifiable impacts to salt marshes and their associated upland buffer. To conduct
the assessment, volunteers used aerial photographs and GIS maps to assist them in identifying human impacts to a
salt marsh and to map both activities in and adjacent to a marsh. The volunteers also ground-truthed both the GIS
maps and aerial photographs. Volunteers identified salt marsh impacts such as:
• extent coverage of Phragmites australis
• the condition and size of the upland salt marsh buffer
• presence of tidal restrictions such as roads or railroads
• presence of fill material
• extent and condition of mosquito ditching
• land use surrounding the marsh
• land ownership of the salt marsh
• artificial structures on the marsh i.e. raised walkways, docks, boats
evidence of cutting of salt marsh or buffer plants
A critical aspect of the salt marsh assessments was to ensure high QA/QC of the evaluations. As a first step,
volunteers attended a day-long training session that included both a field and classroom component. Save The Bay
102
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
staff reviewed completed evaluations and assigned each a "credibility" rating. Staff consulted with volunteers to •
clarify data sheets and conducted site visits to verify volunteer findings.
A benefit to involving community volunteers in the salt marsh assessment is that citizens provide valuable
information about the history of a marsh. For example, local knowledge is key to identifying what, how and when
disturbances occurred to the marsh or what plants and animals used to be found in the marsh. Community
involvement is also crucial to ensure that local residents are both educated and aware of the benefits and value of
restoration. .
Based upon the salt marsh assessments, Save The Bay created a list of potential salt marsh restoration projects and
shared those results with Rhode Island's Coastal Habitation Restoration team and state legislators to build support
for a state fund for coastal habitat restoration. Currently, Save The Bay is collaborating with a variety of local and
state partners on the planning, design and implementation of these restoration projects. By linking individuals,
communities, scientists and decision makers together, the Narragansett Bay method created a solid foundation for
planning locally defined and initiated salt marsh restoration projects.
Volunteer Monitoring: A Critical Component of Salt Marsh Restoration Projects
As a follow up to the salt marsh restoration assessment, volunteer monitors can gather important data that can be
used in determining whether a salt marsh is in need of restoration. Such activities include:
• conducting tidal surveys,
• staking the edge of the Phragmites to determine if the Phragmites is expanding, and
• monitoring salinity levels up and downstream of a tidal restriction to determine the severity of the
restriction.
Restoration Monitoring
Volunteers can assist in the long-term monitoring of a restoration project's success. Monitoring should be conducted
for a minimum of five years and ideally up to ten years to track a restoration project's success. Due to the length of
time associated with post restoration monitoring, it is important to establish a realistic monitoring program that can
be easily conducted by volunteers from year to year. For example, permanent photo stations are a simple yet
effective way to monitor long-term changes in the marsh, specifically the coverage, height and density of
Phragmites or other invasive plants.
Monitoring plans should incorporate methods that are replicable and that are most important to measuring the
success of restoration goals. Pre and post restoration monitoring can include:
• establishing vegetative transects,
• sampling soil salinity using PVC wells,
• recording height, density and percent cover of vegetation,
• observing wildlife and
establishing photo stations.
For further reference, states such as New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York have established pre'and post
restoration monitoring guidelines for state and federal funded projects.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
103
-------
Conference Proceedings
EYE ON RECOVERY: MONITORING
RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
Helpful Hints: Designing a Complete
Monitoring Plan for Your Restoration
Project
CONTACT INFORMATION
Donna Meyers, Executive Director
Coastal Watershed Council
903 Pacific Ave., Suite 207A, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
phone: 831/426-9012
fax: 831/421-0170
email: cwc_office@yahoo.com
Background
Over the last twenty years there has been increased interest in environmental restoration at the local, state and
federal levels. Restoration management is reflected in almost all approaches to improving aquatic and riparian
habitats. Restoration management takes many forms and can include riparian habitat enhancement, wetlands
enhancement, streambank stabilization techniques, alternative floodplain management, and targeted eradication of
exotic species. Restoration can be broadly classified as (1) natural or passive restoration or (2) active restoration
(Natural Research Council, New Strategies for America's Watersheds, 1999). Natural or passive restoration happens
when the watershed is allowed to recover naturally and anthropogenic impediments to that recovery are removed
(ie., removing grazing cattle from stream areas). Active restoration incorporates practices designed to fill an
ecological void or accelerate natural recovery (ie., putting large woody debris in streams).
All restoration types (whether passive or active) require improved scientific knowledge and predictive capabilities to
reach their full benefit. Scientific knowledge and data are still often lacking for many decisions regarding restoration
activities. Specifically, there is a lack of pre- and post-monitoring data for the majority of restoration projects that
are implemented on the ground. Gathering data for restoration projects is extremely important and critical to the
increasing knowledge base on restoration effectiveness in aquatic ecosystems.
This presentation advocates for a new role for volunteer monitoring programs: restoration effectiveness monitoring.
The discussion will include suggestions for designing and implementing accurate physical, biological and habitat
monitoring both before restoration occurs and following construction of a restoration project. Two case studies from
the Central Coast of California will be used:
• Arana Creek Restoration Project: A project involving streambank stabilization along a 300 foot section of a
small urbanized stream. Additional elements include extension of an existing fish ladder to stabilize
streambed elevation and removal of exotic species in the riparian corridor.
• Gazos Creek Restoration Project: A project involving in-stream habitat restoration along a 3 mile section of
a pristine coastal stream. Project goals are to restore in-stream spawning, rearing and cover areas for coho
salmon and steelhead trout. Restoration was mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency following a
Clean Water Act violation by the local public works agency.
Monitoring Elements for Restoration Projects
Arana Creek Project
Vegetation survey
— On-site exotic species mapped
- On-site native species mapped
Fisheries habitat
- Stream channel morphology
- In-stream habitat characteristics
- Canopy cover
— Large woody debris survey
- Pool, riffle, run habitat measured
Stream Geomorphology
— Longitudinal profiles
— Cross sections
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Gazos Creek Project
Stream Geomorphology
- Longitudinal profiles
— Cross-sections
Fisheries habitat
— Pebble counts
- Embeddedness
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Water quality and temperature
104
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Elements of a Restoration Monitoring Plan
• Design your monitoring plan concurrently with your restoration plan
• The monitoring plan needs to address the key elements of the restoration project at a variety of time scales
The monitoring plan should be designed to determine whether your restoration objectives were met
• Monitor the right indicators to determine success
• Identify what to monitor and consider:
Cost effectiveness
Repeatability
Adaptability
Quantitative vs. qualitative data
Quality assurance
Detail how you will respond to you findings .
Plan for the long term (1 -5 years)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000-Austin, TX
105
-------
Conference Proceedings
DATA MANAGEMENT IN ACTION 1: STORET
AND EXCEL-BASED DEMOS
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Ken Cooke, Kentucky Waterwatch
Presenters:
Elizabeth Herron, University of Rhode Island- Watershed Watch
Excel-Based Data Management
Marty McComb, USEPA Region 8
(no paper submitted)
Dominic Roques, California Water Resources Control Board
(no paper submitted)
106
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
DATA MANAGEMENT IN ACTION 1:
STORET AND EXCEL-BASED DEMOS
Excel-Based Data Management
CONTACT INFORMATION
Elizabeth Herron
University of Rhode Island -Watershed Watch
Room 21 OB Woodward Hall, Kingston, Rl 02881
phone: 401/874-2905, fax: 401/874-4561
email: uriww@etal.uri.edu
Volunteer monitoring programs collect a tremendous
amount of useful data - but we aren't always sure how
best to handle that information. There are many
options, from just storing paper data sheets in boxes (not a great method - especially if you want someone to
actually DO something with the info), to having "professionals" manage our data in high tech databases, and all
points in between.
In this session one of those midpoints was shown- the URI Watershed Watch Excel based data files. This system
relies on many of the useful features of Excel (multiple worksheets within one workbook file, the ability to connect
between workbook files, the ability to perform calculations and statistics, graphing, etc.) to fairly effectively manage
a large multi-year data set for upwards of 100 monitoring stations. While Excel does have a variety of very useful
features, it does have some very real limitations, especially in being able to easily pull out specific information from
the larger data set. For this reason, URI Watershed Watch will be adding an Access database component to its data
management tool bag. Excel will still be used as the day to day data entry system, with the Access database being
used to store all fully proofed and calculated data. If you decide you'd like to use Excel, Excel for Dummies and
similar books are a good place to start.
When deciding upon how your program will manage its data some specific questions to ask IN ADVANCE are:
what will the data be used for? (will you need weekly results, monthly averages only?)
• can you identify specific questions that might be asked? (ways the data set might be queried in the future)
who will be handling the data? (what technical ability or support will be required)
how much data will your program be generating? (small datasets may not require as sophisticated a system
for effective data management).
If possible, have this discussion with the potential data users, or a technical advisory committee. Most importantly,
get your data into some sort of a system NOW. The longer you wait, and the more those data sheets pile up, the
harder it will be to get going. Also, remember to always check your work for data entry errors, and to keep those
paper copies in a safe place. You never know when some information that didn't get entered (or entered correctly)
might prove useful down the road.
Some additional resources:
• http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitormg/volunteer/spring95/index.html
• http://www.paradiesproductions.com/volsite/html/examples.html
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
107
-------
Conference Proceedings
ADVANCING YOUR STREAM
MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
SESSION INFORMATION:
No individual papers were submitted for this overview and discussion session
Moderator:
Geoff Dates, Director, River Watch Program
River Network
Presenters:
Geoff Dates
River Watch Program, River Network
6 Poor Farm Road, Hartland, VT 05048
phone and fax: 802/436-2544
email: gdates@rivernetwork.org
Tom Danielson
USEPA
401 M Street, SW (4502F), Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202/260-5299, fax: 202/260-8000
email: danielson.tom@epa.gov
Jim Harrison, Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta Federal Center, Atlanta, GA 30303
phone: 404/562-9271, fax: 404/562-9224 •
email: harrison.jim@epa.gov
The purpose of this workshop was to explore advanced methods for monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates in
streams, and the implications for volunteer monitoring programs.
The Context
From the Clean Water Act of 1972:
The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's Waters.
The CWA contained this national objective, but was notably sketchy on what it meant. Over the past 30 years,
biologists have defined biological integrity in various ways. I like this definition, based on that of James Karr and
others:
Biological integrity is achieved under conditions that support communities of organisms such that these
communities:
108
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
have the fall range of structure and functions
• result from natural evolutionary and bio-geographical processes
• are expected in areas with minimal impacts from modern human society
Biological integrity is essentially what we are trying to assess when we monitor benthic macroinvertebrates. Most
biologists use the following approach:
• Assess reference ("least impaired") conditions
• Assess stresses placed on natural conditions by humans
Assess response of the watershed to the stresses
• Monitor the response of the watershed ecosystem over time to our attempts to reduce the stresses
The Process ._
Monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates involves 5 basic steps:
1. Design a study
2. Collect the critters
3. Process the samples
4. Identify the samples
5. Summarize and interpret the results
Within each of these steps, there are myriad options and levels of rigor possible. We'll explore these options in the
following sections.
Step 1: Designing a Study
This involves framing study questions and then deciding
• what kind of study you will carry out
what will be your data quality objectives
• how, where, and when you will collect and analyze samples
• how you will analyze the results
As you move from basic to rigorous monitoring, your goals are to increase the extent to which your samples
represent what actually lives in the stream, and to minimize the extent to which your, sampling and analysis
introduces variability into your results. So, your monitoring strategy should be designed to meet the needs of your
program, to maximize representativeness and to minimize variability. Advanced monitoring programs do this in a
number of ways:
• They carefully select reference and study sites, and classify them into homogeneous groups.
They standardize the level of effort involved with sampling the critters, to reduce differences in abundance
caused by inconsistent sampling techniques:
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
109
-------
Conference Proceedings
• They test metrics and use multi-metric indices to measure relevant attributes of the biota.
Step 2: Collecting the Critters
There are a number of well-tested and documented ways to collect macroinvertebrates:
Grabbing Them Off the Bottom
• Frame Nets
• Seines .
• Surbers or Hess Samplers
Colonizing Artificial Substrates
Rock Baskets
• Multi-plate Samplers
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach and piece of equipment. Grabbing them off the bottom
produces samples that better represent what actually lives there, but sampling technique can vary considerably.
Using artificial substrates rigorously standardizes the collection area, but may not represent the natural habitat. Some
studies use both to assess the impact of water quality versus habitat.
Advanced programs standardize the level of effort involved with sampling by standardizing the area or time of
collection. In my experience, standardizing area works better than time for volunteer programs, with multiple people
collecting samples. They increase representativeness by collecting replicate samples, sometimes consisting of a
composite of several collection spots.
Step 3: Processing the Samples
Samples may be either processed entirely in the field, or preserved and processed in a lab. The two key decisions
are:
1. Will you process the samples entirely in the field, or preserve them and bring them back to a lab?
2. Will you identify the whole samples, or a subsample?
Advanced programs preserve the whole samples in the field, and bring them back to a lab for processing. There's a
lot of debate about whether to identify the whole sample or a part of it (subsample) and, if just a part, how much?
The idea is to avoid having to identify thousands of critters in the whole sample by identifying a representative
subsample. The trick is assuring that the subsample is representative. Most advanced programs identify the entire
sample and, if they subsample, use a constant proportion and at least 300 organisms.
Step 4: Identifying the Samples
The key decision here is what taxonomic level to identify the critters to. Most volunteer groups identify Borders, while
some identify families. Most advanced programs identify genera and species. What they gain is greater sensitivity to
changes in the stream's biota. In addition, some of the common metrics (biotic index, functional feeding groups)
gain a finer resolution, since they were originally developed for species level data.
Genus and species level identification is very difficult for people who don't do it every day. For that reason, family
is likely the lowest consistent level for most volunteer programs. However, some groups have developed subfamily
groups of genera and species to refine the metrics, without having to identify individual species.
Step 5: Summarizing and Interpreting the Results
Benthic macroinvertebrate data are summarized using metrics. These are measures of attributes of the community.
Most advanced programs use metrics in the following groups:
• Abundance
110
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Taxa Richness (EPT and Total)
• Pollution Tolerance
• Feeding Ecology
Community Composition
Metrics in each of these groups are tested regionally to assure that they respond in a predictable way to specific
stressors. The metrics that work are used in one of three ways:
1. Metrics Are Analyzed Separately: In this approach, one or more individual metrics are used to assess the
biological condition. Results for these metrics are compared with those at an actual reference site, or to
expected results based on a reference site database.
2. Metrics Are Analyzed As A Single Score (Multi-metric Index): A set of metrics is selected which responds
in a predictable way to impairment. Results for each metric are scored and aggregated into a single score
(or index). This score is compared with scores for an actual reference site or to a theoretical score (as in
biocriteria) to determine impairment. Examples: EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocol, Karr's Benthic
Index of Biotic Integrity.
3. Metrics Are Analyzed Using Multivariate Statistics: This approach consists of various statistical models that
predict the benthic macroinvertebrate metrics results that would be expected to occur at a test site in the
absence of environmental stress. Impairment is determined by comparing the metrics' results, predicted to
occur at the test site, with those actually collected at sites with environmental stressors. The power of this
approach is that it allows you to look at, and integrate, a number of variables at the same time to determine
which stressor(s) seems to be having the greatest effect on the community.
If you live in a state with biocriteria, they may guide your data interpretation and be used instead of an actual
reference site. Biocriteria are narrative or numeric expressions that describe the biological integrity of "natural"
(unimpaired) aquatic communities living in waters of a given aquatic life use. They are used to determine whether a
water body supports its designated aquatic life use under the Federal Clean Water Act.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000-Austin, TX
111
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
During the conference, there was time dedicated for regional breakout discussion sessions where people from the
same geographic regions of the country could meet and explore issues and concerns relevant to volunteer programs
in that part of the country. The goal of these facilitated discussions was to identify concrete steps that volunteer
groups in each region could take to move volunteer monitoring into the mainstream. Breakouts were organized
according to EPA's 10 geographic regions. Participants were asked to address the following three questions.
1. What progress has been made in the past few years in increasing the role of volunteer monitors in water
quality decision making in your region?
2. What obstacles/needs are preventing volunteer monitoring from playing a bigger role?
3. What are some concrete steps we can take to move volunteer monitoring (more) into ,the mainstream?
Several of the regional breakout sessions provided a discussion summary for inclusion hi these proceedings. The
notes from those regions are included here.
Which EPA Region are you in?
Region 1: CT, MA, ME, VT, NH, RI
Region 2: NY, NJ, VI, PR
Region 3: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
Region 4: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
Region 6: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
Region 7: IA, KS, MO, NE
Region 8: CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
Region 9: AZ, CA, NV, GU, HI, AS
Region 10: AK, ID, OR, WA
112
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Region 1
DISCUSSION LEADERS „
Diane Switzer, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
EPA New England
60 West View Street, Lexington, MA 02421
phone: 781/860-4377, fax: 781/860-4397
email: switzer.diane@epa.gov
Matthew Lyman
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127
phone: 860/424-3158, fax: 860/424-4055
email: matthew.lyman@po.state.ct.us
Types of volunteer monitoring groups:
Large organizations and small groups represented. Wide spectrum
of water bodies and parameters studied. Long-term programs and
new efforts; earliest dates from 1967 (Maine estuaries). State and
university associated programs, federal programs, and groups
working independently of large institutions.
Concerns:
How do we meet the demand for training in different areas of New
England, and for different monitoring skills:
There are individuals and small groups that are not reached by
national and regional meetings. We need to try to help them get .
started, and to become familiar with other people and groups that
share their interests, or can help.
Needs and recommendations:
• Consistent funding
• Regional New England wide meeting in 2001
• Workshops on specific topics held for smaller geographic areas, and /or to address a specific part of
monitoring
Would like to have a peer review of volunteer monitoring programs
• Creation of self-evaluation tools •
• Need to help groups in capacity building to develop healthy organization, outreach, and sustainable funding.
Tools are under development in this area.
Would be helpful to have resources to bring in professional experts to meet with groups, and to advise on
review and assessment of monitoring data.
• Would like state-wide meetings of program managers so they can learn about additional monitoring
techniques and develop skills that help them in working with other groups.
• Participation with schools is an important undertaking. Teachers should be encouraged to share their
experiences and promote student involvement.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
113
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Regions 2 and 3
Region 2 also includes Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands
Discussion leaders:
Rita Bruckler, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
MD Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, C-2, Annapolis, MD 21401
phone: 410/260-8696, fax: 410/260-8620
email: Rbruckler@dnr.state.md.us
Diane Wilson, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
PA Department of Environmental Protection
PO Box 8555, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
phone: 717/787-3730, fax: 717/787-9549
email: wilson.diane@dep.state.pa.us
The conference attendees from Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI)
and Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) decided to
combine forces and meet together during the regional
breakout session.
The discussion session was productive and informative. We
discussed the progress made in citizen water monitoring
throughout both regions, and came up with a number of
points.
There has been a substantial increase in the following areas:
• Citizen involvement
• Credibility and data use by state and local governments
• Number of statewide coordinators .
• Technical skills and training opportunities for citizens
• Watershed management plans
• Impact of volunteer monitoring on decision making
Of course, there is still much work to do. Some of the obstacles that we identified are:
• Funding (volunteer monitoring is cost effective but not free)
• Need for easier access to technical support
• Need to coordinate early with data users
• Greater recognition of the value of volunteer-collected data
• Need for more networking opportunities
• Some felt that the TMDL process is diverting resources away from other protection strategies
A number of steps were identified that should help move citizen monitoring into the mainstream:
• More innovative environmental education for all constituents (not just students)
• Greater effort to inform the public about the successes of citizen monitoring
• Greater involvement of volunteer monitors in local decision making
114
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
• More guidance from coordinators to local groups
• More partnerships
• More SOPs and QAPPs
• Better communication of results to the community and elected officials
• EPA should designate full-time volunteer monitoring coordinators in each region
• Regional gatherings of volunteer monitors and coordinators in years between national conferences
If we address these needs and obstacles, then citizen monitoring will become a greater part of community life and the
decision making process.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
115
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Region 4
Discussion leader:
Patti Hurley
Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management
PO Box 301463, Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
phone: 334/394-4350, fax: 334/394-4383
email: pah@adem.state.al.us
Top Needs and Requests from Region 4
• Regional meetings and training.
• Data management/STORET training in Atlanta:
— Should include mandate of working with
volunteer groups
— Should be held in various areas (if possible)
- Should address locational data management
across state lines
Coordination within EPA and among public
agencies on funding of volunteer projects in states.
• Technology Transfer Recommendations:
- Shared info on what people are doing and how
they are managing their programs
- Info sharing through an electronic newsletter
and/or "list serve"
- Volunteer monitoring web site for Region 4
— More active role hi support of volunteer monitoring by EPA Regional Volunteer Coordinator
- TMDL assistance
• Marketing of volunteer programs by EPA to the state agencies and EPA regions and hi a variety of public
venues, stressing how well volunteers can truly help hi all the processes and getting across the idea that
getting more information into a decision can make better final (or interim) decision.
• TMDL assistance for volunteer groups. Volunteers and agencies alike need to know the role, and limits of
the role, of volunteer programs hi the TMDL process. Examples of how we can really help would be
useful. Writing up a model program (like Santa Cruz) to demonstrate successful partnerships with
volunteers would be valuable.
• EPA should coordinate and help with funding/equipment to assist volunteer groups hi the identification of
water quality or other parameters as part of the TMDL process.
Region 4 Discussion at the National Volunteer Conference in Austin, Texas, April 26-30"1,2000:
I. List of a Combination of Challenges, Problems and Needs
• Data management/database compatibility
Programs fit funding criteria but don't get funded (CWAP doesn't have a place for volunteers to request).
- 319 is political disbursement of funding
- Retention of volunteers: need for recognition and celebrations (possible regionally) and awards at the
local level (state); state awards would keep volunteers up to date on current issues and progress made
by the states.
- Lack of Regional conferences
— Open up technical training facilities, i.e., hi Atlanta at EPA headquarters (need to brainstorm this one)
- STORET training
- Link up information across state lines and facilitate a grass roots approach that solicits participation
from stakeholders throughout the process
— Be involved hi the SE Water Pollution Biologist's Association conferences with examples of what we
have really done.
— Mapping: for geographical data base— by basin or watershed instead of political boundaries. Do we
have good site identification and mapping for GIS hi the future?
- Means for regular communications (Regional): list server, newsletter, web site (need volunteer state to
host this for us)
116
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
- Mandate a STORET coordinator in each state for volunteer programs working with volunteer groups
(state coordinator or program person to be paid for by the 319 program).
- How to get data into the right hands, the decision makers
H. Actual Region SUCCESSES:
• Memorandum of Agreements between Georgia and Alabama for citizens groups.
Volunteer representative on boards and citizen councils to the state and local agencies (KY and AL)
• Agencies working together with water management district/counties (St. John, FL)
Storm water management group (AL) working with permit program.
State groups that write grants together so they do not compete (KY).
Establishment of a website in Hillsborough County, Florida with 40,000 hits monthly
(www.lakesaltas.usf.edu)
• Historical information verified by the volunteers in order to help in the restoration process and in many
other programs including TMDLs.
• Long term volunteers in program and yet they only measure WQ near shore programs (FL Keys). They see
need to protect waters they care about.
— Water quality sampling added to the coral reef degradation sites (FL and we all volunteered to help
them!)
- Cities and counties have started or picked up on volunteer monitoring programs as help in the storm
water monitoring progranxas well was the water wars process (Atlanta).
- Biologists have realized the value of having more data.
in. Funding Possibilities
• Get cities and water districts to recognize and partner (GA and others)
More TMDL EPA money for volunteer groups to closely monitor best management practices, over the long
term
. • Coordination and collaboration among agencies on the importance of volunteers.
• Show the key needs of all states that would assist in collaboration and funding for
- Database and data management and sharing
- Sample analysis with state approval
- Regional conference to support these needs
- Develop some collaboration models for state agencies to work together
- Presentations at other national and regional conferences (volunteers groups need-to develop a message
and be ready to offer to go and make critical funding statements!
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
117
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Region 5
Discussion leaders:
Gary Kohlhepp
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273, Lansing, Ml 48820
phone: 517/335-1289, fax: 517/373-9958
email: kohlhepg@state.mi.us
Sarah Lehmann
USEPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd. (WT-15J)
Chicago, IL 60604
phone: 312/353-4328, fax: 312/886-0168
email: Lehmann.Sarah@epa.gov
Action Items/Recommendations
Increase regional coordination/communication
- Hold volunteer monitoring conferences and
workshops in the region (EPA lead with
coordination committee. Joan Martin and
Dana Curtis volunteered to sit on a committee)
— Set up a list server to improve communication
across the region (Illinois Ecowatch)
— Provide access to available
information/materials that would assist
volunteer groups
• Support and encourage volunteer monitoring
- Document how volunteer monitoring has benefited government and other decision-makers
- Share success stories via various means (workshops, newsletters, websites, etc.)
• Outline the objectives (data needs) at multiple scales (e.g., federal - CWA, state, local)
- Identify QA needed to meet objectives (EPA lead with workgroup support?) (Discussed at the
November EPA/State volunteer meeting as well)
- Coordinate with groups at larger geographic scales to identify needs (e.g., coordinate with Gulf of "
Mexico program to determine how mid-western volunteer monitoring can assist) (EPA provide
leadership role)
• Identify funding and other resource opportunities (share this information with others)
Discussion
Follow-up to 1996 National Volunteer Monitoring Meeting
- Regional groups are looking for U.S. EPA, Region 5 to take a more hands on approach to supporting
volunteer monitoring in the region. Mechanisms to improve coordination and communication are
needed beyond national meetings.
Coordination/Communication
This is one of the essential needs identified. In particular, the participants stressed the need to improve and maintain
channels for communicating about volunteer monitoring. Possible ways to achieve this include:
• Hold workshops
• Sponsor a list server
• Identify how volunteer data has been used by agencies/groups, etc.
• Coordinate with wider groups/geographic scales
• Act and speak collectively in identifying needs and dealing with agencies.
118
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Issues
• Federal, state, and local agency receptiveness to the data and information provided by volunteers is also a
big issue.
Regulatory and non-regulatory objectives (purposes) need to be identified, and the necessary QA described
for meeting those objectives.
• EPA can assist by playing a stronger leadership role in emphasizing the value of VM data, and encouraging
each state to maintain a volunteer monitoring coordinator.
Training
Several volunteers expressed interest in getting training in study design and statistical analysis. Consensus
on the specific level of training required was not reached.
Funding
Increased resources are necessary to continue operating volunteer organizations.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
119
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Region 6
Discussion leaders:
Mike Bira, EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue 6WQ-EW
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: 214/665-6668, fax: 214/665-6689
email: bira.mike@.epa.gov
Eric Mendelman, Texas Watch
ELA 369, SWTSU, 601 University Drive
San Marcos, TX 78666 '
phone: 512/245-1409, fax: 512/245-2035
email: em20@swt.edu
USEPA Regional Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
Mike Bira opened the session and introduced Eric
Mendelman, Program Coordinator, Southwest Texas
State University's Texas Watch as the session
moderator.
Participants were primarily from Texas, with a few from Oklahoma and Louisiana. Eric opened the discussion by
posing the question, "What is the appropriate balance of resources between investing in quality assurance guidance
and support, and providing opportunities for involvement for the greatest distribution of monitoring groups?"
The group began by discussing the expectations monitors have for the use of their data, with the focus being what
alternatives are available for volunteer data to be considered by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission in their stream designations, including the 305b report and the 303d list. The two proposals were: (1)
devote considerable resources to a few monitoring locations (25 sites per year) to ensure the highest level of quality
assurance defined by the TNRCC, under the Texas Watch QAPP, for generating data to be entered into the state's
database, and (2) taking advantage of the Texas Clean Rivers Act public input process to submit data, not as having
been pre-approved by the TNRCC, but as part of the mandated requirement that the TNRCC consider data from all
sources in its site assessment and designation determinations.
Staff from TNRCC commented that to focus resources on QC would necessarily limit the geographical distribution
of sites. Some commented that a minimum amount of QC guidance is essential, and that it is helpful for the TNRCC
to identify locations and indicators it would like to receive from volunteers, to help guide program study design.
Others suggested that to concentrate exclusively on quality assurance is to exclude a great percentage of the state's
monitors, which does not seem appropriate for a statewide volunteer monitoring organization.
Another TNRCC staff member commented that the agency is being called to task for failing to emphasize the public
input process, and that Texas Watch could serve this purpose by disseminating information to the public about how
to participate in this process.
It was noted by a volunteer monitoring group coordinator that information concerning costs and benefits, in dollars
and cents, would help strengthen involvement in his area (Houston). He also asked about the "black hole" of data
being submitted with no response coming back to the monitors. Eric reminded the group of the Texas Watch data
viewer as an avenue for monitors to view their data on the Web. Another program coordinator commented that to
continue to serve a large distribution of monitors, the monitors needed to assume responsibility for accessing the data
via this resource. TNRCC staff informed the group that the state is working to develop a Web-based data access
mechanism similar to the Texas Watch data viewer for all the data processed by the state.
A volunteer monitor commented that volunteers need to be producing information that is not only of acceptable
quality, but information that answers the questions that water resource managers are trying to answer. It was agreed
that appropriate, relevant indicators should be included in monitoring study design.
It was noted by City of Austin staff that opportunities to share successes in putting data to use to restore waterways
need to be offered, perhaps at regional or state conferences.
After the initial discussion, session participants introduced themselves and stated their current priorities. The list of
priorities included:
• to be a good monitor
• to keep citizen monitoring alive and strong in Oklahoma
• to educate communities and young people
120
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
• to produce useful data
to manage and represent the data effectively
• to understand what volunteer monitoring programs want and need
• based on experience, to communicate successful ways to use data to advocate and implement solutions
• to collect monthly water quality data for city funding decisions
• to assemble as much high quality data at the state level as possible
to take advantage of volunteer monitoring as a resource and research tool at the state level
• to use public outreach to inform and educate both volunteer monitors and the public at large (especially the
public)
• to forge alliances, strengthen collaboration, and increase the use of volunteer monitoring data
• to expand outreach to the masses
• to expand citizen monitoring opportunities in Louisiana
• to educate, inspire, and honor environmental protection efforts by young people, and to protect areas where
development threatens watersheds ,
• to support volunteer monitors and to manage quality assured data
• to help students visualize their watersheds and understand the connection between their local streams and
conditions in the Gulf of Mexico
• to establish connections between resource providers to efficiently serve the monitors and to evolve in
effective service delivery
• to respond to the growing number of participants who want to become involved, while clearly
communicating about data use
to keep volunteer monitoring in the consciousness of agencies (EPA) in funding decisions
Closing remarks:
The best friend the environment has is an involved, informed public. Political decisions have severely curtailed
government's ability to sustain volunteer environmental monitoring.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
121
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Region 7
NE
IA
KS
MO
Discussion leader:
Sharon Clifford
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102
phone: 573/751-7298, fax: 573/526-5797
email: nrclifs@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
This breakout session included much discussion of the
status of volunteer monitoring in each of the Region 7 states
represented at the meeting (Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska).
Participants discussed funding issues, monitoring methods
and equipment, key parameters, and related topics.
Some of the key questions discussed in the breakout were:
What are the obstacles to a bigger role for volunteer
monitoring in Region 7 states?
Iowa noted that the state legislature is an obstacle to an expanded role for volunteer monitoring, and that additional
staff were needed to promote the volunteer program and meet the demand for trainers etc. in the state. Nebraska cited
a need for a QA/QC program and agency acceptance of volunteer data. In Missouri, some members of the
agricultural community are creating barriers to the continued growth of volunteer monitoring in that state.
What is needed to take volunteer monitoring "into the mainstream?"
The following suggestions were offered to encourage increased acceptance of volunteer data and of volunteer
programs within the Region 7 states: volunteer data should be linked to state data; the volunteer data itself should be
more accessible; more support is needed from agency management/administrators; legislators need to be educated; a
marketing approach is needed to help "sell" volunteer monitoring; programs could be advertised through social
events; kids could help spread the word about the value of volunteer monitoring, as they are non-threatening and are
very direct.
122
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
REGIONAL BREAKOUTS
notes from Region 8
Discussion leaders:
Barb Horn
Colorado Division of Wildlife
151 E 16th, Durango, CO 81301
phone: 970/382-6667, fax: 970/247-4785
email: barb.horn@state.co.us
Tina Laidlaw, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
USEPA Region 8
8 EPR-EP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
phone: 303/312-6880, fax: 303/312-6071
email: laidlaw.tina@epa.gov
Specific issues and needs of program in Region 8 were
discussed and highlighted:
• Concern that 319 monies are used to fund volunteer
monitoring in some states, but not in others. In
particular, because of the 20% cap for 319 that can
be spent on monitoring activities, several states do
not support volunteer monitoring programs.
Specifically, Colorado does not support volunteer
monitoring efforts with 319 monies, despite the fact
that they have one of the strongest volunteer
monitoring programs in the country.
Interest was raised in support of a regional database. STORET was mentioned as one option, if EPA
Regional support was provided.
A need for Region 8, or Western, guidance documents was discussed. EPA's national documents serve as a
good template, but participants of the breakout stressed the need for guidance documents specific to
Western water issues.
The group voiced the need to increase the amount of support to the Rocky Mountain Watersheds Volunteer
Monitoring Network. This support could be from EPA, and the other groups interested in volunteer
monitoring.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
123
-------
Conference Proceedings
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GLEAN WATER ACT
ANDTMDLs
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Don Elder, River Network
Presenters:
Sharon Clifford, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
What's New on TMDLs?
Gayle Killam, River Network
(no paper submitted)
124
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CLEAN
WATER ACT AND TMDLs
What's New on TMDLs?
CONTACT INFORMATION
Sharon Clifford
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102
phone: 573/751-7298, fax: 573/526-5797
email: nrclifs@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
The TMDL issue is in. a constant state of flux. As the
regulation of water quality moves from "technology-
based" controls to "water-quality based" controls,
many precedents need to be set. It has been stated that agencies are in the same place they were in the early days of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. How are they going to implement
the changes needed to improve water quality? In the beginning, the NPDES Program was contentious and in a state
of flux. Currently the TMDL program is contentious and in a state of flux. The two primary factors influencing
change in TMDLs are litigation with the subsequent court decisions, and EPA rule changes.
Lawsuits
The 303d listing of impaired waters and production of load capacities, TMDLs, for impaired waters has been part of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) from the beginning. These facets of the CWA were largely ignored as government
focused its efforts on point sources of pollution. As the balance tipped from impairments due to point sources to
impairments due to nonpoint sources, environmental groups like the National Resource Defense Fund, Sierra Club,
American Canoe Association, and others began suing EPA over their failure to enforce this part of the CWA.
At this time, EPA TMDL web site shows 34 states being involved in lawsuits regarding TMDLs. There are more
than 40 lawsuits in total. Some states, like California, are involved in multiple lawsuits. Officially, the lawsuits are
filed against EPA to force them to force states to develop TMDLs. If a state fails to do so according to the terms set
forth by the court, EPA must be a "back stop" and develop the TMDLs for the state. Some lawsuits over TMDLs
involve individuals instead of agencies. This is one of the most litigious environmental issues ever.
The major point of the lawsuits is the requirement to identify
impaired waters (regardless of the source of impairment) and
ensure efforts to remediate water quality problems. The most
controversial issue is whether agencies have the legal authority
to develop and implement TMDLs in watersheds where
nonpoint sources are the major contributor. Will agencies
regulate/permit nonpoint sources, particularly agriculture and
forestry? Many lawsuits take issue with the timelines set forth
for the completion of TMDLs. Watersheds crossing political
jurisdictions are particularly difficult as states often have
different Water Quality Standards and listing criteria. This
difficulty can result in the same water body being listed for
different impairments. Opponents to TMDLs are concerned that states do not have adequate data to determine water
body impairments, that modeling will not accurately predict load capacities, and that implementation plans .may or
may not succeed.
Lawsuit Issues
Ensure TMDLs are completed by state
agencies or EPA
• Nonpoint source (NPS) TMDLs
• Time frame for completion
Watersheds crossing state boundaries
Scientific basis for listing and TMDLs
Lawsuit Related to NPS TMDLs
• Pronsoiino V. Marcus- California District Court
decision stating that agencies have the authority to
1 develop NPS TMDLs
• Hawes V. State of Oregon- Case filed in County
Circuit Court claiming that Oregon has "Wrongfully
Acceded" to EPA in agreeing to develop TMDLs on
NPS impairments
Originally Missouri was sued by three organizations,
the American Canoe Association, the Sierra Club and
the Soybean Association. Because all three suits
addressed TMDLs, the court has rolled them into one
suit. This complicates the issue as often the opinions
of the environmental groups are diametrically opposed
to the opinions of the agriculture group. For example,
Sierra Club wants more waters listed and Soybean
Assn. wants fewer listed. The same is true for the use
of volunteer data. Environmental groups want it used
more extensively and agricultural groups do not
believe it should be used in any way due to quality assurance issues. Does the Clean Water Act give regulatory
authority to EPA for nonpoint sources of pollution? This issue is being decided in the courts. The ruling in the
California case was seen as a major victory, but does not set a national precedent that requires an Appellate Court
decision. EPA and states are proceeding with the understanding that the Clean Water Act applies to all water
resources, including those impaired primarily by NPS.
EPA Rule Changes
Because we are at the beginning of a change in how water pollution is being addressed, changes in the program are
expected and may occur for several years to come. Agencies are working together and looking to each other for
successes to establish the best procedures for water quality based regulation.
Just prior to April 1, 2000, EPA changed the submission date for the biennial 303d list. In Missouri, a 2000 list had
been drafted, gone through public notice, been addressed in a hearing and had gone through a second public notice
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
125
-------
Conference Proceedings
before it was tabled due to pending changes in the EPA requirements. The revised 303d list will not be required to
be submitted until April 1, 2002. At this point, it is not clear whether revising the 303d list every four years instead
of every two years is a permanent change.
Changes to Proposed TMDL Rule Changes
• Drop identification of Threatened Waters
Drop public petition process
• Drop rigid approach to prioritizing impaired waters
• Drop requirements for 1.5:1.0 offset for new
discharges
Eliminate possibility of permits for runoff from diffuse
sources
Non-Changes to Proposed TMDL Rule Changes
• 15 year schedule
• Comprehensive listing of impaired waters
Identify ALL sources of impairment
Identify pollution reduction needed
Require reasonable assurance
Push implementation
EPA proposed new rules to expand the TMDL
requirements. A letter was issued April 5, 2000, by
Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator for water,
clarifying the direction EPA is going with these rules.
The communique from Mr. Fox also clarified which
elements are likely to remain in the proposed TMDL
rule. The existing rules have 5 required elements for a
TMDL:
Name & Location of water body
Margin of Safety
Seasonal Variation
Wasteload Allocation
Load Allocation
5 more required elements were to be added by the
proposed rules:
Pollutant Load
Load Reduction to meet WQ Standards
Sources
Allowance for Future Growth
Implementation Plan
Voluntary Programs and Local Involvement for Nonpoint Source Impairments
The major goal of all agencies, state and federal, is to improve water quality through NPDES permits, voluntary
programs, and Best Management Practices (BMPs). This will require local input onto feasible solutions and funding
to make solutions cost effective. Budgets for 319 grants and USDA/NRCS are increasing and more money is being
requested. EPA's TMDL web site is very informative and up-to-date. Missouri's web site is included as an example
of a state TMDL web page. Many other states have similar pages on their web sites.
Role of Volunteer Monitoring in TMDLs
States should look at all available data, when developing their 303d list, including volunteer data. Many, but not all,
states do not have an adequate ambient data set to evaluate every water body. Missouri is one of those'states.
Agency monitoring efforts have traditionally been
targeted to permitted, point source facilities. Some
waters, therefore, have little or no data generated for
them or only have data for a limited area of the
watershed. Agencies in general need more data.
Web Sites
• EPA website for TMDL information:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
Missouri DNR website for TMDL information:
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpep/wpe-tmdl.htm
Because of cost issues, most volunteer monitors are not
able to use the best available technology for
monitoring. Many times their equipment does not
exactly follow Standard Methods. This does not,
however, make their data useless. Volunteer data can help agencies screen for unknown problem areas and identify
emerging trends. Volunteers are out in the watershed much more frequently than agency personnel. Their
information can supplement existing agency data to verify and defend identified impairment. In Missouri, volunteer
data has consistently been in close agreement with agency data. Volunteers can serve a similar role in monitoring
implementation efforts to ensure they are effective.
The bottom line is that the more information decision makers have, the better decisions they will make. If volunteer
data is of a known quality and meta data is available to fully describe and document it for decision makers, it can be
a valuable addition to the body of knowledge on water resources.
Participating in water quality monitoring gives interested individuals a true understanding of the resource.
Monitoring changes ethics and behaviors. It can provide citizens with the knowledge base and confidence to speak
out on issues. If volunteer monitors are willing to get involved in the political process and influence decision makers
at all levels, they can make a huge difference in the resources committed to water quality.
One of the more important roles volunteers can play is to work on impaired waters in their local community. Since
the solution to nonpoint source impairments is locally driven watershed projects, it is important that volunteers be
willing to serve on decision making committees. Many watershed organizations are formed with the intent of
including all stakeholders. But often, only those with an economic interest in the issue actually participate.
Concerned local citizens with an understanding of the complexity of the resource can be invaluable in restoration
efforts.
126
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Missouri uses volunteer monitoring data when revising the 303d list. Chemistry values exceeding WQ standards are
pulled from the database. In the case of parameters that do not have standards, such as nitrates, a value deemed
above the normal background (in MO, 6.0 mg/L) is queried for. Parameters that are variable, such as ammonia, are
looked at if they are above 3.0 mg/L. This may or may not indicate a problem, but that determination can be made
by looking at temperature and pH data. Low invertebrate ratings are used to support biological impairment. It can
also be helpful to pull volunteer data in waters designated as impaired to get a more accurate feel for seasonal
variation, low flow levels, etc.
Missouri Stream Teams have organized into Associations according to major watersheds. Recently, several Stream.
Team associations met to form the Missouri Watershed Coalition. If funded, the coalition will help local Stream
Teams obtain grants, represent Stream Teams in the State Legislature, and serve as a resource for new teams and
watershed associations. Stream Teams are very active and effective in their advocacy efforts at all levels of decision
making. Last year, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources was allocated 45 additional full time employees
to work on data collection and TMDL issues (funded by state general revenue and EPA grants). Many believe the
increased participation by Stream Teams and other concerned citizens is in part responsible for the success of the
agency in getting support for water quality issues.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
127
-------
Conference Proceedings
MONITORING IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Michele Witten, Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy
Presenters:
Jim Harrison, USEPA Region 5
Lullwater Fork Improvement Project (Atlanta, GA USA): Integrating Innovative
Urban Watershed, Hydrology, and Planning Approaches with "the Usual"
Monitoring
Ben Barber, Illinois EcoWatch Network, Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Urban Watch: Bringing Citizens, Scientists, & Cities Together
(abstract only)
128
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
(corresponding author)
Jim Harrison, Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303
phone: 404/562-9271, fax: 404/562-9224
email: harrison.jim@epa.gov
Paul Hayward, High School Coordinator
Paideia School
1509 Ponce de Leon Ave., Atlanta, GA 30307
phone: 404/377-3491
email: hayward.paul@python.paideiaschool.org
Barrett Walker, Board Member
Alex C. Walker Educational & Charitable Foundation
1729 Coventry Place, Atlanta, GA 30030
phone: 404/378-2752
email: memberBPW@aol.com
MONITORING IN THE URBAN
ENVIRONMENT
Lullwater Fork Improvement Project
(Atlanta, GA USA): Integrating Innovative
Urban Watershed, Hydrology and
Planning Approaches with "the Usual"
Monitoring
Metro Atlanta Context
Water crises around metro Atlanta and North Georgia
are extensive and include water supply and waste water
infrastructure needs, multi-state water supply
allocation (AL, FL, GA "water wars" negotiations),
combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer leaks and
capacity problems, and storm water (AJC 2000).
Monitoring of Atlanta's urban streams through the
Metro Atlanta Urban Watershed Initiative (MAUWI
1998) revealed that most area streams are moderately
to severely degraded biologically. Stresses causing
impairment are many, including combined sewer
overflows (CSO's), sanitary sewer overflows (SSO's),
leaking sewer systems and faulty septic systems, riparian degradation, hydrologic alteration mainly due to
impervious surfaces, polluted runoff from streets/parking lots/homes, sedimentation from construction and stream
bank erosion, and point sources and illicit discharges. The primary problem preventing recovery of area streams is
storm water runoff from impervious surfaces, mainly roads, parking lots and buildings. The vast majority of metro
Atlanta streams are now listed on the State of Georgia's Section 303(d) impaired waters list, and are subject to Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development and implementation.
A wide array of interests are now engaged in debate and action concerning the future of Atlanta's streams. Governor
Barnes has convened a study group of business leaders (Pruitt 2000) to make water quality and supply
recommendations including how to address storm water runoff. Citizen's groups are active at many levels. These
groups include Georgia Legal Watch's Community Watershed Project, the Upper Chattahoochee Puverkeeper, the
Peachtree/Nancy Creek Technical Advisory Committee, the Peavine Watershed Alliance, and many others.
Lullwater Fork is a small urban stream (1.61 square miles watershed area) in Metro Atlanta, (Southern Piedmont
ecological region (Omernik 1995)). Watersheds and ecological regions are both essential spatial frameworks for
understanding aquatic resource potentials and stresses (Omernik and Bailey 1997). Lullwater Fork flows to Peavine
Creek (a tributary of the South Fork of Peachtree Creek) and then to the Chattahoochee River. The Chattahoochee is
Metro Atlanta's primary source of drinking water and, with the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, a
prominent recreational destination. The location of the Lullwater Fork Project is shown in Figure 1. Key stresses
and impacts on the Lullwater Fork of Peavine Creek include: diminished biological integrity, fecal contamination
(likely from sewer leaks, overflows and storm water), stream bank erosion due to riparian and storm water pressures,
downstream flooding and wholesale stream habitat destruction due to channelization (concrete lining and culverting)
of about 1/3 of stream length in the watershed (see Walker 1996). Such stresses are typical of Atlanta urban streams.
An independent panel of scientific and technical experts convened by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)
Risk Science Institute selected the Lullwater Fork as a proposed site for demonstrating stream restoration in Metro
Atlanta. It was recommended as a demonstration site because it is a highly degraded headwater stream that can be
rehabilitated to a healthier condition for fre least cost (ILSI 1998).
Collaborative Partnership
The Lullwater Fork Improvement Project is a collaborative effort targeting restoration and protection of a small
urban Atlanta watershed. The project is led by the Paideia School with numerous partners including: Candler Park
Neighborhood Organization, Lake Claire Neighbors, Freedom Park Conservancy, Peavine Watershed Alliance,
Southeast Waters - Americorps, Southface Energy Institute, HDL/W.L. Jorden Engineers, Center for Watershed
Protection, the Nature Conservancy, Walker Foundation, DeKalb County, local and other governments. Generous
funding has been provided by the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, DeKalb County, the
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
129
-------
Conference Proceedings
Lullwater Fork Project
Lullwater Fork Sub-Watershed
Figure 1
Alex C. Walker Educational & Charitable Foundation, Southface Energy Institute, and Paideia School. Paideia
School is a private non profit school located four miles from the center of downtown Atlanta. The school received a
donation of 4.2 acres of undeveloped land which is traversed by the Lullwater Fork of Peavine Creek. In studying
how to use its land, Paideia learned about the importance of watershed management and its effect on the school's
ownership of the property. Since the stream bank erosion and pollution problems originate up-stream, Paideia has
worked to build partnerships with property owners in the headwaters. From this study and partnership building, a
plan has developed to use the Lullwater Fork as a demonstration project for innovative community based watershed
planning and restoration. Paideia wishes to use its property as an outdoor classroom to provide environmental
education opportunities for students at Paideia and other local schools. More importantly, the concepts developed by
Paideia and its partners will be transferable to other property owners and communities as they address their own
watershed management issues.
The Lullwater Project holds regular monthly steering committee meetings to plan and carry out project actions,
coordinates with watershed interests at all scales (such as the Peavine Watershed Alliance, the Peachtree/Nancy
Creek Technical Advisory Committee, and the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper), and has convened a watershed
wide meeting (October 1999) to introduce potential storm water restoration options. Current project emphases
involve continued monitoring of stream and watershed indicators, development of education and outreach products, .
and gaining consensus among neighborhood interests on viable restoration options and funding.
Resource Monitoring
Innovative stream and watershed monitoring are underway to ensure adequate data to design and implement
restoration options, facilitate interaction among all interests, and allow evaluation of project success. Adopt-a-
Stream monitoring activities include adoption of the Lullwater Fork by the Paideia School and Mary Lin Elementary
School, regular monitoring of chemistry, habitat and biology (benthic macroinvertebrates) using the State of
Georgia's "Adopt-a-Stream" protocols, regular hosting of Adopt-a-Stream training workshops within the Peavine
Creek watershed, annual stream cleanup days, and sharing of data through the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper's
web site.
Volunteer monitoring efforts have been supplemented by benthic and fish sampling done by Chris Crow of CCR
Environmental Inc. using the Georgia Environmental Protection Divisions's biological and habitat assessment
protocols (Crow 2000). Benthic results have been compared to the Adopt-a-Stream protocol results to provide a
sound basis to begin relating the volunteer and professional results. Results are also compared to relatively
unimpacted reference site samples for two sites: Fernbank Creek in Fernbank Forest (thanks to the Fernbank Science
Center), and Snake Creek, a rural watershed also used by the USGS as a reference site for the Upper Chattahoochee.
The high proportion of impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, buildings, etc.) in the Lullwater watershed (~34%)
have resulted in significant hydrologic changes in the drainage much higher and more frequent peak flows due to
urban runoff, and likely diminished base flows due to quick runoff from hard surfaces directly connected to the
130
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
stream drainage network. These changes in steeam flow patterns (coupled with riparian vegetation removal over
significant stream reaches) greatly increased pressure on stream banks, accelerated stream bank erosion, caused
extreme widening and deepening of the steam channel, and severely diminished aquatic habitat quality (see
Schueler 1994, May and others 1997, Hammer 1972, and Booth 1994). The importance of hydrologic alterations in
the watershed (and likely in most urban watersheds) necessitates measurement of hydrologic factors to guide
refinement of storm water restoration potentials and options.
Precipitation data is gathered continuously using a "tipping.bucket" rain gage coupled with a battery powered data
logger. Rainfall is recorded in 1/100 inch increments and the data is regularly downloaded to a personal computer
by a volunteer Paideia School parent. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) have been documented so that quality
data can be collected by other trained users, and to encourage use of comparable systems by other urban watershed
groups. The total cost of this system, which uses readily available commercial components, was less than $200.
Maintenance and data management for the system takes an average 15 minutes per month.
Steam stage (water height) data is being gathered for the Candler Park Branch of Lullwater Fork by Southeast ,
Waters - AmeriCorps volunteers using an innovative, continuous recording stage logger called the Aquarpd,
developed for the Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest. This technique also allows regular download of data to a
laptop PC in the field: Stage recorder installation is also planned for additional watershed sites, plus potential
restoration areas in the neighboring Fernbank Fork watershed. Storm flow velocity measurements are being done by
project volunteers (Barrett Walker, a co-author.) Combining the stage and velocity measurements will yield storm
water flow volumes which will then be correlated with (and potentially modeled with) rainfall measurements for a
range of storms. Long term hydrologic data will allow quantitative evaluation of improvements in hydrologic
integrity (Richter and others 1996). AmeriCorps is also documenting stream walk information for Lullwater Fork.
The most significant unmet "on-the-ground" monitoring need of the Lullwater Project is for detailed steam channel
geomorphology measurements of both impacted and reference steam channels (Rosgen 1994). Some of these
measurements, such as pebble counts to document steam substrate particle size distributions (an important measure
of sedimentation stress on aquatic habitat), and bank pin measurements of steam bank erosion can potentially be
done by volunteers. Others, including permanent surveyed cross sections, longitudinal profiles (see USEPA 1999)
and regional curves for representative Piedmont streams will require more attention from and resources for state,
federal and academic researchers and monitoring programs. This work will be essential for targeted channel
restoration designs for Lullwater Fork and for many other urban streams (Federal Interagency Steam Restoration
Working Group 1998). Other needs include measuring the toxicity of urban runoff "first flush" for further
evaluation of the success of future storm water controls.
Watershed GIS Data
One of the key recommendations of the MAUWI technical committee was to make extensive watershed data
available to citizen groups.to aid planning and action to address storm water impacts to metro Atlanta streams. The
Lullwater Project has built on a pilot MAUWI effort to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities to
make watershed information readily available. Full utilization of remotely sensed (satellite and air photo) watershed
information is needed to understand social patterns and decisions that impact urban stream integrity, (Cowen and
Jensen 1998).
HDR/W. L. Jorden Engineers has compiled a wide array of GIS data for the Lullwater Fork, Fernbank Fork and
Peavine Creek watersheds to facilitate planning and discussion of restoration options. Some of the many GIS
coverages now available to share via CD-ROM (using Arc View or ArcExplorer ("freeware") software) include:
watershed boundaries, land use/land cover, air photos, parcel ownership boundaries, streams, roads, infrastructure
(such as water/sewer lines), impervious cover estimates, elevation contours and others. A significant part of this
project was the digital entry of property parcels from paper county tax maps. This information is crucial for
individuals' understanding of their roles in the Lullwater watershed, and to insure sensitivity to and protection of
private property rights. Data was obtained through the Georgia GIS clearinghouse at Georgia Tech, and through a
data sharing agreement being negotiated between the Lullwater Project and DeKalb County, All of these data layers
were used to develop preliminary restoration options, and are available (currently housed at Paideia School) to all
project participants as dialogue proceeds on potential restoration projects. GIS based watershed information
provides many benefits: ready visualization of the relationships between watershed components and entities;
education of watershed "owners" about their role in the health of the watershed and its steams; common base
information that all interests can agree oil, can correct if needed, and can be easily updated as watershed conditions
change over time; and appropriate emphasis on protection of private property rights.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
131
-------
Conference Proceedings
Rapid Watershed Planning
To begin dialogue about stream restoration possibilities among all watershed interests, the Lullwater Project
contracted with the Center for Watershed Protection to produce preliminary concepts for storm water restoration
retrofit projects (Brown 1999). Rather than designing a single large regional detention facility that would have been
intrusive and opposed by neighbors, a systems approach was taken to integrate eight restoration sites as
neighborhood amenities for the Lullwater watershed (and other sites for Fernbank Fork as part of a companion
project). Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of the preliminary storm water options; all are subject to revision
and final designs may be quite different. Three of these envision micropool extended detention approaches
integrated with Candler Park and the Candler Park golf course. Two would rely on stream channel restoration within
and adjacent to Candler Park golf course. One involves micropool extended detention at Goldsboro Park, leaving in
place the tennis and basketball courts as part of the flood pool. Another would use a small constructed wetland
integral to Freedom Park. Design parameters of these initial options incorporate storm water storage volumes
sufficient to gain significant water quality benefits, and a significant fraction of the storage volume required for
stream channel protection (bank full flows) (see Center for Watershed Protection 1998a &b).
Challenges for implementation of these ideas include ensuring that the concepts and final designs meet the
neighborhoods' and property owners' needs and preferences, choosing an array of options that will get the most
water quality and channel protection benefits, making the installations truly beneficial amenities to the parks and
golf course, funding for detailed design and construction, and ensuring long term regular maintenance of all the
facilities.
Watershed Education and Action
Lullwater Project outreach products include GIS maps and outdoor educational displays. Data and restoration
alternatives are now being assembled by the Southface Energy Institute to produce educational signs, presentations
and other materials. Both permanent and temporary public signs are planned for prominent locations including
parks, paths, schools and museums. Restoration options have been presented to the Candler Park Neighborhood
Organization and Freedom Park Conservancy. Several options have been approved to seek implementation funding.
Broader watershed-wide education will likely involve cooperative efforts with the Peavine Watershed Alliance, and
with others who are collaborating on a "watershed owner's manual" tailored to individual homeowners and
businesses. The Lullwater Project will promote both individual action, such as infiltration of house top runoff vs.
direct piping to streets and streams, and community based approaches such as extended detention and stream
channel restoration opportunities.
Stormwater Retrofit Options for Lullwater Fork
Extended
Detention
w/Micropool
(Goldsboro
Park)
Figure 2
132
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Recommendations
Urban streams have significant stresses that differ from their rural counterparts. Biological, habitat, hydrologic and
stream channel changes, in addition to chemical stresses (Karr 1993), must be measured and addressed to maximize •
the likelihood of success of restoration actions. Biological integrity, as the bottom line measure of stream system
health, must be documented, both for a current picture of stream condition, and for evaluation of restoration project
success. Urban watersheds were not "built out" in a day, and achieving maximum restoration potential will likely
require sustained effort over a long time. Iterative, adaptive, continuous learning approaches (Johnson 1999) will be
important since resource, knowledge, and volunteer energy constraints must be recognized. Effective development
practices that protect water resources should be swiftly adopted by all local jurisdictions (Nichols and others 1997
and 1999) to prevent future storm water problems that we know how to avoid, and to promote innovative restoration.
Funding of storm water restoration action needs local, regional, state and national attention. Viable options that
• deserve sincere discourse include: watershed-wide, cost based, storm water utilities with service fees tied to parcel
specific effective impervious areas [Note: In January, 2000 the City of Decatur, which covers a portion of the
Peavine Creek watershed, passed an ordinance initiating a user-fee funded storm water utility], supplemental gas
taxes for watersheds with significant impervious area (since roads comprise roughly 2/3 of the impervious area in
many urban watersheds), and additional private and government support for pilot efforts while long term effective
planning, funding and maintenance is structured.
Finally, development of storm water solutions that will work and be accepted must incorporate full citizen
involvement and true partnerships between citizens and governments at all watershed scales: small (l-5mi2), medium
(5-100mi2), and large (>100mi2). To date, the most compelling outcome of the Lullwater Project continues to be that
diverse organizations and strongly committed individuals are working together toward the common goal of clean,
healthy streams that everyone can enjoy.
References
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC). 2000. Water crisis looms for state, metro region. Editorial. Atlanta Journal-
Constitution. Sunday, April 9, 2000. p. C4.
Booth, D.B. and Jackson, C.R. 1994. Urbanization of aquatic systems - degradation thresholds and the limits of
mitigation. Effects of Human-Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems - American Water Resources Association.
June 1994. pp. 425-434.
Brown, Ted. 1999. Lullwater Fork and Lake Claire Reconnaissance Retrofit Inventory: Preliminary Analysis.
Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for Paideia School and Alex C. Walker Educational & Charitable
Foundation. October 21, 1999. .
Center for Watershed Protection. 1998a. Better site design: a handbook for changing development rules in your
community. Ellicott City, MD. 174pp. plus appendices.
Center for Watershed Protection. 1998b. Rapid watershed planning handbook: a comprehensive guide for
managing urbanizing watersheds. Ellicott City, MD. 11 chapters plus appendices.
Cowen, D.J., and Jensen, J.R. 1998. Extraction and modeling of urban attributes using remote sensing technology.
In: People and Pixels: Linking Remote Sensing and social Science. Diana Liverman, Emilio F. Moran, Ronald R.
Rindfuss, and Paul C. Stern, eds. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. pp. 164-
188. '
Crow, C. 2000. Biological Monitoring: Peavine Creek Watershed Assessment, and Comparison of Study Results
Using Georgia DNR Protocol vs. Adopt-a-Stream Protocol. CGR Environmental Inc. Prepared for Paideia School
and Alex C. Walker Educational & Charitable Foundation. Atlanta, GA.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes,
and Practices. USDA and a consortium of other federal agencies, [online] URL:
http://www.usda.gov:80/stream_restoration/strmotln.htm
Hammer, T.B. 1972. Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization. Water Resources Research. 8:1530-1540.
International Life Science Institute: Risk Science Institute (ILSI). 1998. Mitigation of Urban Runoff Impacts on
Atlanta Streams. ILSI Press. Washington, DC. 75pp.
Johnson, B.L. 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management
agencies. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 8 [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art8
Karr, J.R. 1993. Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 12:1521-1531. ,
May, C.W., Horner, R.R., Karr, J.R., Mar, B.W., and Welch, E.B. 1997. Effects of Urbanization on small streams
in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques. 2:483-493.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
133
-------
Conference Proceedings
Metro Atlanta Urban Watersheds Initiative (MAUWI). 1998. Watershed Management Guidance Document. City
of Atlanta. Atlanta, GA. 107pp.
Nichols, D.B., Ferguson, B.K., Seinberg, S., and Akers, M-.A.A. 1999. Development ordinances to protect streams.
Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference. March 30-31, 1999. Kathryn J. Hatcher, ed.
Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA. pp. 151-154.
Nichols, D., Akers, M.A., Ferguson, B., Weinberg, S., Cathey, S., Spooner, D., and Mikalsen, T. 1997. Land
development provisions to protect Georgia water quality. The School of Environmental Design, University of
Georgia. Athens, GA. 35pp.
Omernik, J.M. and Bailey, R.G. 1997. Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association. 33:5. pp. 935-949.
Omemik, J.M. 1995. Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In Biological assessment
and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Davis, Wayne S.; Simon, Thomas P., eds. Boca
Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, pp. 49-62.
Pruitt, K. 2000. [Governor] Barnes seeks help on water problems. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Monday, ApriO,
2000. p. B3.
Richter., B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Powell, J., and Braun, D.P. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration
within ecosystems. Conservation Biology. 10:1163-1174.
Rosgen, David L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena. 22:169-199.
Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1:100-111.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-004.
Office of Water (4503F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 132 pp.
Walker, B. P. 1996. Community-based urban watershed protection: a case study for Atlanta, Georgia of Peavine
and South Peachtree Creeks. Master of Science Thesis. University of Georgia. Athens, GA. 248pp.
134
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ben Barber
Illinois EcoWatch Network, Illinios Department of
Natural Resources
208 S. LaSalle, Ste. 2055, Chicago, Illinois 60604
phone: 312/201-0650, fax:: 312/201-0653
email: bbarber@dnrmail.state.il.us
Visit EcoWatch at: www.ecowatch.org
MONITORING IN THE URBAN
ENVIRONMENT
Urban Watch: Bringing Citizens, Scientists
and Cities Together
Through the Illinois EcoWatch Network, citizens
everywhere are learning there is no better way to
understand how our environment changes over time
than by getting outdoors to observe first-hand a
shallow stretch of stream, a small patch of forest or a
tiny slice of what was once a vast, windswept prairie. With the introduction of UrbanWatch, Citizen Scientists will
soon have the opportunity to extend their experience to a new and unlikely habitat: the urban ecosystem.
Nature in cities is the focus of UrbanWatch, a volunteer environmental monitoring program designed to characterize
native biodiversity in urban ecosystems. Our cities are interspersed with environments in which nature persists, even
thrives — cemeteries and golf courses, backyards and empty lots, parks and corporate campuses, tree-lined
residential streets and railroad rights-of-way. Hardly the rain forest or the African plains, perhaps, but the adaptable
plants and animals that inhabit cities can be just as interesting as those in more exotic places.
While the ecological principles at work in cities may be well understood, the details of urban ecosystems themselves
remain largely a mystery. Most ongoing field surveys and environmental data-gathering are done for purposes other
than ecological understanding. This presentation will detail the rationale behind this innovative addition to Illinois*
volunteer environmental monitoring network. Highlights of field testing and pilot workshops will demonstrate the
challenges of developing a monitoring program for urban ecosystems as well as the potential for increased
environmental awareness and new information about the biodiversity of urban ecosystems.
EcoWatch is the volunteer monitoring component of the Critical Trends Assessment Program, an on-going program
at the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to track long-term trends in ecosystem health. Since 1994, over
2,000 trained volunteers have monitored more than 600 different monitoring sites. Data collected by Citizen
Scientists supplements professional scientific databases used to assess the condition and extent of ecosystems
statewide.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
135
-------
Conference Proceedings
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE A
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Mandy Richardson, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Presenters:
Josh demons, GLOBE
A Comparative Study of GLOBE and USGS Water Quality Monitoring Data
Yvette de Boer, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Citizen Volunteer Monitoring of Forest Resources in the New York City Watershed
Nancy Mesner, Utah State University, Department of Geography
Bear River Watershed Education Project
(abstract only)
136
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
(corresponding author)
Josh demons
3401 N. Columbus Blvd., Apt. 23-A
Tucson, AZ 85712
phone: 520/321-9352
email: jclemons@hwr.arizona.edu
Martha Conklin
Department of Hydrology and Water Resources
University of Arizona-GLOBE
PO Box 210011, Tuscon, AZ 85721-0011
phone: 520/621-7113, fax: 520/621-1442
email: mconklin@hwr.arizona.edu
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE A
A Comparative Study of GLOBE and
USGS Water Quality Monitoring Data
Introduction
Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the
Environment (GLOBE) is a K-12 international science
and education program. Over 100 schools in the U.S.
measure some aspect of water quality, including water
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity,
electrical conductivity, nitrate-nitrogen, salinity, and
water transparency. The schools choose the water
bodies to be sampled, which are primarily small
tributary streams or lakes. As a consequence, GLOBE
schools in the U.S. sample a different population of water bodies from that of professional monitoring programs-
such as those run by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Data from GLOBE and from the USGS National Stream
Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) program can be analyzed to address the question how different are the
water quality attributes of small versus large water bodies in the U.S. Specifically, we compare two data records for
sites that are in close proximity to each other, Mill Creek and Colorado River in Utah, and then we examine
distribution of parameters for a subset of GLOBE sites that have greater than 500 hydrology measurements versus
NASQAN sites. Data for one water quality parameter, alkalinity, are also examined to illustrate the comparative
variability of GLOBE and USGS data.
Water quality assessments aim to establish the attributes of one or more water bodies, establish differences between
the water bodies' samples, and detect changes in those water bodies over time. An important issue in evaluating
data used to detect differences or change is how natural variability in water quality associated with temperature
changes and seasonal cycles can be separated from climate or land use changes. Professional monitoring programs,
such as those of the USGS and other public agencies, have established quality assurance and quality control
programs that result in a known accuracy and precision for their results. These programs are generally more
rigorous than those of GLOBE and other volunteer organizations. The result is that GLOBE and other volunteer
data are assigned a lower level of precision than data from professional monitoring programs. However, volunteer
data can still make valuable contributions to environmental assessments, as they cover a different population of
water bodies from that covered by the professional programs. By comparing the means and seasonal patterns of
GLOBE data with those from professional programs we can establish that over periods of months to years, most
GLOBE data are sufficiently accurate to be useful for water quality assessments.
In the U.S., GLOBE samples a different population of water bodies than do professional monitoring programs such
as those run by the USGS, which tend to focus on larger rivers and lakes. In the current analysis we use data from
GLOBE and NASQAN to assess the differences in water quality attributes of small versus large water bodies in the
U.S. Specifically, we compare two data records for sites that are in close proximity to each other, Mill Creek and
Colorado River in Utah, and then we examine distribution of parameters for a subset of GLOBE sites that have
greater than 500 hydrology measurements versus NASQAN sites. To effectively assess water quality changes over
time, the frequency, accuracy and precision of the water quality measurements must be known. To assess GLOBE
accuracy and precision we take one parameter, alkalinity, arid compare the data variability of GLOBE and USGS
data. We also examine GLOBE sampling frequency.
Study Area , .
Mill Creek is a small stream draining a 15 km2 watershed in eastern Utah (Figure 1). It is a GLOBE site, sampled by
the Grand County High School in Moab, and is a tributary to the Colorado River. The GLOBE site is located at
38'34'19" N latitude, 109"32'43" W longitude, elevation 1234 m. The
NASQAN sampling point is at Cisco, Utah (Figure 1), where the river
drains a 62,413 km upstream area. The NASQAN site is located at
38'48'38" N latitude, 109'17'34" W longitude, elevation 1247 m. The
Colorado River drains a large portion of seven states, and over 85% of
the runoff in the river derives from snowmelt.
Data
GLOBE data were obtained from the GLOBE student data archive in
June 1999, and consisted of water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and alkalinity for the period from March 8, 1996 through September
23, 1998 (Figure 2). NASQAN data for the same time period were
downloaded from the NASQAN Public Homepage (Figure 3). For the
comparison of variability of alkalinity data, GLOBE and NASQAN
alkalinity data for the period from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999,
were used.
Figure 1: Utah site locations'
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
137
-------
Conference Proceedings
20
15
.O 10
S
0
T 1*
•J 12
I 10
8
9.5
0.0
B.S
8.0
75
_ 160
_l 140
SP 120
E 100
189
Figur
made
Coun
-J«.1!E:_
t&o..__
4 -
> ,1
•£*_ I ^_
* l -T
^.--•jr--.-!-.
"*" r *"
_ .,. _»! i
r r i •
L j
f :j
T : "i I
xi 1
_EH
... -
3EZZ
• £m - \ •-
!•
::r:~:jz:"£
P"
i j
. [ '
*: _j
"* ! 1
-— ->- *!- -i
• J
.. | j
7.6 199S.O 1998.5 1999.0
e 2: Water quality measurements
on Mill Creek, Moab, Utah by Grand
ty High School, a GLOBE school.
25
20
5
0
14
I18
6
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
, 180
'_l 140
f 100
60
199
Figur
made
by US
• •
Tarn,
____!_ j
i *
•
• I
•r
>.-_j. \ _j.,«-i._} ^.JL
i * 1
!
r -— "-
-EMJ-.
1
*! 1
!
-rw-~ -t~
j •
L * *
"• "*r
pH
: !
!
._> • !_„ j • _
—-*—.—-- s-TVi -.- -»}-'
!
i
--~~£.:::~:,.
i
Alk.
1
7.5
e3:
on
GS
!„
_^*._«.,,*i _
.-,.4...._-.
!
1998.0 1998.5 1999.0
Water quality measurements
the Colorado River at Cisco, Utah
under the NASQUAN program.
Results
Mill Creek GLOBE data cover mainly the period of winter 1997-98, with intermittent sampling before and after.
Sampling during this period was sufficiently frequent to permit establishing trends using a running mean. Applying
a 1:2:1 triangular filter to the GLOBE and NASQAN data results in distinct trends: i) temperature shows a
minimum around the tune of the solstice, ii) dissolved oxygen (D.O.) has a corresponding maximum at the same
time, and iii) pH and alkalinity exhibit minima in winter, as compared to late fall and early spring (Figure 4).
Similar trends in temperature and D.O. are apparent in the Colorado River data (Figure 5). We also calculated
saturated D.O., based on temperature and elevation. Mill Creek is near saturation for the entire period (Figure 6),
and the Colorado River is slightly under saturated. Comparing the two sites shows the following differences: i) Mill
Creek is about 0.5-1.0*C cooler than the Colorado River, and the dissolved oxygen level is about 1-2 mg L"1 higher
in Mill Creek than in the Colorado River; ii) pH in Mill Creek is lower than that of the Colorado River by about 0.3
standard pH units; and iii) Mill Creek has about 6.5 mg L"1 higher (~5% higher) alkalinity than the Colorado River.
20
15
0 10
5
0
_ 11
'•iia
I1 10
8
as
0.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
160
140
120
100
9
E
.IfS\P:
1997.5
199S.O
1998.5
Figure 4. Trends in water quality
measurements on Mill Creek near Moab,
Utah (GLOBE).
1999.0
1S98.0 199X5
Figure 5. Trends in water quality
measurements on Colorado River at Cisco,
Utah (NASQAN).
To extend the comparison nationwide we compared data from all 38 NASQAN sites with those for all GLOBE sites
having more than 500 hydrology measurements (Figure 7). That resulted in a variable number of GLOBE sites for
each measurement, but distinct differences in mean values for each parameter. Alkalinity results for 27 GLOBE
sites showed a mean lower than that for NASQAN sites (by about 50 mg L"1 as CaCO3), but a similar standard
deviation (Figure 8). The result is a coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean) of 15% for
NASQAN, versus 30% for GLOBE. Variability of GLOBE data for other parameters has been found to be
somewhat higher than that of USGS data, although less so than for the alkalinity data. Water temperature was about
2.4" C cooler at GLOBE versus NASQAN sites (Figure 9). Dissolved oxygen was similar for both populations of
sites (Figure 10). Electrical conductivity was on average about 200 uS cm'1 higher for GLOBE versus NASQAN
sites in the two distributions (Figure 11). There were striking differences in pH, with GLOBE sites being on average
about 0.5 pH units below NASQAN sites (Figure 12). In addition, GLOBE pH values span a wider distribution, i.e.,
the GLOBE site population exhibits more extreme high and low average values than the NASQAN site population.
138
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
1997 1998 1999
Figure 6. Comparison of trends in Mill Creek
and Colorado River temperature and
dissolved oxygen.
* 38 NASQAN sites
• GLOBE sites with
> 500 hydrology
measurements
Figure 7: Location of NASQUAN sites and
U.S. GLOBE sites with more than 500
hydrology measurements as of June 1999.
CV =
0 100 200 300
Alk, mg L"1 as CaCO3
0 100 200 300
Alk, mg L'1 as CaCO3
Figure 8: Comparison of GLOBE and
NASQUAN alkalinity data from sites on
Figure 7.
Water temperature, flC
Figure 9: Comparison of GLOBE and USGS
NASQUAN temperature data from sites on
Figure 7.
100
$ « 15
Dissolved oxygen, mg L"1
^x«^^xwUm«%4W^^
Figure 10: Comparison of
BE and
NASQUAN dissolved oxygen data from sites
on Figure 7.
3 100
3
%i so
I
eo
20
0
GLOB
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Electrical conductivity, p.5 cm'1
Figure 11: Comparison of GLOBE and
NASQUAN electrival conductivity data from
sites on Figure 7.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
139
-------
Conference Proceedings
1
v
100
60
USGS
a*
B
20
7
pH
S
Figure 12: Comparison of GLOBE and
NASQUAN pH data from sites on Figure 7.
a>
3 100
a
v
c
ra
so
£
I
«
4D
20
50 100 150 200 250
Alkalinity, mg L"
Figure 13: Comparison of GLOBE and
NASQUAN alkalinity data from sites on
Figure 7.
Discussion
The comparison of the Mill Creek and Colorado River data gives a consistent picture for an upstream, headwater
stream being colder and more dilute than the larger. Colorado River, but with about the same pH and alkalinity. Out
of all the 38 NASQAN sites, this was the only location that had a nearby tributary being sampled by a GLOBE
school for this suite of measurements.
Similarly, the more broadly distributed GLOBE sites were colder, more dilute, more acidic, and less well buffered
than the larger rivers that are monitored under the NASQAN program. Note, however, that a large fraction of the
NASQAN sites are on rivers where there were few or no GLOBE schools that met the 500-measurement criterion
used for this analysis (e.g.. Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, Rio Grande, and the lower Colorado and Columbia Rivers).
There are large concentrations of GLOBE schools in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and California- areas with few
or no NASQAN sites. The NASQAN data set was selected specifically because it represents large rivers; a future
analysis should retrieve data from other, less-accessible databases to extend the comparison.
Nonetheless, some important differences do stand out in Figures 9-13. Though .dissolved oxygen levels are similar
for both distributions, GLOBE temperatures are lower. That means that the dissolved oxygen saturation level is
lower for the GLOBE sites than for NASQAN sites. Lower saturation implies that either GLOBE water bodies are
slightly under saturated with respect to atmospheric oxygen; GLOBE sites have a higher average elevation; or both.
The broader pH distribution for GLOBE water bodies, as compared to NASQAN rivers, suggests that there are
greater seasonal fluctuations at GLOBE sites. The 50 mg L"1 lower alkalinity for GLOBE sites indicates a greater
sensitivity to acidic deposition. In fact, the GLOBE mean alkalinity of about 75 mg L"1 indicates that the population
of GLOBE water bodies is fairly sensitive to acid inputs. Over 45% of the sites have a mean alkalinity lower than
50 mg L"1, and over 65% have an alkalinity under 100 mg L"1. Small lakes and streams with alkalinity under 100 mg
L"1 are considered sensitive to acid inputs, and those under 50 mg L"1 are considered most sensitive.
The higher coefficient of variation for GLOBE versus NASQAN alkalinity data probably reflects the inherently
lower accuracy and precision of GLOBE measurements. GLOBE students measure alkalinity using an endpoint
indicator, while the USGS performs potentiometric titrations. Some of the variation may also reflect the greater
seasonal variability of GLOBE water bodies versus the large rivers monitored under NASQAN. The recommended
frequency for GLOBE water quality sampling is weekly throughout the entire year. However, some schools do
measurements monthly. More frequent sampling is needed to achieve accurate results, given the lower precision of
GLOBE measurement protocols.
Conclusions
The water quality at GLOBE versus USGS NASQAN sites is different, due in large part to sampling of smaller
versus larger water bodies, respectively. Thus, trends in the water quality of GLOBE sites are not well represented
by trends in NASQAN data. However, GLOBE measurements can be an important resource for tracking seasonal,
interannual, and longer-term trends in the many small water bodies across the U.S. In order to detect differences,
changes, and trends more effectively, GLOBE schools should aim to take more frequent samples and develop longer
records. Location of more GLOBE hydrology sites on tributaries that are near NASQAN sites is desirable to provide
a more definitive, and regionally disaggregated, analysis. Further analysis should also screen GLOBE data for water
body and watershed characteristics, to enable using geographic, geologic, and climatic factors to help understand
differences in the two populations of sites.
Acknowledgments
Support for this work was provided under National Science Foundation grant GEO-9801929.
140
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE A
Citizen Volunteer Monitoring of Forest
Resources in the New York City
Watershed
.CONTACT INFORMATION
(corresponding author)
Yvette E. de Boer
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
818 Cayuga Heights Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850
phone: 607/257-7252, fax: 607/266-3502
email: yedeboer@.mailbox.syr.edu
Dr. Rene H. Germain
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry,
1 Forestry Drive, 5B Marshall Hall,
Syracuse, NY 132105
phone: 315/470-4786
email: rhgermai@mailbox.syr.edu
Dr. Valerie A. Luzadis
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry,
1 Forestry Drive, 320 Bray Hall
Syracuse, NY 132105
phone: 315/470-6693
email: vluzadis@mailbox.syr.edu
Introduction
The New York City water supply system is one of the
largest storage and water supply systems in the world,
supplying high quality, unfiltered drinking water to
nearly nine million metropolitan consumers, or
approximately half of New York State's population.
More than 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 square mile
watershed is forested, with the majority of these lands
in private ownership. The Watershed's working
forests contribute to a viable rural economy, while
simultaneously acting as a natural filter for water
quality. The potential threat of contamination from
pathogens, nutrients, and sediments is a constant
concern. Maintaining water quality is highly
dependent upon proactive approaches to forest
management (Germain et al 2000). In an effort to protect water quality in the New York City (NYC) Watershed, the
Watershed Forestry Program (WFP) was created in 1997 to administer forestry outreach and education to loggers,
foresters, landowners, and other potential stewards. Since its establishment, outreach and education have primarily
focused on the practice and use of forestry best management practices. In a 1999 audit of the program, both the
USDA Forest Service and the New York City environmental community recommended more direct citizen
participation in monitoring the change in forest conditions over time. This investigation to assess the potential for a
citizen volunteer monitoring program followed from this recommendation.
Conceptual Framework
To assess the potential for a citizen volunteer monitoring program in the NYC Watershed, a framework consisting of
the following four questions was developed:
1. What specific forest resources can citizen volunteers effectively and credibly monitor?
2. Who are the potential participants?
3. Where can participants collect their data?
4. Who can oversee data management, including feedback to the participants and other interested parties?
These four questions, focusing on the "what," "who," "where," and "how" were subsequently explored and
researched. Information gathered along with conclusions and recommendations for future development of a program.
are presented in this paper.
Methods
Data collection to assess the potential for citizen monitoring in the Watershed began in early June of 1999 and
continued through late November. A variety of methods were employed to gather information to help determine the
"what," "who," "where," and "how" questions developed as the framework. Individual and group interviews were
conducted. Those interviewed included NYC Watershed landowners, Watershed agency personnel, environmental
education center staff, scientists conducting research in the Watershed, scientists experienced in working with citizen
volunteers, and project coordinators of existing citizen monitoring programs. Information about volunteer
monitoring was presented at a number of different meetings of organizations in the Watershed. Feedback and
suggestions were solicited from the audience after each of the presentations. Meetings to discuss the potential for
and development of the program were held with interested parties, including USDA Forest Service personnel and
representatives from the Watershed Forestry Program.
To gain further insight and direction into development of a NYC Watershed volunteer program, local private forest
landowners were surveyed. The purpose of the survey was to determine landowner interest in monitoring in general
and in participating in a monitoring pilot study, to find out what resources landowners were interested in monitoring,
and to generate feedback on further development for the program. A total of 364 questionnaires were sent in a single
mailing to private forest landowners, along with a letter describing volunteer monitoring and the potential
development of a program in the NYC Watershed. The target population consisted of landowners belonging to one
of three different landowner organizations in the Watershed. Sixty-nine questionnaires were returned representing a
response rate of 19%.
To help develop a preliminary model for a volunteer monitoring program in the Watershed, two pilot studies were
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
141
-------
Conference Proceedings
also conducted. Each of the pilot studies targeted a specific audience in the Watershed and used one or more of the
forest resources from the developed list of potential resources. Solicited volunteers participated in a training session
and subsequently collected data. More specific information on the methods for each of these pilots is outlined later
in this paper.
Results
The interviews, presentations, and meetings provided data to address the four areas of the conceptual framework
developed to assess the potential for a volunteer monitoring program in the NYC Watershed. The landowner survey
provided further insight into how a Watershed program might proceed in terms of targeting potential participants and
resources. Two pilot studies generated additional data for how a volunteer monitoring program could be
administered in the Watershed. The information gathered is reported below.
What can citizen volunteers monitor?
There are a variety of forest resources that volunteers could monitor. A list along with a brief description of each
possible resource follows. ,
• Forest inventory: tree and vegetation surveys. Tree and vegetation surveys would involve volunteers in
measuring actual long-term changes of the Watershed forests. There are several existing programs that
could be easily adapted for use in the Watershed. For instance, Illinois Forest Watch engages volunteers in
measuring various aspects of tree species, surveying shrub and ground cover layers, and looking for signs
of tree damage due to insects and disease (Illinois Natural History Survey 1998). Other potential models
include Boreal Forest Watch (Spencer et al 1998) and the North Carolina Vegetation Survey (Peet 1999).
• White-tailed deer. White-tailed deer, well established in the Watershed, are a potential threat to
regeneration of its forests. There are many aspects of the deer population and its effects on forest health
that volunteers could monitor in the Watershed. These include monitoring deer populations directly by
sight, counting pellet groups, conducting browse surveys, and building exclosures to monitor differences
between vegetation inside and outside of the exclosure. The Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension has
developed a program in Pennsylvania in which volunteers, primarily hunters, count pellet groups and
conduct browse surveys (Pearson 1999). A similar program could be adapted for use in the Watershed.
Ozone bioindicator plants. As part of its Forest Health Monitoring Program (FHM), the USD A Forest
Service has developed specific protocols to measure ozone injury on sensitive plant species. Because the
sensitive plant species are relatively few in number and easy to identify, and the injury is easy to detect, this
aspect of FHM could offer opportunities for volunteers in the Watershed. A 1993 pilot project used
volunteers to survey forest plant injury caused by exposure to ozone in mountains in western North
Carolina. Volunteers followed protocols adopted from FHM to collect data over the course of one summer.
Coordinators deemed the project a great success in terms of data collection and volunteer satisfaction
(Morton 1999).
• Insect damage. A number of insects threaten the health of the forest. Several of them, namely the Hemlock
Woolly Adelgid, gypsy moth, and tent caterpillar, are already present in the Watershed. The Asian
Longhorned Beetle, recently discovered in New York City, has potential to spread to regions outside of the
city. Concern, particularly over the Asian Longhorned Beetle and the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, is high.
Given the customarily straight-forward protocol for detection, insect damage surveillance can lend itself to
an effective volunteer monitoring program.
• Invasive plant species. Invasive plants are prevalent throughout the Watershed. For example, the
distribution of the Japanese Barberry is extensive in particular areas of the Watershed. Other species, such
as Purple Loosestrife, can be found throughout the Watershed. These species threaten the growth and
distribution of native species, thereby affecting overall forest health. Volunteers could be trained to survey
specific areas, and report the distribution and abundance of these or other invasives.
• Salamander populations. Salamanders, such as the Red-backed salamander, are important indicator species
for forest health. A protocol for measuring their numbers involves placing bricks or boards in treatment
sites, and subsequently checking for salamanders under them. Because the protocol for their inventory is
simple, a large audience of different ages can be recruited. The North American Amphibian Monitoring
Program (NAAMP) is actively recruiting and working with volunteers to collect data on amphibians,
including frogs and salamanders. NAAMP's Terrestrial Salamander Monitoring Program has specific
volunteer protocols to help monitor salamander populations. Scientists working in the Watershed are
studying salamanders and may be interested in incorporating volunteer data in their work (Gibbs 1999).
Bird populations. Monitoring bird populations by volunteers in the Watershed could help reflect changes in
the forest composition over time. In addition to the Christmas Bird Count, a number of new opportunities
have arisen in which volunteers can help monitor birds. For example, Cornell University's Laboratory of
Ornithology has also developed a number of "citizen science" programs that use volunteers to monitor a
number of bird species, including hawks, thrushes, and the Cerulean Warbler.
Water quality. Collecting information on water quality would shift the focus away from the monitoring of
142
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
forest resources. However, due to an already well-established existence of both water monitoring programs
and standardized protocols, as well as overall importance in the Watershed, water should be considered as a
potential resource for volunteers to monitor. Volunteers could measure water quality in a variety of ways,
including chemical monitoring, biological .monitoring of aquatic invertebrates, and monitoring physical
parameters, such as stream flow and depth. Protocols for volunteers are readily available and can be easily
adapted for use by volunteers in the Watershed. Volunteer water quality monitoring is also already taking
place to a limited extent in the Watershed at environmental education centers and area schools.
Clearly there are many forest resources that citizen volunteers can monitor. The results from the landowner survey
provide some direction for which resources the program in the Watershed might target. On the questionnaire,
respondents were given a list of potential resources and asked which one(s) they were most interested in monitoring.
Twenty-two of the 69 respondents were interested in conducting tree and vegetation surveys. Eighteen were
interested in monitoring deer. The only other resources that landowners expressed particular interest in were
monitoring surface water quality (10 responses) and invasive species (9 responses) (Figure 1). Several new
possibilities for monitoring were also mentioned. This included acid rain indicators, ferns, and mass production.
Who are the potential participants?
There is a large audience-in the NYC Watershed that could be enlisted to participate in volunteer monitoring.
Possibilities include primary and/or secondary school children, private forest landowners, visitors to area
environmental education centers, participants in Cooperative Extension activities and programs including 4-H
campers, and members of environmental organizations that are active in the Watershed.
In choosing a particular group to target for the program, there are a number of factors to consider. First, if data"
quality is a high priority, special consideration must be made for groups that are most likely to collect data that are
accurate and reliable. Second, the resource(s) that will be monitored must be taken into consideration. If the
protocols for monitoring are sophisticated, volunteers will need to make the time and commitment for training.
Third, there must be ample time for volunteers to collect and report data. Finally, a successful program will rely on
a high level of motivation and commitment for the volunteers.
Survey results suggest that private forest landowners could be a successful target audience for a program in the
Watershed. To determine overall interest, one of the questions on the survey asked landowners to express their -
interest in participating in a pilot study to monitor the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid as well as in participating in
monitoring activities in general. The results indicated that landowners are interested in monitoring. Of the 69
respondents, 45 indicated that they were interested in attending a workshop that would train participants to monitor
the Woolly Adelgid. Twenty-two were not interested in the workshop for various reasons (did not have hemlocks on
property, training was too far away, or had other commitments), but were interested in participating in a monitoring
program. Only two of the
respondents did not wish to
participate in any monitoring
activity (Figure 2).
in 25
tree/vegetation
surveys
deer browse
water quality insect damage invasive species
potential resource
Where can participants collect
their data?
There are a variety of places
within the NYC Watershed
where participants can collect
data. School groups and
environmental education groups
are most likely limited to
collecting on their own local
. grounds. Perhaps most ,
convenient for private
landowners and other adult
volunteers is to collect data on
their own woodlots or
properties. However, assuming
adult participants are able to
travel and have flexible
schedules, they can also collect data outside their properties in other areas in the Watershed. For example, data
could be collected along roadsides where sites are convenient and easily mapped. One final possibility for data
collection is within demonstration forests of the Watershed Model Forest Program. Designed primarily for outreach
and educational purposes, these sites highlight a wide variety of forestry and water quality best management
practices. Volunteers could monitor how these practices affect forest composition and health over time.
Who can oversee data management, including feedback to the participants and other interested parties?
Data management including the input and analysis of data, as well as providing feedback to volunteer participants,
plays a critical role in the success of any volunteer monitoring program. Although this decision is somewhat
dependent on the resources that are monitored, there are a number of organizations in the NYC Watershed that can
Figure 1: Survey responses for resources that landowners are
interested in monitoring (n = 69).
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
143
-------
Conference Proceedings
serve this role. This includes
scientists from participating
universities, the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation, the New York
City Department of
Environmental Protection, and
the USDA Forest Service.
Another potential group that is
unique to the Watershed is the
Olive Natural Heritage Society
(ONHS). This group, made up
primarily of citizens and
landowners, is dedicated to
inventorying plants and animals
in the Catskills. Members of the
group are currently working on a
variety of scientific research
projects, and have expressed a strong interest in overseeing data management for the volunteer monitoring program.
Interested in attending Wooly Agelld
workshop
cant attend workshop, but Interested
In monitoring
level of interest in monitoring
not interested In monitoring
Figure 2: Survey responses of landowners showing interest in
participating in monitoring (n = 69).
Results of pilot studies
In collecting information on the "what," "who," "where," and "how" of volunteer monitoring, it became clear that
there were a number of decisions that needed to be made in designing a program for the NYC Watershed. To help
prioritize the choices and gain some perspective on what was realistic for and appropriate to the Watershed, two
separate pilot studies were conducted. Each pilot used one of the audiences generated from the "who" list and tested
one or more of the resources from the "what" list. Methods, results, and conclusions for each of these are reported
below.
Wildlife monitoring at 4-H Camp Shankitunk
During the summer of 1999, a pilot study was conducted with campers participating in a 4-H camp program, located
in the northeastern area of the watershed. Two existing "citizen science" programs were tested. One program was
Cornell's "Birds in Forested Landscape" program, in which volunteers monitor woodland thrushes, and the other
was the NAAMP Terrestrial Salamander Monitoring Program, involving the placement and subsequent checking of
coverboards for salamander activity. The thrush monitoring was conducted close to camp, as the protocol was time-
consuming and class time was short. The salamander activity was conducted across the street from the camp in the
Lennox Memorial Model Forest, one of the four model forests of the Watershed Forestry Program. Campers ranged
in age from six to twelve years old, and typically stayed for one week of camp. Counselors conducted each of these
activities once a week with the campers. At the end of the summer, the plan was to send the data in for processing to
the respective monitoring programs.
A preliminary informal assessment of the pilot took place halfway through the summer. Campers appeared to be
gaining better awareness for birds and salamanders, but the actual data collection was not satisfactory. The campers
were young and lacked the skills and interest for proper data collection. Counselors were also inexperienced and
preoccupied with behavior management.
At the end of the summer, an informal survey was conducted with the counselors that had led the monitoring v
sessions, and the last group of campers that had participated in them. The results of the counselor survey indicated
that of the two activities, the salamander activity was more popular. Counselors enjoyed putting the boards down
with the campers, and subsequently exploring for salamanders. However, many counselors noted the challenge of
keeping the campers interested. Counselors enjoyed learning about the thrushes, but felt the protocol of calling in
the birds was long and tedious. They also expressed disappointment over never seeing any birds. The campers'
responses indicated that they learned some facts about both salamanders and birds. They enjoyed seeing the
salamanders and learning the birds' calls. Data forms for the "Birds in Forested Landscape" program were collected
at the end of the pilot. In examining the results, many of the forms were filled out incorrectly or were incomplete.
Consequently, they were not sent to the Lab of Ornithology for processing.
In conclusion, the pilot study was worthwhile in that it generated some interesting and valuable feedback "to help
further define a program for the Watershed. From an educational standpoint, both the counselors and the campers
learned about birds and salamanders, important indicator species, and gained a better understanding of the
importance in monitoring their populations. They also gained experience in the procedures of science. However,
from a scientific standpoint, the data quality was problematic. The protocols, particularly for the thrush monitoring,
were challenging for the young campers to follow. More rigorous training and an older, m
would be more appropriate if accurate, reliable data are important.
, more captive audience
144
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Insect pest monitoring - Hemlock Woolly Adeligid workshop
The second pilot study took place in the form of a workshop offered in early November. The workshop provided
information and training for detection of the forest pest insect, the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. This insect attacks and
eventually kills Eastern Hemlock, an important riparian tree species in the Watershed.
Landowners were invited to take part in a training workshop led by a representative from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. Approximately twenty people came to the training. Participants
learned about the life history of the adelgid, how to detect its presence, and how to fill out data forms. They were
then instructed to go back to their own properties, collect data on the presence and abundance of adelgids, and send
the information back in to the Olive Natural Heritage Society, who offered to serve as a center for data management.
The ONHS is now awaiting reports of the volunteers' findings.
The Woolly Adelgid workshop also proyided some important data for initial design of a program. Participants were
interested and enthusiastic about the project, and appeared willing to make the time and commitment required to
collect data on their properties. Towards the conclusion of the workshop, time was allotted for discussion of a
monitoring program in the Watershed. Suggestions made included ensuring timely feedback to participants once
data were collected and processed and the importance of recruiting additional volunteers.
Recommendations
Based on the results of the work conducted, including personal communication, survey responses, and results from
the pilot studies, it is clear that there is a strong interest in volunteer monitoring in the Watershed. We learned that
landowners are concerned about the health of the forest and want to get directly involved in monitoring forests over
the long-term. We also discovered that scientists conducting studies in the Watershed, as well as executives of the
various landowner organizations, see a role for citizen volunteers in the Watershed. Based on this positive response,
we provide the following recommendations for developing a program in the Watershed. We also encourage
interested organizations outside of the Watershed to use the information gathered to help develop their own
programs. . • '
What specific forest resources should citizen volunteers monitor?
Recommendation # 1: To determine what forest resources volunteers will monitor, first decide upon and refine the
goals and objectives of a potential program. Citizen volunteer monitoring programs typically strive to meet one or
more of the following three goals:
To educate and inform citizens about a particular resource and its importance in relation to improving or
maintaining ecosystem health.
To provide an opportunity for citizens to become actively involved in the stewardship of local ecosystems.
To collect data that contributes to science and our understanding of the environment.
Questions that need to be addressed for a program in the Watershed include:
• Given the ultimate goal of maintaining water quality, which forest resources are most appropriate for
citizen volunteers to monitor?
What are the "scientific gaps" that volunteers could help fill?
• What is the purpose of the data?
— To generate better landowner understanding of the Watershed?
— To contribute to scientific understanding of the Watershed?
— To advocate for a change in management or policy?
What do we expect volunteers to gain in participating in the program?
— A sense of "making a difference?" ;
— A greater awareness of the Watershed? •
— To become better stewards?
Recommendation #2: In deciding what to monitor, consider the results of the landowner survey. The survey
indicated that landowners have a strong interest in conducting tree and vegetation surveys, as well as monitoring
deer. To help maximize participation, these resources should be given priority.
Who should participate?
Recommendation #3: Focus on landowners as the major participants. Because so much of the land in the Watershed
is privately owned, information from this group is important in terms of keeping a "pulse" on forest health.
Landowners are eager to get involved, and are already organized in the Watershed. Many either live on their land or
visit frequently, and are therefore able to collect data consistently over the long-term. Given the proper training, data
collected by landowners will most likely be of good quality.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
145
-------
Conference Proceedings
Inhere can participants collect their data?
Recommendation #4: Survey landowners as potential participants to determine the most feasible area(s) to focus
data collection. Include on the survey a variety of choices, including landowner properties, roadsides and state forest
land.
Who can oversee data management?
Recommendation #5: Keep the local Natural Heritage Society (ONHS) an integral part of the program. There are a
number of roles that the organization can play, including facilitating the coordination of volunteers, running training
workshops, providing experts to assist in data collection, and managing data.
Administrative recommendations
To effectively administer and establish the program for the long term, we provide the following additional
recommendations.
Recommendation #6: Develop and maintain a web site for data input and on-going communication about the
program.
Recommendation #7: Explore partnerships and identify potential organizations interested in collaboration, both for
funding purposes and to provide a strong foundation for the program.
Conclusion: Next Steps /
Citizen volunteer monitoring has significant potential in the NYC Watershed. However, resources for developing
volunteer programs for monitoring forests are limited. In order to facilitate the development of a program in the
Watershed and help ensure its long-term success, we suggest the next step be to examine existing successful citizen
volunteer monitoring programs nationwide. Areas to focus on include:
• Determine how goals and objectives were set. Specifically, determine what the criteria were for choosing a
particular forest resource or resources to monitor, how the audience for participation was selected, and how
decisions were made for where participants would collect data.
• Ascertain the success in achieving their goals and objectives. For example, if the primary goal was to
collect volunteer data to add to scientific knowledge of the forest, are volunteer data reliable and valid? Or
if the goal was for participants to become better stewards, was there a significant change in the volunteers'
attitudes and behavior after participating in monitoring?
• Determine what characteristics programs with a well-established existence have in common that contribute
to their long-term success. Specifically, how do these programs maintain interest and participation?
With this additional knowledge, we believe that a sound workable infrastructure for a volunteer monitoring program
in the NYC Watershed can be developed successfully for the long term.
References
Bloniarz, David and H. Dennis Ryan. 1996. The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource
inventories. Journal of Arboriculture 22(2): 24-31.
Brantley, Beth A. 1993. Field manual: Identifying ozone injury on sensitive plant species. Forest Pest
Management. USDA Forest Service.
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 1997. Birds in Forested Landscapes, Ithaca, NY 14850.
Germain, Rene., J. Schwartz & J. Parrish 2000. The New York City Model Forests: Working Laboratories to study
and demonstrate sustainable forestry. Journal of Extension (in review)
Gibbs, James. Personal communication (6/8/99). SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry
Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210.
Illinois Natural History Survey and Office of Realty and Environmental Planning. 1998. Illinois Forest Watch:
Forest monitoring manual. Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
Morton, Brian. 1994. Field Methods for the 1994 NCEDF ozone forest injury survey. North Carolina
Environmental Defense Fund.
Morton, Brian. 1994. Prospectus for a pilot project in volunteer surveying of forest plant injury caused by exposure
to ozone. North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund.
Morton, Brian. Personal communication (7/30/99). (919)933-9501, ext 235.
Northeast Center for Urban and Community Forestry. Available @
http://www.umass.edu/urbantree/profilevol.html.
146
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Pest, Robert. Personal communication (8/27/99). Dept. of Biology, UNC at Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Pearson, Tim. Personal communication (8/29/99) Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension, (814) 887-5613.
Spencer, Shannon, Huczek, G., and B. Muir. 1998. Developing a student scientist partnership: Boreal Forest Watch.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(1): 31-43.
USGS NAAMP Terrestrial Salamander Monitoring Program. Available at http://www.im.nbs.gov/sallv.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000* Austin, TX
147
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nancy Mesner
Utah State University, Department of Geography
5240 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-5240
phone: 435/797-2465, fax: 435/797-4048
email: nancym@ext.usu.edu
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE A
The Bear River Watershed Education
Project
Volunteer stream monitoring in Utah promotes a better
understanding of how human activities and natural
events in a watershed can affect water quality. A
stream monitoring curriculum has been developed for grades 5-12. This monitoring program is also being used by
volunteer groups to track water quality trends and to evaluate, changes resulting from improved management
practices. Monitoring programs within Utah rely heavily on many partners, including local, state and federal
agencies, Utah State University, private organizations and schools throughout the state.
Most recently, stream monitoring by students is being implemented on a watershed scale in a pilot project in the
Bear River drainage (in northern Utah, southern Idaho and western Wyoming). Teachers and students from 11
school districts throughout the basin have adopted a river reach near their school and are monitoring water quality
and riparian habitat The program includes training for teachers and opportunities for students to work with natural
resource specialists. The project also encourages investigations of historical and cultural aspects of the river. All
data ajnd information are shared on the Internet. Each school is encouraged to develop their own web page which
describes their individual program. These sites are all linked to a common site which includes a searchable database
and information and interpretation about water quality throughout the entire watershed. Our hope is that this project
will help students gain a better understanding of watershed processes, but also will help develop citizens who are
active and informed stewards of their watersheds.
148
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS ON THE WEB
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Pete Schade, Montana Watercourse
Presenters:
Steve Amos, Austin Science Academy, 4Empowerrnent
Cyberways and Waterways: High School Students as Stakeholders and Monitoring
Online
(abstract only)
Pete Schade, Montana. Watercourse
Creating Your Own Web-Based Interactive Stream Site
(abstract only)
Christos Michalopoulos, GLOBE
Students as Volunteer Monitors: Lessons Learned from the GLOBE Program
(abstract only)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
149
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS ON THE WEB
Cyberways and Waterways: High School
Students as Stakeholders and Monitoring
Online
CONTACT INFORMATION
Steve Amos
Austin Science Academy, 4Empowerment
1607 Waterson, Austin, TX 78703
phone: 512/469-7447, fax: 512/469-0552
email: steve@4empowerment.com
website: http://www.cyberwaysandwaterways.com
Cyberways & Waterways™™ integrates technology
and education by means of an environmentally based
curriculum centered on Texas streams, rivers,
coastlines and the Gulf of Mexico. Through the creation of a unique public-private sector consortium, funded by a
grant from the Texas Education Agency, Cyberways & Waterways brings together the best of the best in education,
technology, marine and aquatic science, and the private sector to deliver an innovative education program. This
novel online and field study learning program offers students and teachers an unprecedented opportunity to study
and electronically visualize the entire Texas watershed from school grounds, streams and rivers to the Flower
Gardens coral reef 110 miles off the Texas shore.
Students become technically literate as they develop interdisciplinary real-world skills such as data analysis,
graphical presentation, interpretation, critical thinking, and information synthesis using the environment as a
contextual framework for learning. The Cyberways & Waterways curriculum, website and resource material are
fully bilingual (Spanish and English) to ensure that all students, parents and teachers derive maximum benefit from
the program.
The pilot program involves thirteen Texas schools. Cyberways & Waterways directly involves over 14,275 students
and indirectly involves 152,433 students in participating school districts. An average of 59% of these students are
economically disadvantaged. The ethnic diversity of the target student population is 58% Hispanic, 30% Anglo, and
12% African American. The program will indirectly include more than a million people through consortium member
organizations, as well as the nearly limitless population of the World Wide Web.
150
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Pete Schade
Montana Watercourse
PO Box 170575, Bozeman, MT 59717
phone: 406/994-5398, fax: 406/994-1919
email: paschade(5).montana.edu
website: http://www.dnrc.state.mt.us/word/home.htm
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS ON THE WEB
Creating Your Own Web-Based
Interactive Stream Site
In August of 1999, the Montana Volunteer Water
Monitoring Project developed a web-based
interactive stream site for 40 teachers and students,
participants in Montana State University — Bozeman's
STAR (Students and Teachers as Researchers) Project. For three days, participants learned about water quality and
conducted water quality field tests on Bridger Creek, a tributary to the Gallatin River. During field sampling, digital
photos and video were taken to document the site and the procedures used to collect data. These images were then
used to create the STAR Stream Site using Microsoft FrontPage and Kodak's digital imaging technology software.
The result was a 360° movable panorama of Bridger Creek, complete with embedded hotlinks to additional
information, video and images. By clicking on selected "hot-spots" within the Bridger Creek panorama, users access
pages that provide tutorial information on bankfull cross-sections and flow determinations, macroinvertebrate
sampling, testing of water chemistry, and other aspects of stream assessment.
The site was presented to STAR participants. Teachers and students were shown how the product was developed,
and discussion ensued focusing on how creation of similar sites could be accomplished as a class project. Many
schools either already possess the required equipment, or can purchase it inexpensively using school funds or small
grants. Such a class project has the advantage of providing self-directed hands-on learning of not only stream
ecology and water science, but also technology and web page design. Teachers left excited with the prospect of
creating their own classroom learning tutorials and presentations using these new tools.
Equipment needed:
Pentium Computer (Windows)
• Digital camera (or a regular camera and a scanner)
Tripod
• Software
- Internet authoring software (Microsoft FrontPage, FrontPage Express, other;..)
— Imaging software (Kodak LivePicture, Reality Studio, other...)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
151
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS ON THE WEB
Students as Volunteer Monitors: Lessons
Learned from the GLOBE Program
Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the
Environment (GLOBE) is an international partnership
among scientists, teachers, and students from around
the world. Young volunteers, under the supervision of
their teachers, take measurements of the local environment following established scientific protocols and using
instruments that meet strict specifications. The measurements span four major investigation areas: Atmosphere,
Hydrology (surface water monitoring), Soil, and Land Cover.
Data are reported, archived, and made publicly available through GLOBE's web page (http://www.globe.gov). Data
users include GLOBE scientists who utilize them in their research. The data are also presented as interactive
CONTACT INFORMATION
Christos Michalopoulos
The GLOBE Program
744 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503
phone: 202/395-7600
email: michalop@.globe.gov
website:http://www.globe.gov
investigations. The web page plays an essential role in serving the GLOBE community. It provides on-line support
(Teacher's Guide, "Resource Room"), it facilitates communication ("GLOBEMail" feature, web chats), it enhances
cooperation ("School to School" page), and it provides forums for sharing science results ("Scientist Corner" page),
student project results ("Student Investigations" page), and instructional strategies and lesson plans ("Educators'
Forum" page).
Challenges to participation by schools center on finding the time and resources for implementing the program.
Integration of measurement activities into the curriculum is essential. GLOBE environmental observations offer a
source of easily understood data that can support inquiry-based student research projects and strengthen
implementation of various educational standards.
152
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
HOW'S THE SERVICE IN THIS PLACE?
SESSION INFORMATION:
This was a 2-part facilitated discussion with no individual papers or presentations
Discussion Leaders:
Elizabeth Herron
University of Rhode Island-Watershed Watch
Room 21 OB Woodward Hall, Kingston, Rl 02881
phone: 401/874-2905, fax: 401/874-4561
email: uriww@etal.uri.edu
Jerry Schoen
Massachusetts Waterwatch Partnership
Blaisdell House Umass, Amherst, MA 01003
phone: 413/545-5532, fax: 413/545-2304
email: jschoen@tei.umass.edu
Many volunteer monitoring programs depend upon other organizations for a variety of services. These "service
providers" may assist in a single facet of monitoring such as providing technical, organizational or financial
assistance. Others may provide several services or assist in all aspects of monitoring. While a specific definition of
what sets a service provider apart from a volunteer monitoring program may be difficult to agree upon, a common
thread is that it is an organization that provides services which enable other groups to conduct water quality
monitoring. .
The focus of this two-part session was to discuss how we were providing services and to identify ways we can
improve. During the first session, issues facing service providers were identified. During the second'session, small
groups discussed those issues at length. The issues discussed were collaborations, delivery methods, credibility and
objectivity, and the evaluation process.
Collaborations are an important tool for assisting monitoring programs. Keys for successfully addressing the unique
challenges of collaboration include:
Identify what organizations are already providing similar services, in an area - don't reinvent the wheel or
get into turf wars.
Communicate often and well with yoxir collaborators.
• Plan on it requiring work and good planning. .
• Need clear expectations and outcomes:
— Partnership agreements
- Memoranda of understanding
— Specific deliverables
- Correct level of involvement and commitment
- Working with solid organizations
Assess how you will manage your assets and resources:
- Level of commitment
— Length of involvement
- Resources available • .
- Organizational mandates
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
153
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Ensure accountability and have a "backup strategy in place"
- Be flexible
- Have alternatives lined up
• To ensure better collaboration, get a funder to support a facilitator
• Know the "Sacred Cows" of the organizations you intend to collaborate with to ensure that no one will be
accidentally treading into dangerous areas.
Delivery methods
Service providers need to have a complete "tool kit" of delivery methods to effectively deliver services to diverse
audiences. They must learn to appropriately use new and developing technologies. Websites can be useful as
screening tools for programs looking for help and as a way to provide general information. More sophisticated sites
can contain training materials as well. However, these sites should not be expected to replace completely personal
contact and interaction.
Personal contact requires "someone" to do the contacting and the resources necessary to support that someone. A
well-developed structure should be in place with information available to help funnel the public to appropriate
alternatives, even if that means starting their own monitoring program. The personal contact approach helps to
maintain good public relations, which may in fact help to keep adequate funding.
Trainers networks can include "train the trainers" workshops, stand alone manuals and materials, and follow-up
evaluation (certification). What follows are some of the problems and issues to consider related to trainer networks:
• How much training is needed? The group decided that, at a minimum, watershed ecology and decision
making is needed in addition to field and classroom training in sampling and analysis
• How to provide effective back-up or follow-up support after training is completed? Solutions include:
- rely on retired people to help fill the human resource gap
— co-train with new trainers
- observe trainers while training
- back-up, or supporting manuals/materials
— go out with new trainers/trainees several times after training to answer questions and check on
proficiency
— build cohesive teams consisting of experienced and new volunteers
— train experienced volunteers to act as mentors
• Training adults often requires different techniques than teaching children. What are some resources or ideas
to address this?
— "How to teach to different levels" chk-alawai@JUNO.COM Claudia Hamlin Katnik
— Watershed ecology sessions at annual/regional conferences
— Distance learning (tele-courses, web-based courses, video tapes, etc.)
— Break websites down into categories for ease of use
- Challenge - maintain direct, personal contact while allowing the appropriate use of technology
(i.e. Internet and distance learning)
• How to get teachers to report data back?
- Provide Self Addressed Stamped Envelopes (SASE)
— Collect ALL data sheets, copy them, and then send them back
— Provide continuing education credits (CEUs) only upon return of data
- Nag and generally be a nuisance
- Give half of grant funds up front and the other half upon return of data sheets
Maintaining credibility and objectivity when working with a variety of groups can sometimes be difficult, especially
if working with strong advocacy groups. Some keys to help service providers protect their credibility are:
• Partner with people who already have good credibility
• Don't partner with groups that have a specific advocacy plan (not provide monitoring training)
• Make arrangements to include all people involved with an issue in the training
• Provide a disclaimer up front (after all, aren't we all advocates?)
• Be very clear about selection criteria for determining who you will provide training to
• Be very clear about criteria for deciding who to service (grants, training, etc.). Provide a written list of
those criteria when people ask for it! Questions to consider - what is the range of stakeholder reps? - is it a
watershed scale?
154
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Use training sessions to make groups aware of their own credibility as well as the complexity of the
situation i.e. "Everyone is part of the problem!"
• Make sure that groups with an agenda agree to go through more training than just monitoring
• Sign a statement that they are not acting as agents of your organization
• Need very clear understanding up front about what training provides, how far the mission of the service
provider goes, and what will be required for future training
• Develop a policy for how groups can use the trainers'name.
Maintaining credibility will not be as difficult if the parameter service providers are training groups to monitor are
not really complex. Additional problems with credibility and maintaining distance may occur if the advocacy groups
want help interpreting the data. Specific issues, such as those that follow, need to be addressed IN ADVANCE to
deal with these situations:
Develop clear criteria for trainer network - build in an evaluation process
• Work with groups to develop clear agreement about what can be done
Develop training that leads them to the right place - multifaceted training is needed to get at more complex
issues
• Establish a clear process for how data is used
How to evaluate and assess ourselves and the groups we provide services to is another important area. Specific
issues discussed were:
• Need for new, non-foundational ways to count beans
• Different survey purposes exist: needs assessment vs. how well WE are doing
• The necessity of evaluating the needs, success, and effectiveness of our clients
• Making sure the right tools are being used for the various purposes
• Need to evaluate learning — e.g. watershed consciousness-versus skill level
A role for evaluation needs to be included in the planning process
Evaluating the ability of individuals to train others can be difficult. Ideas:
• Annually observe or co-teach with each and every trainer (so no one feels singled out) - always try
something they suggest to put them at ease and to enhance your own teaching ability
• Pre- and post- training quizzes or surveys to determine what was learned
• Surveys or evaluation forms — things to consider - is statistical meaning important? Do funders care? Do
you need a professional to develop and assess properly?
Methods for assessing needs of the volunteer (use several methods!!)
• Oral (one to one discussions)
-• Workshop evaluations
Feedback committee made up of volunteers
• Give assignment at workshops to communicate needs
Listserve discussion groups
• Self-directed sessions at annual conferences
• Provide very general grant monies (see what they are interested in doing)
• Have a technical committee
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
155
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Networking meeting - localized or statewide
Have groups do study design in order to get a grant (from which you can determine the skills, equipment
and technical support they will need)
Some resources for assessment and evaluation:
• "How To Conduct Your Own Survey" by Priscilla Salant and Don A. Dillman, 256 pages 1 edition
(October 27, 1994) John Wiley & Sons; ISBN: 0471012734
• Assessment rubrics websites:
- http://www.pasd.com/PSSA/writing/esr/intro.htm
- http://cormect.barry.edu/ect607/Assessment/Assess.htm
- http://www.music.utah.edu/assessment/rubricsCreat.html
• Cooperative Extension, U Minnesota - Center for Survey Research (Inexpensive if the initial survey is
completed)
Before starting the evaluation process some things to consider are:
• You can't assess how well you did without assessing how the group you trained is doing. For examples,
see River Network or Colorado Division of Wildlife forms
• Processes for internal and external evaluations
Who is the audience for the evaluation? Funders - volunteers?? Different needs, so use different tools
(questions)
How to get info back to funders
* Plug in evaluations at the start, circular versus linear process
Interactive evaluation and change in response to the evaluation
• Why do we evaluate?? Only because it's mandated??
• How much do we link our efforts with change? Cause and effect??
• We NEED TO SHARE THE CREDIT-robs ownership otherwise
Some examples of evaluation processes:
• Home*A*Syst surveys participants before a workshop on household practices - then (up to 1 year later)
post training survey to see what changes were made.
• Mass Water Watch - at the beginning of the year, MWW holds study design session. Then, at the end of
the year they hold data interpretation sessions that include "what to do next year," and "what are your
needs." They use data interpretation as the hook.
156
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE ROLE OF VOLUNTEER MONITORING IN
TMDLs
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Sharon Clifford, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Presenters:
Scott Kishbaugh, NYSDEC Division of Water
Volunteer Monitoring and Government Environmental Data Reporting: Smooth Fit
or Square Peg in Round Hole?
Donna Meyers, Coastal Watershed Council
Volunteer Monitoring and TMDLs: San Lorenzo River Watershed Case Study
Scott Dye, Sierra Club
Chicken Little, Lightbulbs, and the Green Equation
(no paper submitted)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
157
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE ROLE OF VOLUNTEER
MONITORING IN TMDLs
Volunteer Monitoring and Government
Environmental Data Reporting: Smooth
Fit or Square Peg in Round Hole?
CONTACT INFORMATION
Scott Kishbaugh
NYSDEC Division of Water
Room 398, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-3508
phone: 518/457-0734, fax: 518/485-7786
email: sakishba@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Government, whether federal, state, or local, is frequently charged with the responsibility of evaluating and reporting
on the state of environmental resources, whether mandated through the Clean Water Act (305b, 303d), through the
need to develop scoring systems for grant programs, or to best inform the public as to conditions necessitating
management, restoration, or preservation. While some of these processes are occasionally satisfied by a loose
coalition of best professional judgment, generic models, educated guesswork, and political pressure, it is more
frequently and most efficiently driven by sound environmental data. Given that most of these government entities
are continuing to struggle to bridge broadening data gaps with limited resources, there appears to be a logical need to
utilize other data sources to fill these gaps. Some have been filled with the efforts of the academic and professional
consulting community, but these are frequently limited to basic research or solving and resolving specifically
directed management questions, not assessing ambient environmental conditions and linking use of and problems
associated with these resources. Increasingly, volunteer monitoring is being looked at as a way to fill some of these
gaps.
New York State is one of an increasing number of states that taps into the potential uses of volunteer monitoring
data. It incorporates these data into a wide variety of assessment and management programs, from delineating
priorities for state funding programs (such as the New York Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act) to serving federal
reporting requirements of sections 305b and 303d of the Clean Water Act. It also determines the most appropriate
use of state sampling resources, (management efforts, and other expenditures of a limited resource base. This paper
focuses on the information-to-aciion process that utilizes volunteer monitoring data in the development of the federal
305b and 303d lists, which serve as the roadmap for more effectively assessing, restoring, and protecting water
resources throughout the state and country. The connection between volunteer monitoring data and the development
of management tools for water resource impairments, such as total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculations, is
also addressed hi this paper. Although multiple sources of volunteer monitoring data are included within this
discussion, the focus of this paper will be on the use of monitoring data collected within the New York Citizens
Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP), a lay monitoring program conducted by the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the NY Federation of Lake Associations, (a coalition of not-for-profit
shorefront property owners groups, fish and game clubs, lake protection groups, local taxing districts and interested
individuals dedicated to the protection and preservation of New York State lakes and ponds.)
As in many states, the information-to-action pipeline in New York State starts with a waterbody inventory to assess
and evaluate the state of water resources, with an emphasis on identifying conditions that result in an impairment to
a wide variety of water uses. Unlike many other states, New York State compiles a statewide inventory of
waterbodies that provides assessment endpoints that differ somewhat from the federal reporting requirements
promulgated in section 305b of the Clean Water Act (the "305b Reports"), as noted in Figure 1. This additional
layer of assessment categories is required to encompass an interpretation of traditional water quality data and less
technical information needed to develop such things as: scorecards for broadly assessing waterbody conditions for
triggering additional monitoring activities; scoring systems for grant programs; evaluating water quality problems
not necessarily linked to use impairments (such as violation of some "lesser" water quality standards); and building
momentum toward the identification of problems, sources, and improvements in an expanding number of
waterbodies throughout the state.
Within the waterbody inventory, compiled information can be categorized as water quality data (physical, chemical,
and biological), biota identification and/or counts, anecdotal information and public perception as pertinent to
waterbody uses, and user endpoint information, such as beach closures and generic fish consumption advisories.
Each of these categories are often host to a full spectrum of data intensity, from single data points or a few
residential complaints to comprehensive water quality studies. In addition, the robustness of these datasets is further
iterated by the validity of analytical tools used to generate the water quality data. In New York State, state certified
labs must be utilized for analyzing data from any state (directly or indirectly via counties or other local government)
funded programs, and the validity of sample collection and analyses must be assured through the development of
quality assurance plans (QAPs). This requirement has resulted in generally dividing water monitoring programs in
NYS into various levels of documentation and richness of data. The New York State Waterbody Inventory includes
158
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
NYS WATERBODY INVENTORY
= EPA 305b
WATERBODIES
NEEDING
VERIFICATION
PRIORITY
WATERBODIES LIST
(PWL)
WATERBODIES
WITHOUT
IMPAIRMENT
MONITORING
PROGRAM
VERIFIED WQ
PROBLEMS
THREATENED
WATERBODIES
EPA 303d LIST
NON TMDL
MANAGEMENT
TMDL
DEVELOPMENT
Figure 1. NYS Assessment Endpoints.
listings for a wide variety of both data-rich and data-sparse waterbodies; the data-intensive subset of the inventory,
as defined by the intensity of the data collection and validity, serves as the focus for the federal 305b reports
generated by the NYSDEC.
Specifically, these assessments identify impacted lakes for inclusion on the state Priority Waterbody List (PWL), a
subset of the waterbody inventory that serves as the primary focus for management activities and expenditures
sanctioned by the NYSDEC. Water quality assessments within the PWL identify the severity of impairment and
level of documentation for specific uses consistent with the broad federal goals of "swimmable, fishable"
waterbodies and other common uses of lakes, reservoirs, and streams: water supply, shellfishing, public bathing, fish
consumption, aquatic life (i.e. fish survival), recreation (non-contact recreation, such as boating), and aesthetics. The
severity of impairments are categorized as precluded (frequent or persistent conditions preclude all aspects of use),
impaired (occasional conditions periodically prevent/limit/restrict use or persistent conditions discourage use),
stressed (occasional conditions periodically discourage use), and threatened (use supported but is threatened by
changing land use, water quality degradation or is a highly valued resource). The level of documentation can be
categorized as known (data/studies completed and provide conclusive evidence), suspected (anecdotal evidence,
public perception, some data suggest conclusion, but studies are incomplete or there exists conflicting information),
and possible (very little documentation exists of actual water quality problems). Numeric and non-quantitative
(professional judgment) criteria exist for assigning waterbodies into these use impairment criteria. Table 1 connects
assessments developed for the PWL with the federal 3Q5b reporting requirements, based on the level of
documentation.
Table 1. PWL assessments and the federal 305b reporting requirements.
Severity of Problem
(NYS PWL Category)
Precluded
Impaired
Stressed
Threatened
Known Problem
(EPA 305b Category)
Not Supporting
Partially Supporting
Supporting but
Threatened
Supporting but
Threatened
Suspected Problem
(EPA 305b Category)
Not Applicable
Partially Supporting
Supporting but
Threatened
Fully Supporting
Possible Problem
(EPA 305b Category)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Fully Supporting (needs
verification)
Fully Supporting
(special protection)
So where does that leave volunteer monitoring programs? Many volunteer monitoring programs collide with the
professional monitoring and assessment community that is often dually charged with conducting monitoring
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
159
-------
Conference Proceedings
programs and evaluating data collected by both trained professionals and interested laymen. For water quality and
biota data, volunteer data are often perceived to be limited by available equipment, analytical tools, and collection,
identification, and interpretation expertise. This tends to negatively affect volunteer stream data more than lake data,
since the former rely heavily on "identification" data (such as macroinvertebrates), while the latter often rely on
sampling equipment (Secchi disks) that are compatible across monitoring programs. In addition, lake monitors more
often utilize laboratories for analyzing sensitive chemical constituents (such as low level phosphorus) not accurately
analyzed with test kits or field tests, whereas stream monitors are often evaluating constituents (such as dissolved
oxygen and pH) that are readily analyzed via test kits or other testing procedures modified from more detailed or
technically accepted methodologies. While readily available kits and field tests have resulted in great expansions in
volunteer monitoring, they may also have highlighted a perceived contrast between professional and lay collection of
water quality data, resulting in skepticism in the use of volunteer data for some government functions. This gap
continues to narrow, however, as volunteer monitoring programs become more sophisticated (read standardized) and
fewer agency resources are dedicated to monitoring.
An increasing number of monitoring programs are collecting use perception data (via standardized field observation
forms). Local volunteers may be perceived as more effective in evaluating use impairments, since they are also local
users of these resources, they maintain a close physical proximity to evaluated (and changing) conditions, and they
maintain a greater sense of acceptable and "normal" water quality conditions for nearby waterbodies. As a result,
the increasing use of perception data has served to positively affect volunteer lake data, since, standardized
perception forms have been effectively utilized by several states (Minnesota, Vermont) in developing water quality
standards, and since many of the uses targeted for assessment, at least in New York State, are practiced far more
commonly in lakes than in streams (such as bathing and boating).
In New York State, there is only one state-conducted volunteer monitoring program. CSLAP involves rigid
individual volunteer training (by NYSDEC staff), uses standardized sampling protocols and equipment consistent
with that used in state agency "professional" monitoring programs, has an approved QAP, and all pertinent samples
are analyzed by a state certified laboratory (the NYS Department of Health). The level of documentation, depending
on the nature of the uses assessed, can be categorized as high as "known" or "suspected," using the vernacular
described above. These data feed directly into the state PWL process (through input from NYSDEC-CSLAP staff)
and, based on the matrix above, can feed directly into the 305b process. Moreover, in some use impairment
categories, such as aesthetics and public bathing, the biweekly public perception data collected through CSLAP is
probably a more accurate assessment of use conditions than less localized monthly monitoring data collected in more
traditional ("professional") ambient lake monitoring programs. Such assessments may be useful in supplementing
more quantifiable water quality monitoring data collected within CSLAP or other traditional monitoring programs.
The NYSDEC has also been working with the Hudson Basin River Watch (HBRW) program, a project of Open
Space Institute, Inc. connected with the national River Network and developed to improve the water quality of the
Hudson River basin through education, community involvement, and stewardship. HBRW coordinates a number of
volunteer monitoring programs within the Hudson River basin, and is developing a standardized water quality
monitoring protocol for use in each of these sub-basin monitoring efforts. Once this protocol is completed and
adopted by the individual monitoring programs, data collected in these programs will be "upgraded" into a higher
category of documentation and will become eligible for inclusion in the state PWL and federal 305b listing
processes. This process has already come to fruition for some of the individual programs 'already well integrated
within the HBRW network.
The balance of the volunteer monitoring programs in New York State (at least 25 other programs, according to EPA)
generally do not have approved QAPs, often do not utilize certified laboratories (although many collect
macroinvertebrate data or other information not amenable to laboratory analyses), and may not use standardized
sampling protocols or have other means for verifying the validity of the data generated within the program. As such,
the documentation associated with these programs would most likely be categorized as "suspected" or "possible"
and thus might not be eligible for characterization through the federal 305b listings or even the state PWL listings,
even if sampling results yielded assessments comparable to those through these more verifiable monitoring
programs.
An example to illustrate this could be fictitious Lake Luster, a Class B (best intended use = public bathing) lake with
a public swimming beach. Water quality data collected in three monitoring programs (Agency Ambient Monitoring
Program, State-Sponsored Citizens Monitoring Program [CSLAP], and Unsponsored Volunteer Monitoring) all
indicate water clarity readings of 1.8 meters and total phosphorus concentrations of 0.040 mg/L, and there are no
records of any beach closures. In addition, the State-Sponsored Citizens Monitoring Program perception data
indicates that swimming is impaired 40% of the summer.
160
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
The assessment of the lake by the Agency monitoring staff, utilizing agency data collected with standardized
equipment and procedures and utilizing certified laboratories, would indicate that water clarity readings suggest
threatened conditions, nutrient data suggest stressed conditions, and the lack of beach closures suggest stressed,
threatened, or non-threatened conditions. The overall assessment would likely be either threatened or stressed for
public bathing, contingent on other data (bacteriological) and staff evaluation of the relative importance of each
indicator.
An assessment of the lake using State-sponsored citizen monitoring data would indicate the same level of
impairment, since these data would also be considered known (using the criteria described above) and, at least for
these purposes, comparable to that collected by the Agency staff. However, since the volunteer data set also
includes perception data, which would indicate that the lake may be stressed, the overall assessment of the lake may
be tipped toward stressed conditions.
Meanwhile, assessing the lake using Unsponsored volunteer monitoring data may not indicate the same level of
impairment, since no QAP exists to indicate whether, for example, water clarity measurements are collected in
sufficiently deep water to accurately assess the transparency, or if phosphorus results are analyzed and/or reported in
sufficient accuracy to know if a reading of 0.040 mg/L is more accurately reported as 0.04 mg/L or even 0.04 ± 0.02
mg/L. These data may not be sufficient to place this waterbody on the state PWL list, and are unlikely to be
adequate for inclusion on the federal 305b list. Instead, this may be a lake that requires verification before inclusion
on any reporting list.
The data requirements for inclusion on the PWL listing, as noted above, are not as stringent as those required for the
federal 305b list. These, in turn, may be even less stringent than those required for inclusion on the federal 303d list,
since the latter usually triggers a rigorous assessment of pollutant sources (via TMDL calculations) and ultimately
large-scale management and remediation of the problems causing the original impairment. There may be some
potential 303d list candidates (based on the level of impairment identified in the 305b list) for which non-TMDL
management may be more appropriate. Some examples of this may include waterbodies managed through
remediation of a specific or single source, those with historical or legacy (no contemporary loading) pollutants, and
waterbodies with problems associated with "natural" conditions. There may also be classes of TMDL candidate
waters in which a generic TMDL may be; appropriate, such as culturally (atmospherically) acidified lakes, which
make up a large percentage of the non-supporting lakes in New York State. The balance of the non- and partially-
supporting waterbodies on the 305b list may be candidates for site-specific TMDLs.
As in many states, the TMDL development process in New York State is evolving to balance the need to better
manage the impacted water resources of the state with the technical, fiscal, and logistic difficulties in developing
these loading calculations and management strategies. New York State identified five priority waterbodies/basins
for TMDL development in 1998: New York Harbor, Long Island Sound, the New York City Watershed (referring to
reservoirs and their basins north of the City that supply drinking water to City residents), Lake Champlain, and
Onondaga Lake. Many of these priority basins have been the subject of intensive agency, academic, and other
professional monitoring for many years (hence the development of the database to support the prioritization of these
management strategies) and thus have not relied heavily on volunteer data. However, several lakes within these
priority basins have been identified as candidates for individual TMDLs based largely on volunteer monitoring data,
and the TMDL process in Lake Champlain has relied heavily on volunteer data (collected primarily in Vermont) for
assessing ambient conditions and for the development of nutrient criteria and standards inherent in the TMDL
calculations. New York State has also identified four secondary priority TMDL categories related to atmospheric
deposition lakes, fish consumption advispries, closed shellfishing waters, and monitoring standards violations that
will increasingly rely on volunteer monitoring data to support existing limited databases, and to direct future
professional monitoring efforts.
It is likely that the role of volunteer monitoring data in the TMDL process will involve the following components of
the existing TMDL regulations and guidance:
• Forming Monitoring Partnerships with agencies, academic, and local citizens
Supporting Load Allocation Calculations that require ambient water quality data for mass balances and
loading data at inlets. These data are already collected by volunteers in many priority and emerging priority
basins
Enhancing 305b and 303d Lists, since states have been charged by EPA to develop more comprehensive
lists. Volunteer data can supplement this by providing information to move waters from the 305b to 303d
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
161
-------
Conference Proceedings
lists, particularly as the monitoring programs become more sophisticated (read standardized) and accepted
as valid data generators
Assessment of Water-Based Control Actions that require ambient water quality information for evaluating
the effectiveness of TMDLs. As noted above, volunteer data are particularly effective at evaluating
attainment of uses
Verifying Models developed to evaluate post-TMDL activities for continuing or future water quality
conditions.
162
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
THE ROLE OF VOLUNTEER
MONITORING IN TMDLs
Volunteer Monitoring and TMDLs: San
Lorenzo River Watershed Case Study
CONTACT INFORMATION
Donna Meyers, Executive Director
Coastal Watershed Council
903 Pacific Avenue, Suite 207A, Santa Cruz, CA
95060
phone: 831/426-9012, fax: 831/421-0170
email: cwc_office@yahoo.com
Background
The San Lorenzo River drains a 137 square mile
watershed comprised of approximately 22,000 acres.
The watershed is characterized by rural residential development and supports land uses including timber harvesting,
mining, and recreation in the form of state and county parks. The San Lorenzo River watershed is characterized by
steep topography; deeply weathered, sandy and easily eroded geologic formations; and moderately high, periodically
intense, periods of rainfall.
Studies dating back to the 1940s have documented impairment of channel bed conditions for aquatic habitat
resulting from excessive sand and silt being transported through the local stream system. Over the last 60 years,
human activity has accelerated the erosional processes in the watershed through road building, wet season use of
unsurfaced roads, drainage modifications on hillslopes and along road corridors, land clearing for residential and
commercial development, timber harvest activities, removal of riparian vegetation and past channelization efforts.
The San Lorenzo Watershed was listed as an impaired watershed by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board in 1994. The watershed was listed for both sediment and nutrient pollutants. Sedimentation is
documented as impairing defined beneficial uses including: cold water fisheries, spawning and rearing habitat,
water supply, and body-contact recreation. The listing of the San Lorenzo River as an impaired waterway (Clean
Water Act, Section 303d) necessitates water quality improvement through the establishment of a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) process for the watershed.
Study Methodology
The San Lorenzo River Sediment TMDL is being developed according to the following methodology:
• Quantitative estimate of sediment loading under theoretical past "unimpaired" conditions
Quantitative estimate of sediment loading for current watershed conditions
• Focus on representative subwatershed for extrapolation to entire watershed
Investigation Methods and Resources
• Literature review and background data collection including previous water resources and fisheries studies,
historic maps and aerial photographs, current digital mapping and imagery, geological and soils studies, and
land use plans.
Assess and Identify Sediment Sources (including point and nonpoint sources)
• Identify natural background erosion vs. human-induced erosion
1. Road contributions
2. Landslides and hillslope processes
3. Stockpiled material
4. Streambank instability
Monitor sediment impacts on streambed conditions
• Develop arid quantify sediment source ratio for background and anthropogenic sources
i
• Identify sediment reduction methods through BMPs and other methods
• Develop measurable and achievable numeric targets to monitor changes in watershed conditions and known
beneficial uses.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
163
-------
Conference Proceedings
Role of Volunteer Monitoring in TMDL Development and Implementation
The Coastal Watershed Council (CWC) participated in the development of the San Lorenzo River Sediment TMDL
by conducting monitoring of streambed conditions and assessing sediment contributions from public roads. CWC
volunteers conducted the following streambed assessments:
• Longitudinal profiles of critical reaches
• Cross-sectional surveys of pool, riffle and run habitat
• Pebble-counts
• Embeddedness surveys
Public road surveys
Monitoring was conducted at sites previously monitored in 1979 and 1992. Monitoring sites were permanently
documented and CWC volunteers will revisit sites on a 3-year rotational basis to assess effectiveness of BMPs on
achieving numeric targets for bed conditions including percent fines, embeddedness and pool volume. The value of
volunteer monitoring as part of the TMDL program is that sites can be revisited on a regular basis and over a long
period of time with limited investment by local agencies.
164
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
DEVELOPING A QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN
SESSION INFORMATION:
No individual papers were submitted for this 2-part overview and discussion session
Moderator:
Abby Markowitz, Outreach Specialist.Tetra Tech, Inc.
Presenters:
Linda Green, Director
Watershed Watch
University or Rhode Island, Cooperative Extension
210 B Woodward Hall, Kingston, Rl 02881-0804
phone: 401/874-2905; fax: 401/874-4561
email: lgreen@uri.edu
Abby Markowitz, Outreach Specialist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Blvd., Owings Mills, MD 21117
phone: 410/356-8993, fax: 410/356-9005
email: Abby.Markowitz@tetratech.com
Mike Bira, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue 6WQ-EW, Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: 214/665-6668, fax: 214/665-6689
email: bira.mike@epa.gov
The quality assurance project plan (QAPP) is a written document that outlines the procedures a monitoring project
will use to ensure that samples collected and analyzed, the data stored and managed, and the reports written are of
high enough quality to meet the project's needs. Keep in mind that:
Credibility doesn 't mean having the most exacting techniques. It means delivering on your promises, no
matter how small or large they are. (Meg Kerr, RI River Rescue)
A QAPP helps a program identify, articulate, and keep its promises. The path toward developing credibility and
ensuring quality cannot be successfully navigated without a QAPP that details a project's standard operating
procedures in the field and lab, outlines project organization, and addresses issues such as training requirements,
instrument calibration, and internal checks on how data are collected, analyzed, and reported. Just how detailed such
a plan needs to be depends, to a large extent, on the goals of the project. The 1998 National Directory of Volunteer
Environmental Monitoring Programs asked program coordinators whether they had a quality assurance project plan.
Over 770 groups responded to the survey. Forty-four percent of respondents indicated that they do have such a plan,
with 27% reporting mat the plan is state-approved, and 18% that it is EPA-approved. As volunteer monitoring
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
165
-------
Conference Proceedings
moves into the mainstream, more and more groups will be developing QAPPs to help ensure data of known quality
and to enhance the overall credibility of their program.
The QAPP sessions at the Austin conference were designed to provide participants with an overview of the QAPP
process and an opportunity to explore issues specific to their own programs. The workshop was broken into two
parts:
• Part 1 focused on the overall issue of credibility for volunteer monitoring programs as well as an overview
of the elements included in a QAPP. Linda Green gave a presentation titled Enhancing Credibility in a
Volunteer Monitoring Program and Abby Markowitz presented The Elements of a QAPP. Mike Bira
served as a resource person. If anyone would like a copy of either of the slide presentations given during
this session, please contact Abby or Linda directly (see box).
• Part 2 of the session was an interactive discussion focused on issues and questions raised by participants.
This "QAPP Clinic" allowed folks to ask questions and raise issues specific to their programs.
For more information
The following resources can be extremely helpful in developing the foundation for a QAPP, networking with similar
programs that have developed QAPPs, and in actually preparing your own QAPP document:
USEPA. 1996. The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA-841-B-96-003.
(Available by contacting EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications, at 800/490-9198.
The document is also available on line at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/vol.html. This document
contains an extensive list of resources and references to help in the journey to preparing a QAPP)
Ely, Eleanor and E. Harningson. 1998. National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs.
EPA-841-B-98-009. (Available fromNSCEP, 800/490-9198. The document is also available online at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/volmon.nsf. A summary of the Directory's findings is also available online at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/dir.html)
166
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
EVERYONE INTO THE WATER! ORGANIZING A
REGIONAL MONITORING "DAY"
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Steven Hubbell, Lower Colorado River Authority
Presenters:
Diane Wilson, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Capture the Moment-Pennsylvania's Watershed Snapshot
Steven Hubbell, Lower Colorado River Authority
Earth Day Monitoring in Texas: From Seed to Harvest
Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch
Communications and Logistics for Lock Step Sampling Events: The KY Watershed
Watch Sample Management System
(no paper submitted)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
167
-------
Conference Proceedings
EVERYONE INTO THE WATER!
ORGANIZING A REGIONAL
MONITORING "DAY"
Capture the Moment - Pennsylvania's
Watershed Snapshot
CONTACT INFORMATION
Diane Wilson, Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring .
Program Coordinator
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105
phone: 7171787-3730, fax: 717/787-9549
Email: wilson.diane@dep.state.pa.us
Introduction
Pennsylvania has a rich history of grassroots volunteer water monitoring. A recent survey by Pennsylvania's
Department of Environmental Protection's Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program indicates that there are at least
140 groups comprising 11,000 individuals who collectively spend more than $1,000,000 on monitoring activities. A
number of the community based monitoring groups_has gone beyond water quality monitoring to restoration
activities. The goals and activities of the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program, which was initiated in 1996, are
attuned to the goals and needs of the community based monitoring groups. Some of the actions taken by the
Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program to meet the needs of local groups include: the formation of a statewide
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Panel, an extensive training program tailored to individual groups' goals, and a
handbook for community based monitoring. The handbook is unique hi that it does not prescribe standardized
protocols for all. Instead it advocates the use of a study design process and a choice of monitoring methods
appropriate to the goals of the individual group.
The program has partnered with the Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement, the Pennsylvania Department
of Aging and the Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps on the organization of a stream monitoring program with
standardized protocols and a quality assurance project plan for senior citizens. The program has also undertaken an
extensive and ongoing study of potential uses of volunteer collected data in state assessments. In addition, the
Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program plans and implements an annual statewide Watershed Snapshot that
captures and showcases the massive commitment of Pennsylvania's communities to clean water.
Goals of the Watershed Snapshot
It has been said that Earthday has joined the ranks of the "picnic" holidays with its significance, like that of the
Fourth of July and Memorial Day, lost amidst the noise of the fireworks displays and smoke of backyard grills. The
original intent of Earthday as envisioned by Gaylord Nelson - then Senator from Wisconsin - was to capture the
attention of a nation and bring environmental issues to the forefront. Organized "teach-ins" at concerts and rallies all
over the country drummed up grass-roots supporters by the thousands. Environmental legislation such as the Clean
Water Act of 1972, which changed the way we view natural resources, followed the first Earthday.
The citizens' volunteer monitoring movement captures the spirit of that first Earthday. Volunteer monitors in
Pennsylvania celebrate that spirit with the Watershed Snapshot. Thousands of volunteer and professional monitors
have participated in this annual event that began as the Water Snapshot and became the Earthday Snapshot of Water
Quality and finally the Watershed Snapshot.
The goals of this event are to:
• Promote watershed education and awareness
• Recognize the ongoing efforts of community based water monitoring groups
• Foster the link between community based water monitoring groups and professional monitors
• Promote and strengthen the network of community based water monitors
• Give volunteer monitors the opportunity to showcase their accomplishments in a statewide forum
History
Water Snapshot '96
The idea for a "water snapshot" was born in September 1995 at a meeting hosted by the Delaware Riverkeeper, an
umbrella group that provides services to community based monitoring groups throughout the Delaware River Basin
(which drains about one third of Pennsylvania, parts of New Jersey, New York and Delaware). The idea was to
promote community based water-monitoring programs in the Delaware River Basin. The vision was to have every
monitoring program operating in the Delaware River Basin, whether volunteer or not, collect data during the same
168
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
time frame. It would run concurrently with Earthday celebrations. This would serve as a massive demonstration of
the commitment to clean water in the basin. It would capture the spirit of the moment in a "snapshot" of water
quality conditions taken by all those committed to water resources.
Participants would include citizens' groups, schools, colleges, universities, government agencies, water and sewer
departments, environmental professionals, anglers, youth organizations, industries and others. Sampling would
cover a cross section of the watershed from the mouth where the river enters the Atlantic Ocean to the small head
water streams.
Since the participants in Water Snapshot '96 would range from elementary school children using simple kits and
.litmus paper to environmental consultants with access to sophisticated sampling and analysis methods, the selection
of water quality indicators to be assessed was a critical decision. The technical advisors for Snapshot choose a small
suite of indicators including air and water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate and phosphate.
The sponsors of the event then developed a single page data sheet that asked for information about the samplers, the
sampling location and the weather conditions on the sampling date. All data would be collected between April 20th
and April 28th. This afforded volunteer monitors two weekends from which to choose.
An invitation to participate, along with the data sheet, was sent to hundreds of addresses throughout the basin.
Participants were asked to complete as much of the requested information as possible. Simultaneously, the sponsors
devised a press release and sent it to all news media in the Delaware River Basin and developed a web site dedicated
to the event. More than 70 organizations including schools, youth organizations, citizens' groups, private companies
and government agencies participated. It was estimated that hundreds of individuals got out to "capture the
moment".
Earthday Snapshot of Water Quality 1997
In 1997 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection initiated a Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring
Program. The program planned and implemented Earthday Snapshot of Water Quality 1997 because of the great
success of Water Snapshot '96 and as an outreach tool to begin establishing a statewide network for Pennsylvania's
numerous volunteer water monitors.
The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program collaborated with the sponsors of Water Snapshot '96 to take the event
into the Susquehanna and Allegheny River Basins, two of Pennsylvania's largest watersheds. Technical advisors
decided to add past weather conditions, flow, Secchi depth readings and visual accounts of turbidity and aquatic life
to the suite of water quality indicators included in Water Snapshot '96.
Water quality monitors were asked to go streamside at their routine sampling stations within the April 18-27 time
frame. They were asked to use whatever sampling and analysis methods they would normally employ within their
monitoring programs.
The project sponsors again developed a single page data sheet that was mailed to potential participants in the
Delaware, Susquehanna and Allegheny basins along with press releases to the media. The Delaware River Basin
Commission continued to lead the effort in the Delaware River basin with the Citizens' Volunteer monitoring
Program taking the lead in the Allegheny and Susquehanna. Personnel from the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring
Program went afield to do "side by side" monitoring with as many groups as possible. Again, participants were
asked to fill in only as much of the requested information as possible.
These efforts led to a fantastic increase in the number of participants for the combined monitoring projects. There
were well over 1,000 participants in those three basins with a few data sheets coming in from the Lake Erie and
Potomac River Basins.
Earthday Snapshot of Water Quality 1998
The Snapshot was taken statewide in 1998 to all of Pennsylvania's major basins including Susquehanna River,
Delaware River, Ohio River (which includes the Allegheny and Monogahela Rivers) Potomac River and Lake Erie.
The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program continued to lead the effort in all basins except the Delaware. The
Delaware River Basin Commission continued for their third year in the Delaware. The procedure of data sheet
distribution with alerts to the media was similar to the 1997 event.
A visual habitat assessment was added to the suite of physical and chemical indicators. Participants were asked to
look at the stream and surrounding area for 50 yards upstream and 50 yards downstream of their site. Then they
looked at each of the following factors and rated them as excellent, good, marginal or poor: in-stream cover; fine
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
169
-------
Conference Proceedings
particle sediments; condition of banks and coverage; disruptive pressures to riparian area; riparian vegetative zone
width; flow patterns and litter. They then gave an overall rating for the visual assessment. Again participation was
high, with thousands of individuals taking part.
Earthday Snapshot of Water Quality 1999
Sponsorship and collaboration between the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Citizens' Volunteer
Monitoring Program continued in the statewide effort in 1999. The procedure of data sheet distribution with alerts to
the media was similar to previous years. Volunteers, and other monitors, went afield during Earth Week - April 17-
26. A benthic macroinvertebrate survey was added to the host of indicators assessed in 1998. A simple key for
macroinvertebrates and water quality rating guide was distributed with the data sheets for habitat assessment and
chemical /physical indicators. Participants were asked to use a kick screen or D-frame net and disturb a streambed
area of 1 square meter to collect aquatic macroinvertebrates. Using a modified Hilsenhoff Biological Index, they
scored their collections to arrive at an overall-water quality rating. Participation numbers decreased slightly in 1999
but participants were extremely enthusiastic about the macroinvertebrate survey.
Watershed Snapshot 2000
Watershed Snapshot 2000 will take place during a two week period from April 14 - 30. The extended tune frame
would accommodate holiday schedules including Easter and Passover that may effect school monitoring groups in
particular. The procedure for this Snapshot is similar to those in the past four years. The theme for this year's event
is watersheds with a focus on non-point pollution. A land use survey and indicators for abandoned mine drainage, a
major source of non-point source pollution, were added to the physical/chemical indicators, habitat assessment and
benthic macroinvertebrates survey of past Snapshots. The Delaware River Basin Commission continues to lead the
effort in the Delaware River Basin with the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program leading the effort in the
remaining Pennsylvania Basins.
The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program is partnering with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to organize as
many events around Watershed Snapshot 2000 as possible by holding "Watershed Snapshot Showcase" events
across the state. The Showcase events will run concurrently with the Snapshot. The events will be half-day
monitoring events at streams or lakes and will include at least one school group or youth organization and a senior
citizen group or watershed association to encourage inter-generational activities; At each event there will be a
hands-on set of presentations focusing on the four basic monitoring activities of Watershed Snapshot 2000: land-use;
macroinvertebrate monitoring; chemical monitoring and habitat assessment.
Snapshot Reports
In all the snapshot events, data sheets are returned to the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Citizens'
Volunteer Monitoring Program. The Delaware River Basin Commission compiles a report for their basin. The
Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program compiles data from all Pennsylvania's watershed into a report that can be
used as an educational tool. The data is "democratized" - all data is used without regard to the data quality
objectives employed - to develop a "picture" of the overall water quality in Pennsylvania. Also, since participants
are asked to complete only as much of the requested information as possible, some data sheets only included
information on water temperature and pH whereas others completed all assessments. Despite the disparity in quality
control or lack thereof, the data sets for individual indicators contain very few "outliers" and are remarkably
consistent within basins and over the years. The data collected is used to get a better picture of the ranges in results
that can be expected, as well as determining trends and effects of physical influences upon water chemistry.
The reports compiled by the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program are intended to be used as reference tools with
each one emphasizing a different aspects of water quality monitoring such as water chemistry factors, aquatic life
and habitat. Each edition of the Snapshot report is complete in its own right and, at the same time, each edition
complements the others. The reports have proven to be remarkably popular with high demand from the public for
additional copies.
What Have We Gained?
This annual event has generated tremendous enthusiasm and a feeling of belonging among many of the groups who
monitor aquatic resources in Pennsylvania. Some of the volunteer monitoring groups have been quietly going about
their watershed stewardship business for as long as 35 years. The event has given them much deserved statewide
recognition for their incredible dedication to their watersheds.
Much has happened in the world of volunteer monitoring in Pennsylvania since the inception of the Snapshot. The
number of known groups has grown from 63 in 1997 to over 140 in 2000. More than 60 groups report they are
working with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in terms of data usage. Volunteer
monitoring has a high profile in the state and the movement is growing all the time in terms of numbers and
170
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
credibility. More groups than ever are reporting that they are using habitat assessment and benthic
macroinvertebrate surveys as part of their programs. There are plans to formalize a grassroots statewide network of
volunteers, which will be initiated at a summit of volunteer monitors later this year. It is difficult to gage how much
of this development has occurred as a result of the Snapshot. It certainly has been the catalyst for much of the
recognition that the volunteer monitoring movement in Pennsylvania now enjoys.
What Have We Learned?
Here are a few lessons we have learned along the way:
Have some clear goals and communicate them to potential participants well before the event. We sent out
"Save the Date" postcards this year about 2 months prior to the event.
• Encourage "mixed" sampling teams. The Snapshot affords a golden opportunity for volunteers and
professionals to monitor side by side.> We have much to learn from each other.
Keep it simple and decentralize, decentralize, decentralize!! The philosophy is that ANYONE can
participate in the Snapshot. Keep the datasheets simple. Everyone monitors at their routine stations or in
their backyard if they like. Don't attempt to dictate sampling locations. The only functions of some central
body of sponsors or advisors is to put together the data sheet, send it out, alert the media and write the
resulting report.
What Will Capture the Future?
Where we go from here will be up to the monitors. The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program in collaboration
with the Pennsylvania Organization of Watersheds and Rivers and the River Network is going out to the volunteer
monitoring community with a Needs Assessment that will drive the formation of the statewide network. An element
of the Needs Assessment will delve into the Snapshot and how it can be improved to be more meaningful and useful
to all who are committed to aquatic resources in Pennsylvania.
Whatever the future of Watershed Snapshot - whether it continues in its current form, becomes something else
altogether or dies a natural death-it has served its purpose: to capture the tremendous spirit of the outstanding
volunteer monitors in Pennsylvania.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000'Austin, TX
171
-------
Conference Proceedings
EVERYONE INTO THE WATER!
ORGANIZING A REGIONAL
MONITORING "DAY"
Earth Day Monitoring in Texas: From
Seed to Harvest
Volunteers monitor because they want to protect,
preserve, and restore environmental integrity for the
future. The average volunteer is not privy to the
debates of program managers about the complex
underpinnings of environmental management
strategies. The evidence of their contribution is often
hidden from their eyes. A snapshot monitoring event
can help demonstrate that they are involved in a great
effort - that they are its essential components.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Steven Hubbell, Program Coordinator
Colorado River Watch Network
Lower Colorado River Authority
P.O. Box 220, Mail Stop H219, Austin, TX 78767
phone: 800/776-5272, ext. 2403, fax: 512/473-4066
email: steven.hubbell@lcra.org
For more information:
Texas Colorado River basin Earth Day Results:
www.lcra.org/earthday
contact Steven Hubbell above
Texas Statewide Earth Day 2000 Results:
www.texaswatch.geo.swt.edu
contact: Jason Pinchback
phone: 512/245-9148
email: jason.pinchback@geo.swt.edu
I believe that when we have the opportunity to
acknowledge the contribution of our volunteers, and to spotlight the example of stewardship they demonstrate, it is
our responsibility to do so. When you consider the benefits of conducting an event that is open to all the water
quality monitors in your area, and consider the fact that they can be involved simply by doing what they normally do
- only during a selected time frame - it is hard to justify not giving it a try.
On April 22, Earth Day 1999, the volunteer monitors of the Colorado River conducted the first basinwide snapshot
monitoring event in Texas. Then, last week, (April 15 - 22, with April 18 as the focal "event day") professional
monitors joined volunteer monitors as Southwest Texas State University's Texas Watch coordinated our first
statewide snapshot monitoring event in honor of Earth Day 2000. Results from the 1999 event are described in "A
Day in the Life of the Colorado River" report, which is available upon request. In short, roughly 300 monitors and
450 total participants joined the 1999 event. Results from this year's event are still being assembled, and Texas
Watch intends to produce a summary report of the findings. Preliminary results are posted on the Web, at the address
provided in your handout.
My objective is not to try to impress you with numbers of monitors, observers, reporters, locations, water bodies, or
stream miles sampled. What I intend to do is to describe for you why I have come to believe that snapshot
monitoring can be a unifying force with the potential to strengthen our networks, inspire our monitors, and expand
our influence. I must confess, my original goal for this session was to present snapshot monitoring as a proposal for
a national event to honor Earth Day 2001.1 have since come to recognize that a grounds well of enthusiastic desire to
accomplish such an effort must come first. So I will tell you what I think is so great about snapshot monitoring, and
you will decide what happens next.
Here are some of the benefits of the 1999 and 2000 Earth Day Snapshot Monitoring Events in Texas:
Was the first time all volunteer monitoring groups in the Colorado River basin, then in Texas, joined forces
in a common monitoring activity.
• In 1999, was the only mention of EARTH DAY on the evening news.
• The 1999 event was covered by roughly 20 local newspapers.
Introduced 40 something river authority staff to volunteer monitors, who witnessed the effort first hand.
Afforded office staff at participating agencies the opportunity to get out in the field and see the natural
resources they are charged with protecting.
• Generated the Colorado River basin's first comprehensive online volunteer monitoring data set.
Was enthusiastically embraced by roughly 80% of Colorado River basin monitoring groups.
172
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Provided an instant inventory of the actual level of volunteer monitoring activity in our watershed. .
• Established new alliances and strengthened existing partnerships.
The 2000 event initiated an actual (as opposed to theoretical) collaboration between professional monitors
and volunteer monitors.
• Inspired several volunteer monitors to renew their commitment to collecting and reporting data.
Afforded a prime opportunity to say "thank you" to all of our volunteers.
• Inspired broad public interest in opportunities available through environmental monitoring.
• Helped identify areas where monitoring gaps and location overlap exist.
• Highlighted strengths and weaknesses of the types of water quality monitoring constituents monitored by
volunteers. .
How to Begin - A Ten Step Method
While it may seem daunting at first, coordinating a snapshot monitoring event is not as difficult as you may imagine.
In fact, our first basinwide snapshot monitoring event was accomplished in ten (more, or less) easy steps.
1. Once the decision is made to conduct a basinwide Earth Day event, the first step is to identify the
appropriate, person who will assume the primary responsibility for making decisions and answering
questions as they emerge throughout the process. Without an individual who is unflinchingly committed to
the event, many loose threads can unravel.
2. Write a description of the event that clearly articulates its purpose and the process that will be followed to
accomplish the purpose. This description can be modified and recycled in subsequent correspondence
regarding the event. In our case, the description was used to request monitor involvement, support from
monitors' employers, support from LCRA staff, and support from monitoring partners in the basin. The
description was also used in press releases before the event and in the summaries after the fact. Include hi
this description a strategy to deal with the data your event will generate.
3. Determine what internal or external support will be required to provide sufficient support for the event.
Identify the roles to be played and the people who will play these roles. In our case, this meant contacting
other monitoring networks within our basin and asking them to invite their monitors to be a part of this
event. It also meant asking LCRA staff to commit to visit monitors in action on the day of the event. (This
was an internal strategy to increase staff awareness, understandings, and appreciation of volunteer monitors.
To see the volunteers in action is powerful persuasion.)
4. Plan to rely on active monitors who are already trained and equipped to conduct water testing. Incorporate
the event description into a personal, inspiring, and challenging invitation to each monitoring site. Conclude
the invitation by informing monitors that they will receive a phone call to confirm their participation.
5. With the invitation, include a letter requesting support from the monitors' employers.
6. Build a participant spreadsheet, listing all potential monitoring sites. Include columns for monitor name and
phone number, staff name and phone number, monitoring location, monitoring tune, and estimated number
of participants for each site. Start to fill in this table as you phone each monitor.
7. Call each monitor and partner who received an invitation and say, "So, what time do you plan to monitor
with us on Earth Day?" Confirm both the time and the location of their sampling effort. Be sure they have
everything they need to conduct their sampling event (fresh reagents, data sheets, miscellaneous supplies).
Thank them.
8. If you include site visits with your event, assign monitoring sites to staff. In our case, staff received the
name, location, time, and phone number for the monitor they were assigned to support after the monitor
agreed to participate.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
173
-------
Conference Proceedings
9. Develop a field checklist to accompany the standard data sheet used by monitors. Our checklist was filled
in by staff during the event, and asked for the names of all monitoring participants, a head count of all
people present (witnessing as well as participating), the identity of any news organizations represented at
the event, and the name of the staff performing the site visit. There was also space for general staff
observations, and concerns or needs expressed by the monitors. Whatever questions you want to answer
that day, put them on the field checklist and include this as part of the day's required protocol.
10. After the gears are in motion and the date of the event approaches, it is time to publicize the event. Generic
press releases and customized local invitations to observe the volunteer monitoring groups are both
effective methods of drawing attention to the effort. In our case, we also established a demonstration site
where television media could come at noon and 5:00 p.m. to interact with participating students from
monitoring schools. There are also numerous web sites where Earth Day event information is solicited.
Following Up: Snapshot Result Summary Ideas (The Report)
You may or may not decide to produce a report of your findings. If you can, it makes the event more meaningful. If
you do, you may want to consider including the following information in your report.
Total # sites monitored
• List of site locations monitored
• List of river basins involved
• List of counties involved
• List of participating partners (agencies, industries, schools, parks, nonprofits, etc.)
List of monitors
• Map of participating sites
• Total # volunteer monitors participating
Total # professional monitors participating
• Total # public attending to witness
Total # watersheds monitored
Water quality indicator summary (what results are expected, stream standards, what constituents mean,
potential pollutant sources — see Delaware "Snapshot" reports for excellent examples)
• Raw data (Spreadsheets on the Web)
• Data summaries — by water quality indicator, by watershed, by ecoregion
Join the discussion — Join the volunteer monitoring list server (it's free!)
To continue the discussion on this topic, or any other topic of interest to volunteer monitors, you are invited to join
the volunteer monitoring list server. Here's how:
1. Send an email to: listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
2. Leave the subject line of your message blank. In the message, type: subscribe volmonitor, your last name,
your first name.
3. Once you've subscribed, you'll receive a welcome message with instructions on using the list.
174
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Closing Thought
Question: How many monitors would actually make the effort to conduct and report their testing in a specified time
frame as part of a nationwide monitoring event?
Answer: We'll never know unless we ask them.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
175
-------
Conference Proceedings
BETTER UNDERSTANDING YOUR WATERSHED
THROUGH GIS
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Angle Reed, River Network
Presenters: • , .
Bob Craycraft, UNH Cooperative Extension
Community Mapping - Improving Natural Resource Conservation through GIS
Technology
Rebecca Boger, The GLOBE Program
GIS in the Schools
(no paper submitted)
Jennifer Fairley, Alabama Water Watch
The AL Water Watch Maplnfo Program
(no paper submitted)
176
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
BETTER UNDERSTANDING YOUR
WATERSHED THROUGH GIS
Community Mapping - Improving Natural
Resource Conservation through GIS
Technology
Increasing developmental pressures continue to
threaten the water quality of our lakes, ponds, and
estuarine systems throughout the country. In New
Hampshire, for instance, increasing developmental
pressures are converting the landscape from a rural,
and predominantly forested landscape to a more urban
setting characterized by an increase in paved surfaces,
well manicured lawns (that include heavy applications
of pesticides and fertilizers), and a loss of streamside
(riparian) vegetation. Such landscape alterations, from
forested to urban setting, often coincide with
increasing water quality impairment. During the
planning process, municipalities often fail to recognize
the many natural resources, and their benefits (i.e.
wetlands, riparian buffers, large contiguous plots of land)
deleterious impacts of development within the watershed
CONTACT INFORMATION
(corresponding author)
Jeff Schloss
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
224 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main St., Durham, NH 03824
phone: 603/862-3848, fax: 603/862-0107
email: jeff.schloss@unh.edu
Robert Craycraft
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
Spaulding Hall Room G18
224 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main St., Durham, NH 03824
phone: 603/862-3546, fax: 603/862-0107
email: bob.craycraft@unh.edu
Nancy Lambert
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
224 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main St., Durham, NH 03824
phone: 603/862-4343
email: nancy.lambert@unh.edu
, that, if properly managed and protected, can minimize the
and help maintain the integrity of our surface waters.
An intensive two-week summer course called Community Mapping was initiated three years ago by the Cooperative
Extension, and offered through the University of New Hampshire Environmental Education Institute. It provides
communities with the information and skills necessary to better manage and protect natural resources through the
use of Geographical Information System (GIS) technology. The target audience is community leaders and officials
who are linked with middle school and high school educators from their respective towns. The hope is that a
partnership between decision-maker and educator will be formed to better develop the capacity for GIS-supported
natural resources stewardship in their town.
While the original intent of the training was to target specific local decision-makers, we have wound up training a
wide range of individuals including:
• Planning Board Members ;
• Tax Assessors
Town Engineers
• Town Planners :
• Town GIS Technicians •
• Master Planners
• Conservation Commissioners
• Building Inspector / Code Enforcement Officers •
• Agency Personnel
• Formal and Informal Educators (K-12, Faculty, Nature Center Staff)
Graduate Students ' ' 1
• Volunteer Monitors in our Great Bay Coast Watch and Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
177
-------
Conference Proceedings
The key to the course is that it does not just teach the mechanics of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), but it's
instruction and training exercises are in the context of the locally available data for undertaking a community natural
resources inventory. Key topics of the natural resources side of the course are:
• Resource Inventory Components and Approaches
• Developing a Resources Protection Plan
• Soil Properties, Characteristics, Importance and Development Implications
• Watersheds, Water Quality & Non-point Source Pollution
• Wetlands, and their Function
• Groundwater and Wellhead Protection Strategies
• Wildlife Habitat
Buffers for Wildlife and Water Resources Protection
• Critical Lands Analysis
• Voluntary and Regulatory Land Protection Strategies
Participants also gain knowledge in desktop Geographical Information System (GIS) software. The major topics of
instruction include:
• Navigating the Software
• Downloading and Importing Data Layers
• Merging Attribute Data
• Data Queries/Selecting by Location
• Geoprocessing (Merging, Buffering, Dissolve, Intersect, Union, Clip)
• Creating New Data
• On Screen Digitizing
• Global Positioning Systems Data Acquisition and Transfer to GIS
• Designing, Creating, and Producing Maps
Participants are given a collection of GIS data specific to their town, which they then use in "hands-on" exercises
that follow each daily lecture. By completing these exercises, and undertaking a project selected by the participant,
the result is a good start at the compilation of a GIS-based community natural resources inventory.
Participants also become aware of the many sources and availability of the GIS data, the limitations of the GIS data,
and how to interpret the GIS products that they and others produce. In addition, they learn about, and often have the
chance to interact with, the many cooperators who produce and manage the GIS data, and/or can help support the
towns and municipalities who are using GIS data.
Using many of these service provider resources as guest lecturers during the course facilitates these interactions.
Cooperators in this effort have included:
• Cooperative Extension Forestry, Wildlife, Water Resources Specialists/Educators
178
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Natural Resources Conservation Service Engineers/Scientists
• NH Natural Heritage Inventory ;Staff
State / Regional Planning Agency Staff
NH Fish and Game Educators
NH Dept. of Environmental Services Personnel
GRANIT (NH GIS Data Depository) Data Manager
Environmental Consultants
The results have been quite remarkable for such a short course. Teachers from several high schools have
incorporated a GIS component into their curriculum. GIS has been used by one of our teachers to entice at-risk
students to stay in school. One of these students has gone on to enroll in a GIS program at a technical college.
Students have assisted towns with resource inventory maps and in developing trails on town lands. Our decision-
maker participants are better able to communicate with GIS professionals and cooperators. Most of these are
comfortable and knowledgeable about asking other cooperators and providers for the appropriate data and GIS
products, and many are able to support some of their own, and town, GIS needs as well. Local towns are using GIS
in their planning process, including using the natural resources inventory to formulate or update their Master Plans.
Local towns are also using the GIS maps that participants produced for town board, committee, and public sessions.
The course has also provided a venue for networking between town educators and decision-makers, which has lead
to the formation of watershed partnerships, greenway alliances, and other inter-town collaborations.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 'Austin, TX
179
-------
Conference Proceedings
MEASURING BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION
SESSION INFORMATION:
This training session was repeated once during the conference.
Moderator and Presenter:
Gerri A. Miceli, Program Manager
Gordon Research Conferences
15 Greens End Lane, West Kingston, Rl 02892
' phone: 401/783-4011 ext. 108, fax: 401/783-7644
email: gmiceli@grcmail.grc.uri.edu
Volunteer programs across the United States have been monitoring for bacteria for many years and State agencies
are increasingly relying on volunteer monitoring data as a valuable source of water quality information The
traditional bacterial indicators of pollution, fecal coliform and E. coli, have been routinely used to assess water
quality and classify waters for use. However, their use has also caused much confusion and controversy, especially
when it comes to interpreting the data. Many questions about bacterial contamination continue to nag both volunteer
groups and agencies, including which indicator organism and method is the best to use, and what the resulting data
means. Ultimately the question of whether the pollution source is of human or non-human origin will be asked but
unfortunately, these most commonly used bacterial indicators do not provide a quick and easy answer to that
question. Expanding water quality programs, which seek to gather information from areas which were previously
unquestioned, have led to surprising results and an inability to immediately attribute a source to the recovery of
variable levels of fecal coliforms.
Unfortunately, it is not practical to monitor for all the possible human pathogens that may be present in a waterbody
There are too many pathogens to test for, and methods for some are not yet available or are too expensive and time '
consuming. The main reason that the pathogens themselves are not a reliable indicator of a human contamination
source is because they are shed inconsistently into the environment, which renders them an unreliable measure for
conservatively assessing public health risk. Public Health officials have relied on fecal coliforms as an "indicator" to
assess the probability of the presence of pathogens. Fecal coliforms are consistently associated with fecal
contamination. They are relatively easy to detect and very inexpensive to test for.
Fecal coliforms are a portion of a larger group of related bacteria, the "total coliform" group, whose presence is used
to indicate fecal contamination and the possibility that disease-causing organisms (pathogens) are present' One
species, E. coli, often makes up the majority of fecal coliforms routinely found when sampling recreational water
Conservative Federal and State guidelines and standards were developed to protect the public health and decrease
the threat of illness due to recreational water contact. The utility of fecal coliforms as an indicator of fecal
contamination is due to their consistent presence hi the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. They are not
however, an "ideal" tracer of human pollution sources because they are not exclusively associated with human fecal
contamination.
The source of fecal coliforms in a waterbody may be solely from native waterfowl and wild animals, such as deer
and raccoon.. Domestic animals and livestock are af significant contributor of fecal coliforms into rivers, streams and
coastal areas. Some are even present in the soil environment. The importance of conducting a site survey when'
taking samples for bacteria can not be overemphasized. Noting any evidence of animals having been present when
the sample is collected will provide crucial information- and possibly a link to the source later when the data is
analyzed. The environmental conditions unique and specific to a site must be considered when interpreting the data
Conditions such as extreme turbidity (which may block the bacteriocidal sunlight (UV) penetration but may
alternately provide nutrients), water temperature, water flow (or lack of it), rainfall, bank vegetation and even soil
type may all influence the survival or die-off of fecal coliforms once introduced into the waterbody It is important
to also realize that human pathogens may be present in surface water even when there are no apparent human
sources of fecal contamination, and even when fecal coliforms are not detected.
180
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
There are several different methods available to enumerate fecal coliforms and E. coli. The method you choose must
be based on what you wish to achieve by sampling. Volunteer monitoring groups that are planning to provide data
for use by state agencies are advised to first contact the agencies and find out what method they use and accept, as
well as what the agencies' plans are for future sampling in your watershed. There are two standard membrane
filtration methods that will enumerate fecal coliforms: mFC and mTEC. These methods employ a specific,
differential media that selects for the growth of the target organism. The mTEC method provides both a fecal
coliform and an E. coli count. These membrane filtration methods do have very specific and critical temperature
requirements. These methods should be chosen only if these requirements can be met. Other groups may choose to
utilize the easier, less specific, screening tools. However, these "rapid assessment methods" do have limitations
about what they can, and cannot, do at this time. Many other methods are currently being developed but they are
not validated tests at this time. DNA methods, bacteriophage testing, and antibiotic resistance patterns are all being
investigated and may yield surprising and useful information. At this time they are experimental and, if utilized, the
results should be analyzed in conjunction with the standard bacteria methods and site surveys in order to evaluate the
correlation between the resulting data.
The presence, absence, and magnitude of indicator concentration found in a waterbody must be interpreted within
the context of all available information. Building a relationship with the state and federal agencies involved in your
watershed, and soliciting the guidance and assistance from universities, private laboratories, and town facilities will
provide unparalleled support as your program begins testing for bacteria.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
181
-------
Conference Proceedings
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE B
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Connie Fortin, Fortin Consulting Inc.
Presenters:
Mary Carchrie, Director, Cape & Islands Senior Environment Corps
Forming a Senior Environment Corps
(abstract only)
Gary L. Comer, Jr., Extension Agent, Indian Lake Watershed Project
Master Watershed Stewards
(abstract only)
John McCoy, Waterwatch Victoria, Australia
Waterwatch - Data Use, Data Confidence, Australian Style
(abstract only)
Dr. Robert Williams, The Rivers Project, Southern Illinois University
The Rivers Project
(abstract only)
182
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Mary Carchrie, Director
Cape & Islands Senior Environment Corps
Elder Services of Cape Cod & Islands, Inc.
68 Route 134, South Dennis, MA 02660
phone: 508/394-4630 ext. 111, fax: 508/394-3712
email: escci@capecod.net
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE B
Forming a Senior Environment Corps
The Senior Environment Corps began five years ago as
a project of our local Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP). It now includes approximately 50
RSVP volunteers and 37 AmeriCorps Members. Our.
affiliations are with the Environmental Alliance for -
Senior Involvement (EASI), the Corporation for National Service, town and county governments, the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the Massachusetts Military Reservation Joint Programs Office, and the
Waquoit Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, among others.
This presentation provided attendees with information on how to tap into the resources of the Corporation for
National Service, EASI, and the others listed above to form a Senior Environment Corps. These agencies each have
valuable contributions to make to water monitoring programs but, they do require a bit of organization (MOU's, job
descriptions, time logs, etc).
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
183
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Gary L. Comer, Jr., Extension Agent
Water Quality
Indian Lake Watershed Project
Ohio State University Extension
117 East Columbus Avenue, Suite 100
Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311-2053
phone: 937/599-4227, fax: 937/592-6404
e-mail: comer.29@osu.edu
T • H • E
OHIO
STATE
UNIVERSITY
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE B
Master Watershed Stewards
The Master Watershed Stewards is a volunteer water
quality education curriculum that takes the unique
holistic approach of addressing water quality issues on
a watershed level. The primary goal of the program is
to increase water quality awareness by educating a
diverse group of local citizens so that they can make
informed decisions and initiate actions to protect and
improve the quality and sustain ability of their water
resources. The secondary goal is to develop a
watershed-based volunteer water quality curriculum
that can be adapted and implemented in watersheds in
other counties and states.
Participants of the program are given the opportunity
to participate in 30 hours of instruction. Over 12
individual teaching sessions are offered each year,
including such topics as: Groundwater Quality,
Wetlands, Land-use Planning, Home Water Quality
Awareness, Agricultural Best Management Practices,
Yard & Garden Best Management Practices, and
Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Techniques.
Volunteers are certified as a Master Watershed Steward Interns upon completing the educational portion of the
program. After completing 30 hours of approved volunteer time, participants become certified as Master Watershed
Stewards. Volunteer activities range from water quality monitoring activities to assisting with educational events
and activities.
As part of the Master Watershed Stewards curriculum, a 198-page manual was developed. This manual was
designed as a 3-ring binder, with each chapter being a stand alone unit or component of a watershed. The current
manual includes 8 chapters.
Chapter 1: Issues and Ethics: Water Quality in Your Neighborhood
Chapter 2: Lakes: The World Beneath the Waves
Chapter 3: Streams: The Rivers in Your Back Yard
Chapter 4: Volunteer Stream Monitoring: Measuring Stream Health
Chapters: Wetlands: The Importance of Being Wet
Chapter 6: Ground Water: Our Hidden Water Resource
Chapter 7: Agriculture and Water Quality: Food and Water for the Future
ChapterS: Yard and Garden: Environmentally Sound Gardening
3ION
184
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
John McCoy
Waterwatch Victoria, Australia
PO Box 659, Geelong, Victoria 32288
phone: 610/352-2691, fax: 610/522-9349
email: jmm@barwonwater.vic.gov.au
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE B
Waterwatch - Data Use, Data Confidence,
Australian Style
Community monitoring began in Australia in the 1980s
primarily as an awareness raising tool. Since that time,
the community has developed increased skills and
knowledge in monitoring procedures. Both the data collectors and the data users are placing greater demands on the
data to be accurate and useful.
Waterwatch Australia encourages appropriate procedures and techniques for the collection of data. While it is not
always necessary to collect data to a fine degree of precision, it is important that the methods used result in accurate,
reliable and good quality data. Data must also be collected at the level of precision for the purpose for which it is to
be used. Not all Waterwatch groups are interested in collecting information to the same standard. Waterwatch
recognizes that with groups of different ages, different technical abilities, and different objectives, there will be
different standards in the collection and analysis of data.
Waterwatch coordinators at a regional program level play the critical role in assisting the community to achieve the
•quality of data required for the intended purpose. To ensure that community data is sufficient for its intended
purpose, Waterwatch Australia has developed a set of National data confidence guidelines and a National Technical
Manual. State Waterwatch Programs have or are establishing data confidence procedures and plans. This
presentation will outline the National Data Confidence Guidelines and ways that the guidelines are being
implemented in regional Australia.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
185
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION
Dr. Robert Williams
The Rivers Project
Box 2222 Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville, IL 62026
phone: 618/650-3788, fax: 618/650/3359
email: rivers@siue.edu
For more information, visit the website:
http://www.siue.edu/OSME/river
PROGRAM ROUNDTABLE B
The Rivers Project
The Rivers Project provides educational materials,
equipment, and training on a variety of water
monitoring programs. Curriculum materials for high
and middle school students and teachers include the
Rivers Curriculum Project's (funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) set of units: Biology,
Chemistry, Earth Science, Geography, Language Arts,
and Mathematics. Combining the units allows schools
to develop an interdisciplinary curriculum based on river study. Week long training sessions are held each summer
in varying parts of the US. Teachers who have years of experience at water monitoring conduct the interdisciplinary
training.
Funding by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation helped provide educational materials, equipment, and training on a
groundwater education program. Materials for middle school students and teachers include a curriculum unit, called
H20. Study units on the Zebra Mussel, and other Alien Invaders, have been developed. Students of the Project
have produced 30 issues of their writings called "Meanderings" that are all available through the Library of Congress
and other libraries. Interested teachers and water monitoring professionals can access the web site (see contact box)
for further information.
_
186
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
STATE COORDINATOR'S DISCUSSION SESSION
SESSION INFORMATION:
This was a facilitated discussion with no individual papers or presentations
Discussion Leaders:
Sharon Clifford
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102
phone: 573/751-7298, fax: 573/526-5797
email: nrclifs@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
Barb Horn
Colorado Division of Wildlife
151 E 16th, Durango, CO 81301
phone: 970/382-6667, fax: 970/247-4785
email: barb.horn@state.co.us
The goal of this session was for individuals who direct, manage, or support a state-agency-based volunteer
monitoring program to have an opportunity to network.
There were about 25 session participants. After each person introduced themselves and their program, everyone
shared one challenge they were facing today and one success they have had in their program. Challenges or
successes could be related to any aspect of implementing a volunteer monitoring program.
The obstacles that received the most mention included:
• Barriers to use of volunteer data and associated credibility issues. Credibility issues ranged from general
skepticism about data quality to difficulties with middle management
• Data management. The obstacle most often cited was lack of staffing available for data management- not
necessarily technological difficulties
Balancing staff and resources with the demand for product and services
Other challenges and needs the group mentioned included:
Marketing products and services to get program beyond survival and into a leadership role in the state
• Developing an on-line data entry form
• Limited staff, need to organize a council or some level of support
• Balancing level of quality control and assurance for volunteers to stay interested with level necessary to
have usable data
• Dealing with state legislatures' creation of a "credible data law" with volunteer data
• Communication between the state, volunteers, and others
• ' Resistance to internal use (within own agency) of data, attributed to lack of time for professionals to use
volunteer data
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
187
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Having only one source of funding for program
• Recruitment of volunteers in specific TMDL listed segments to assist with TMDL process
• Agriculture community lobbying against volunteer monitoring because of concerns about the state being
involved in that "sort" of monitoring
• Simple politics, above and below, left and right - it's always something
• From EPA perspective, helping programs deal with credibility and getting more regional help
• The PACE of the beast: demand greater than supply, need greater than supply, etc.
We need to share our successes with each other more often. The list of successes included:
Phosphorus removal on a local lake due to volunteer data
• First newsletter sent to volunteers, first time feedback given to them
• State made it a priority to allocate funding to volunteer monitoring
• Data being used as a screening tool, data being used
• Connecting people with the resource, successful education efforts
• Getting community leaders to dedicate staff time (cities, counties, etc.) to help with limited program staff
• Developed a regional training center with the local university
• By implementing an international component to their volunteer program, leveraged money and staff for
local program
• Developed handbook for volunteers
• Able to get regional agriculture community involved in program
• Developed local steering committees to assist program management
• Data management progress
• Data turned into information, got a report completed
• Obtained more staffer more program money
• Developed an on-line site to increase program awareness
• ADVOCACY!
• Longevity - program is 20 years old, that means 20 years of support!
• Collaboration is moving the volunteer effort forward
In a summary discussion, the group discussed what might be of use in the future for state program managers. The
primary discussion focused on data management, with suggestions ranging from having more training available to a
series of articles in the Volunteer Monitor. Another suggestion was the need for skill training- locally, regionally,
and/or nationally- for dealing with political issues. In context, we all must deal with some level of politics but
usually don't have any training in this area. We often resist or ignore the politics of volunteer monitoring, and yet
this is essential to deal with if we are to continue to make progress. The volunteer monitoring list server was
mentioned for all to use as a tool to continue to network. The final suggestion was to have regional or a national
gathering designed just for state program managers.
188
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS TAKING ACTION
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Robert Furtado, Lower Colorado River Network, Anderson High School River
Watchers
Presenters:
Bill Fleming, University of New Mexico, New Mexico Watershed Watch
Watershed Planning and Monitoring by Local Student Stakeholders
Torrey Lindbo, The Saturday Academy, Student Watershed Research Project
Advantages of Student versus Agency Monitoring
Ann Lyon, Green Acres Foundation
Schools/Townships Unite to Protect Water Quality
(abstract only)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
189
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS TAKING
ACTION
Watershed Planning and Monitoring by
Local Student Stakeholders: New Mexico
Watershed Watch
CONTACT INFORMATION
Bill Fleming, Associate Professor
Community and Regional Planning Program
School of Architecture and Planning
University of New Mexico
901 Trial Cross, Sante Fe, NM 87505
phone: 505/982-8313, fax: 505/982-8313
email: fleming@la.unm.edu
Introduction.
New Mexico Watershed Watch is a student watershed
planning and monitoring program sponsored by the state Department of Game and Fish. The program provides
teachers with instruction on methods for water quality monitoring, riparian habitat evaluation, and watershed
planning. Watersheds are viewed holistically and land use impacts on water quality are emphasized. Issues of
interest to the community where each of the 20 schools are located provide the motivation for monitoring and
planning activities.
Schools focus on small watersheds (less than 100 km2) with the following objectives: 1) involving secondary school
students in hands-on, real-life projects to assess watershed health and water quality with spectrophotometers and
other state-of-the-art equipment; 2) encouraging an interdisciplinary approach to watershed planning which identifies
impacts of land use on water quality; 3) developing scientifically credible field methodologies to create long-term
databases on watershed health which are used by state and federal environmental agencies. Teachers and students
attend two training workshops each year to learn chemical and biological analysis techniques. At the end of the
school year, all schools meet to present results of the year's monitoring and compare the health of 20 small
watersheds in the state.
Students evaluate watersheds by collecting monthly water quality and quantity data on streamflow, pH, turbidity,
nutrients, total dissolved solids, ammonia, and selected heavy metals. An evaluation of the species composition and
biodiversity of macroinvertebrates and fish indicates the biotic health of the watershed. Riparian assessments are
.done in the spring and fall to monitor characteristics ranging from channel stability to streambank vegetation cover.
Maps of land use, land ownership, soil stability, topography and human impacts are used in an overlay format to
identify priority problem areas. Watershed plans are then formulated to improve water quality and restore degraded
riparian and upland sites. This paper focuses on a rapid assessment procedure for riparian health and documents how
one school compared the upper and lower reaches of two adjacent watersheds in New Mexico. In this example, the
results of the riparian assessment were used to identify critical sites and watershed plans were then formulated to
rehabilitate the degraded areas.
Riparian Health Assessment in Small Watersheds
Although riparian ecosystems are not equally healthy, there are no generally accepted criteria for evaluating and
comparing them. Riparian "health" is defined here as a set of environmental conditions that result in the long-term
sustainability of the riparian habitat. The quality of the riparian habitat refers to how well it supplies the physical,
chemical and biological needs of the organisms living in a stream reach (Miller 1990). In an ecosystem view of the
restoration of the riparian system of the Kissimrnee River, Dahm et al. (1995) associate "health" with the degree of
"connectivity and interactions between the abiotic and biotic variables of the river and floodplain." Riparian
ecosystem structure and function respond to both abiotic and biotic forces, and this paper focuses on twelve
indicators of the health of these forces, ranging from hydrologic discharge to macroinvertebrate family diversity.
Twelve criteria are used to numerically evaluate riparian habitat using geomorphological and biological parameters..
Each criterion is semi-quantitatively evaluated on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 the healthiest and 1 the least healthy. This
approach is based upon systematic sampling by the author in more than twenty communities since 1988. As
illustrative examples for the purposes of this paper, the index is applied to two subalpine watersheds near Santa F£,
New Mexico, comparing them using the criteria. The Rio en Medio, site of the Santa F6 Ski Basin, was rated "good"
(with a score of 2.9), while an adjacent undeveloped watershed, the Rio Tesuque, was rated "excellent" (with a score
of 3.9). The method can be taught in a half-day and stream reaches can be evaluated in about an hour by experienced
students.
Several authors, such as Barbour and Stribling (1991) and Jacobi et al. (1995), have suggested criteria for evaluating
the health of riparian habitats in the Western United States. Although their criteria are heavily oriented toward
stream habitats for fish, indices have been adapted for a wider range of organism classes, including birds (e.g.
Fleming and Schrader 1998). A riparian environment that is healthy for fish and birds is considered healthy for a
wide range of ecosystems organisms (Chiras 1998; Nebel and Wright 1998; Dahm et al. 1995).
Water quality is a critical issue in Western watersheds and the riparian survey method evaluates two of the most
important in an indirect way: sedimentation and stream insect biodiversity. The amount of fine material (less than
gravel size) is evaluated quantitatively with a "streambed geology" parameter and the degree of sedimentation with
sand and silt is determined with "embeddedness." The biotic health of the riparian zone is indicated in a general way
by the diversity of macroinvertebrate insect families. Data collection by New Mexico Watershed Watch deals with
water quality comprehensively through the following monthly determinations: turbidity, temperature, pH,
conductivity, nutrients (nitrate and total phosphorus), and metals (copper, zinc, aluminum and lead).
190
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
For an optimum aquatic environment, several authors conclude that at least 0.05 cubic meters per second (cms) -
equivalent to 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) - are necessary to support a high-quality, coldwater fishery (Barbour and
Stribling 1991; Oswood and Barber 1982). The ability of a stream to produce and maintain a stable environment in
the substrate is indicated by the flow (Ball 1982). If less than 0.01 cms are flowing, the habitat is considered "poor",
including headwater streams with small catchment areas (Barbour and Stribling 1991). Streamflow is measured
quickly and inexpensively by timing the number of seconds a floating object takes to travel 10m in the stream,
resulting in the velocity (m/sec.) The cross-sectional area of the stream reach is, measured in square meters, and this
value is multiplied by velocity to obtain the flow.
Streambed geology and embeddedness are critical for the maintenance of necessary void spaces in the substrate for
macroinvertebrate habitat, which need a continuous flow of water, oxygen and food sources. Stream reaches are
evaluated by walking in a zig-zag pattern, stopping every two steps to determine the size of material in front of the
evaluatpr's boot. If more than 50% of material is comprised of grain sizes in gravel, cobble and boulder categories,
the habitat is considered optimal (Barbour and Stribling 1991). At least 20 samples should be chosen in each reach
and a range of grain size percentages calculated. If more than 50% of the substrate is sand size or smaller, the habitat
is considered "poor." Even though a somewhat coarse evaluation, an estimate of the percentage of fine material is
considered a valuable indicator of upstream watershed disturbance.
Embeddedness measures how much of the surface area of larger substrate particles are surrounded by fine sediment
(sand, silt and clay; Platts et al. 1983). This parameter allows an evaluation of the substrate as a habitat for benthic
macro-invertebrates and fish spawning (Barbour and Stribling 1991). Heavy silting is an indication of upstream
watershed disturbance and is known to cause a reduction in insect diversity and production (Minshall 1984).
The ratio of bankfull channel width to depth (the width at the top of the bank determined by its extent when full of
water, usually once a year), is optimal for fish and aquatic insect habitat if less than 7:1 (Rosgen 1994). A very wide
and shallow stream with a width/depth ratio of more than 25:1 is considered poor habitat for fish and the
macroinvertebrate food supply they depend on (Gibson 1994). A tape measure and meter stick are used to measure
the width and depth of the channel.
Upper bank stability is considered excellent if less than 10% of the banks are vertical and unvegetated, while more
than 50% of bank area in an unstable and eroding condition is rated poor (Barbour and Stribling 1991). Streams with
unstable banks often have degraded instream habitat for fish and aquatic insects (Plafkin et al. 1989). The steeper the
bank, the greater the likelihood for erosion and loss of soil into the stream because steep banks are less likely to hold
vegetation cover. The evaluator looks upstream and downstream from the reach to estimate the percentage of visible
bank length that is not vegetated and actively eroding.
If the ratio of distance between riffles to stream width is between 5:1 and 7:1, heterogeneity for aquatic insects and
fish is optimal, while a ratio of more than 25:1 is considered a poor habitat (Frissell et al. 1986). Since benthic
communities thrive as a result of integrated environmental factors (substrate, food availability, current etc.), and
species have preferences for alternative substrate types, it follows that maximum variability in streambed
morphology should support higher species diversity (Barbour and Stribling 1991). Upstream land use activities can
profoundly change pool/riffle relationships, as well as human-caused changes in flood and low-flow discharge
(Frissell et al. 1986). The evaluator uses a tape to measure the average distance between riffles and the width of the
channel.
Vegetative buffer strips are effective in filtering pollutants such as sediment and nutrients from streams, and several
authors consider 18 meters of buffer width to be sufficient for many riparian situations (Schueler 1987). Where
riparian areas have very steep slopes and/or heavily fertilized agricultural runoff, a buffer of more than 18m may be
necessary. This parameter rates the entire riparian buffer zone on the side of the stream nearest to disruption (road,
housing development, row crop, etc.), and if the vegetated width is less than 6m, it is considered poor (Barbour and
Stribling 1991). A tape is used to measure the width of the least buffered side of the stream reach.
Vegetative diversity is evaluated by determining whether at least 10 different species occur in the riparian zone,
which is scored as optimum (less than 3 species is considered poor). The concept of species evenness, or relative
density of each plant species in the riparian zone, is not considered here, but could be included in future method
refinements. Vegetation cover, expressed as a percent, is estimated by randomly choosing a transect direction to
walk and noting at every other step either vegetation cover or bare soil. Ninety percent vegetation cover is
considered an adequate cover for erosion control, while less than 50% is considered poor (Brooks et al. 1996,
Fleming 1998).
Shading-provided by a vegetative canopy cover is important in reducing summer water temperatures and as a
mediating factor in the solar energy available for photosythetic activity and primary production (Barbour and :
Stribling 1991; Platts et al. 1983). Diversity of shade conditions is considered by Barbour and Stribling (1991) to be
optimal, with different areas of a stream reach receiving direct sunlight, complete shade and filtered light. The
evaluator estimates the percentage of sun and shade by looking upstream and downstream from the middle of the
stream reach. • ••. • • .-. -. , • >••.. :•• ••''•: • •••;«• -..•.-. .-:•::•• ,: ;••-.: : ,. • ,
Important indicators of the long term health of a watershed are abundance and diversity of species of aquatic
macroinvertebrates (Jacobi et al. 1995). Insects remain in streams during transitory periods of floods, drought,
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
191
-------
Conference Proceedings
periods of turbidity or heavy metal inflow. Benthic insects are affected by chemical pollution and physical changes
such as temperature, pH, discharge and sediment resulting from upstream land use activities. The presence or
absence, as well as the relative numbers, of species less tolerant to watershed disturbances are important indicators
of riparian health (Fleming and Schrader 1998, Jacobi et al. 1995).
Stoneflies (Plecoptera) are generally the order of insects most sensitive to human impacts, such as sewage pollution
(Jacobi et al. 1995). The absence of stoneflies may indicate phosphorus or nitrogen in higher than natural
concentrations. Usually stoneflies are a smaller percentage of the insects (10-20%) and are often the first to
disappear with increased human impacts (Gibson 1994). Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are also sensitive to watershed
disturbances, but can be 20-40% of the total number, and may be the next order to disappear in a stressed watershed.
If an insect collection is dominated by midges or worms, the watershed and stream are probably highly degraded
(Jacobi et al. 1995). The different families, and percentages of each family, are indicators of the health of the
watershed (Fleming and Schrader 1998).
A Im-wide screen, with openings of approximately 1mm (mosquito-net size), is used to collect insects from the
stream. The screen is attached to wooden stakes and is held in the stream for 3 minutes while a second evaluator
disturbs upstream bedload material so that aquatic insects will be captured on the screen. The screen taken out of the
stream and the insects removed from the screen with tweezers and put in an open container for evaluation.
Application to Watersheds Near Santa Fe
The methodology was applied to two adjacent watersheds in the Santa Fe" National Forest, 15 miles northeast of
Santa F6, New Mexico in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Each watershed is slightly over one square mile in area,
ranging in elevation from 9,800 feet to 11,100 feet. The Rio en Medio watershed is the site of the Santa Fe* Ski
Basin, in which approximately 35% of watershed area has been developed with parking lots, lodges, septic tank
fields, ski runs and lifts. The Tesuque watershed is in a relatively undeveloped condition, with one road used only
for hiking, ski touring and the maintenance of telecommunications antennae on Tesuque Peak. This "paired
watershed" approach enables a comparison of the effects of land use upon contiguous stream systems.
Two riparian surveys were conducted in each watershed, one at the base and a second approximately 0.3 miles
upstream. This approach evaluates how upstream land use affects the overall riparian health of a stream, and helps to
locate sites for subsequent mitigation. Results of the two surveys were averaged for each watershed. The Rio en
Medio had an average rating of 2.9 and Tesuque Creek 3.9. Major differences were less riparian vegetation and more
sediment and embeddedness in the Rio en Medio. A total of 486 insects were collected from the Rio en Medio and
518 from the Rfo Tesuque by students of Santa Fe" Preparatory School during 1993-94. Both streams had all 3 major
orders, but the Rio en Medio had a lower percentage of stoneflies (19%), compared with 29% for the Rio Tesuque.
References
Ball, J. 1982. "Stream classification guidelines for Wisconsin. In Water Quality Standards Handbook, US Env. Prot.
Agency, Wash. D.C.
Brooks, K.N., Folliet, P., Gregerson, H. and F. Thomas. 1996. Hydrology and the management of watersheds. Iowa
State Univ. Press, 357p.
Barbour, M.T. and J.B. Stribling. 1991. Use of Habitat Assessment in Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Stream
Communities. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation: 25-38. EPA-440/5-91-005. Washington, DC: Office of
Water, US EPA.
Fleming, W.M. 1998. Watershed health: an evaluation index for New Mexico. Rio Grande Ecosystems Toward a
Sustainable Future, June 2-5, Albuquerque, 9 p.
Fleming, W.M. and R.E. Schrader. 1998. New Mexico Watershed Watch Handbook. Santa Fe": NM Game and Fish
Dept. Special Report, 56p.
Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren and M.D. Hurley. 1986. Environmental Management 10(2):199-214.
Gibson, G.R. 1994. Technical guidance for streams and small rivers: biological criteria. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technical Report 822-B-94-001.
Jacobi, G., J.E. Sublette, S. Hermann, M.D. Hatch and D.E. Cowley. 1995. Development of an index of biotic
integrity utilizing aquatic macrobenthic invertebrates for use in water resource and fishery management. NM Dept.
Game and Fish Aquatic Resources Report 95-01.
Miller, G.T. 1990. Resource conservation and management. Wadsworth Publishing Co., 547p.
Minshall, G.W. 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In V.H. Resh and D.M. Rosenberg, eds., The Ecology
of Aquatic Insects. Praeger Pub., New York, pp. 323-356.
192
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian and biotic conditions.
Technical Report IN-138, U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
Rosgen, D. 1994. River restoration utilizing natural stability concepts. Land and Water, July/Aug: 36-40.
Schrader, R. and W.M. Fleming. 1997. Planning for sustainability in the Tesuque watershed. Final report to the
McCune Foundation, 24p.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
193
-------
Conference Proceedings
CONTACT INFORMATION /
Torrey Lindbo, Technical Coordinator
Student Watershed Research Project
Saturday Academy, Oregon Graduate Institute
20000 NW Walker Road; Beavertpn, OR 97006
phone: 503/748-1344, fax: 503/748-1388 •
email: tlindbo@admin.ogi.edu
www.saturdayacademy.ogi/swrp
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS TAKING
ACTION
Advantages of Student Versus Agency
Monitoring
6 ,. ' - . '• ,!, .••;-•. '• '? ;,.V
Background
The Student Watershed Research Project (SWRP) was
created in 1991 as a partnership between university
researchers, high school teachers and state and local
agencies, including: Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, US Geological Survey, Unified Sewerage Agency,
Clackamas River Water District, Oregon Gra'duate Institute, Pacific University, and Portland State University. Each
existing and new partner provides an essential component for meeting the SWRP project goals.
During project formulation, agency and university scientists identified the "kernel" of key watershed components for
our local area, the western Cascade region of the Pacific Northwest. Methods were selected to allow 8-12'h grade
students to collect high quality, reproducible data that would complement agency efforts. These parameters include
water quality, riparian vegetation, and habitat assessment. There are currently 28 teachers involving 800 students in
the study of these components on 65 sites in the Portland/Vancouver area of Oregon and Washington.
Each partner plays a crucial role in implementing the SWRP program. Agency partners provide technical support
for initial and ongoing participant training. Local agencies are key in identifying streams and monitoring sites for
which monitoring information is needed. Many of the schools involved in the SWRP program monitor areas which
agencies rarely, or in some cases never, see. Increased geographic monitoring coverage is one of the major benefits
of the SWRP program to our agency partners. The key to this benefit is ACCESS - school groups from local
communities have connections to watershed residents. The perception for many private landowners is that student
monitoring = education = non-threatening, whereas agency representatives may be responsible for enforcement, not
just information gathering and assessment.
The SWRP program enables teachers to act as volunteer monitoring coordinators who train and involve their
students in watershed analysis. SWRP staff coordinate the QAPP for all teacher/student groups involved in the
program. Coordination includes pre-sampling analysis of unknown samples, professionally analyzed duplicate field
samples, data auditing and reporting, and coordinating an annual data presentation forum (Student Watershed
Summit). The Summit provides incentive for students to analyze and interpret their data and to present findings and
recommendations to agency scientists and the community at large.
The SWRP program has two implicit goals: education and monitoring. The primary monitoring goal of the program
is to provide complementary baseline data, which increases monitoring coverage, especially on unmonitored
tributaries. Collection of this baseline information over time is useful for red-flagging, problem identification and
habitat or water quality improvements.
Measuring Monitoring Success
Education and long-term monitoring are two distinct goals that require their own measures for success. From a
monitoring perspective, data usage is the primary measure of success. The pure numbers of reports generated is a
tangible way to report data usage for grantors, but there are several levels of data utilization that our program has
tracked over the past nine years. The two primary reporting avenues are those generated by SWRP and those
prepared by students.
Reports Generated by SWRP
Each year, SWRP reports data to local and state agency partners. Custom reports are generated for each agency
based upon their geographic coverage so that agencies only receive data which is relevant to their area of interest
and responsibility. The fact that state and local agencies are one of the final destinations for SWRP's data is one of
the best motivators for student involvement and attention to detail.
State data usage: Producing state-usable data sets the bar for high quality data collection.
• Data are included in state database; provided for 303(d) update; and were used in last Triennial Surface Water
Quality Review.
Being credited in a statewide publication has resulted in huge credibility for the SWRP program and has opened the
door to additional data users. But does inclusion in the state database or inclusion in reports constitute "satisfactory"
usage of data?
Local data usage: Local usage of SWRP data actually puts the data to work.
• Data have been used in watershed assessments prepared by Watershed Councils and SWCD's
194
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
• Sampling sites have been included in Watershed Council GIS projects - -
• Existing, current, and future data are being used to determine restoration project effectiveness by-several
local friend's groups and a regional parks and recreation district
Local municipalities and cities utilize SWRP data in their annual NPDES reporting process
Reports Generated by Students
Student data reporting, outside the SWRP's data presentation Summit, varies based on the teacher and students
involved. Most student groups are content knowing that SWRP has submitted audited data reports to the natural
resource managers. But several cases exist where student action led to changes in their watershed. These changes
were brought about through two very different approaches - the "agency alarm" and community outreach.
"Agency alarm ": Student findings result in agency action
• Students found zero fecal coliform bacteria and very high chlorine values in an urban stream. They verified
these findings with SWRP's QC lab and reported their findings to the Department of Environmental
Quality. They then began talking to neighbors and reviewing neighborhood maps to determine which
properties had swimming pools, a likely culprit, adjacent to the creek. This information was also provided
to DEQ. RESULT: DEQ took direct action to remedy the situation. They did not issue a fine, but the pool
has not drained into the creek since.
• After five years of consistent macroinvertebrate data collection and findings, students discovered a crisis in
the population and taxa richness at their site. The macroinvertebrate decline was correlated to increased
sedimentation and turbidity- vastly worse than in prior years. An investigation upstream revealed a huge
development with improper erosion controls. Students reported the development, and their findings, to the
local municipality. RESULT: A fine was given, a stop work order was implemented, and proper erosion
controls were installed. Two years later students began to document a recovery in the macroinvertebrate
population.
Community Outreach: Students utilize their own findings to educate and change the habits of their community
• Students found much higher coliform levels than "baseline" obtained during the previous 5 years of
monitoring. Follow-up monitoring revealed an upstream rancher moving cattle across the stream. Students
from the local community explained their findings and based on those findings, the rancher changed his
timing for moving cattle across the stream. This is a great example of watershed residents simply not being
aware of the impacts they have on water quality.
Students compiled a survey-about the water quality of local streams. They gathered responses to their
simple survey from local residents. Their presentation was an analysis of how the community rated water
quality in their local streams compared to the average Water Quality Index they calculated from their
SWRP monitoring (which they've computed for the past several years they have been monitoring the
streams). RESULT: The students found that the community thought their streams were in "Moderate"
condition, and that the Water Quality Index scores were "Medium." Students interviewed the mayor, and
from there, presented their findings to the city planner, the school board, and the city council.
After a couple years of monitoring, students monitoring a sub-urbanizing salmonid-bearing stream noted
how easily impacted the stream was. Perceiving very little community recognition of the local watershed,
students applied for a small grant to create a short informational door-hanger. Students spent a great deal of
time canvassing neighborhoods to increase awareness for the local watershed.
• NRCS used students with monitoring experience, through SWRP, to conduct runoff of blueberry studies.
NRCS lacked the personnel to perform testing, and the landowner refused state agency access for the test
but was interested in working with two students from the local community.
Conclusions
• Submitting data to state and local agencies IS important if for no other reason than to validate the
usefulness and quality of the data being collected.
Students can make a significant impact in their local community
• Local usage is probably the most satisfying use of data
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
195
-------
Conference Proceedings
STUDENT VOLUNTEERS TAKING
ACTION
Schools/Townships Unite to Protect Water
Quality
CONTACT INFORMATION
Anne Lyon, Water Quality Project Director
Greenacres Foundation
8255 Spooky Hollow Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242
phone: 513/891-4227, fax: 513/792-9199
email: alyon@green-acres.org or aelyon@hotmail.com
The Greenacres Water Quality Project began in 1992
with the goal of enhancing science and math education
at local schools. Greenacres works by using students to provide water quality managers with on-going, cost-
effective, accurate watershed information. Greenacres Foundation works as a catalyst to forge self-sustaining
partnerships between local schools and township councils to identify and resolve water quality problems. This
hands-on interdisciplinary program:
• enriches math and science education,
• correlates with Ohio's State Academic Proficiency Standards,
• encourages real-world problem solving and critical thinking,
• promotes community involvement through service learning, and
• engages students in the local political process.
Greenacres Foundation works with the Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District, Ohio EPA, the Hamilton County Board of
Health, and Izaak Walton League to implement the program. These partnerships enhance community awareness,
develop local "ownership'* of water resources, and promote positive public relations. Students have successfully
worked to resolve problems with failing septic systems, leaking sewer lines, broken lift stations, illegal dumping
(concrete, construction waste, medical waste, used dry cleaning solvents, and plating wastes), and improper
discharge of chlorinated pool water.
The presentation described the program and its benefits including how to set up a similar program. Participants
received a handout detailing how the program operates including tips on how to work with townships, local
agencies, school boards, and Parent Teachers Associations (PTAs) to share responsibilities and resources.
196
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
DATA MANAGEMENT IN ACTION 2: WEB-BASED
SYSTEMS AND EDAS DEMOS
SESSION INFORMATION:
Moderator:
Ken Cooke, Kentucky Waterwatch
Presenters:
Bryan Parker, Missouri Stream Teams
Web-Based Systems
Mellini Sloan, Tetra Tech, Inc.
EDAS: Facilitating the Analysis and Archiving of Ecological Data
(abstract only)
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
197
-------
Conference Proceedings
DATA MANAGEMENT IN ACTION 2:
WEB-BASED SYSTEMS AND EDAS
DEMOS
Web Based Systems
CONTACT INFORMATION
Bryan Parker
Missouri Stream Team Volunteer
20 Richard Drive, Rolla MO 65401
phone: (h) 573/341-2226 or (w) 573/364-6362
fax: 573/364-4782
email: baparker@rollanet.org
For more information:
Call the Missouri Stream Team program office at 800/
781-1989 or visit the Web site at
http://www.mostreamteam.org/
The presentation outline and examples from the
Missouri Stream Team and Volunteer Monitoring
Program databases are available online at this URL:
http://www.mostreamteam.org/conference/vmdb/index.
htm.
The first half of this presentation looked at the various
ways water quality monitoring groups are using the
Internet (World Wide Web) to report and collect
volunteer data. The second half discussed the Missouri
Stream Team and Volunteer Monitoring programs use
of a relational database, Microsoft Access, to store,
compile, and report volunteer data.
On-Line Data Retrieval
Volunteer monitoring data is available in many forms
on the web. The methods used to present the data seem
to fall into three general categories. The first is *
advertisement, 'contact us and we'll send you the data you request.' The second is data that is "hard coded" into web
pages (this data can be presented as text, tables, or graphic images). The last is "database" driven. The database
driven reporting systems usually require some sort of programming to make it all work.
• Advertisement. The data is available, and information about how to obtain the data is on the web.
Hard Coded. The data is assembled and converted into html for use in the web site. Charts and graphs are
created and treated as image files. If you don't have a lot of data, or a programmer, this is a quick way to get
your data online _and available.
• Database Driven. The data is stored in a database file, and the html page you see is generated by a program.
The data is usually searchable. The sites range from fairly simple to very complex systems that generate
maps and data.
- Missouri Stream Team http:/;/www.mostreamteam.org/vmsearch.html
* Metadata. Metadata is the description of each data item, the data format, what each item means, and the
item's limitations. For example, using a series of litmus paper tests to determine pH does not produce the
same quality of results as a $100 pH pen. Methods, monitor qualifications, and QA/QC should be noted.
On-Line Data Submission
If you keep the data in a database, why not let the user type it in instead of you or your staff? Hopefully, the "ease"
of online submission will get those data reports in a little sooner too.
To understand on-line data submission, you need at least a partial understanding of internet forms. Forms are all
those blanks and buttons you fill out to send data over the internet. All data submission starts with a form. The
simplest form is an "email" form. You fill out the data, press "Submit," and the browser sends the data to the email
address specified in the form. The email results are coded with the form item name and the resulting user data. This
makes it a little hard to read. Here's an example of data taken directly from an email form:
&Name=Bryan+Parker&Address=20+Richard+Drive
• To really be able to use this data, you need to parse it. Parsing programs are usually custom written in
PERL or some other programming language.
More sophicated data submission sites use multiple pages to get the data where it needs to go. Here are some
examples:
The Vermont Rivers Project http://dauntless.smcvt.edu/vt_rivers/db_password.html. This online
database requires the user to log in before submitting data. If data is sent directly to an on-line database, this
form of data protection may be necessary.
198
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Missouri Stream Team On-Line Data Submission http://www.rollanet.org/~streams/vmdata.html.
These forms check the users input data, and return the form to the user to verify out of range data. For
example, if a user input pH=27, the form would be returned with a question about the pH data. The pull
down boxes also help limit the input in several forms. These forms email the results to the Stream Team
. office for verification and entry into the master database. If the user supplies an email address,-the''program
e-mails a copy of the data to the user, as well as to the office.
• The Rivers Curriculum Project On-Line Data Entry Form
http://www.sjue.edu/OSME/river/wq.html. The form in this last example is created by a commercially
available program. The program can also be run on the computer receiving the email, and will parse the
, email submittedby theform directly to:aidatabase. The program is called WebForms™, by Q&D Software
: Development http://www.q-d.com/. Theprogram sales for about-$40. > •'•••
Here are other resources to help you get your on-line data submission up and running. •''.•'-••• ••••
• There is a free,.email parsing perl scripts available at Mart's Script Archive
http://worldwidemart.com/scripts/formmail.shtml. Programming experience is helpful.
,• WebForms™, by Q&D Software Development http://www.q-d.com/: -
The complete outline, links, and examples are available on the Internet. The URL for this page is:
http://www.mostreamteam.org/conference/online.html. .. ._•.•.,
Missouri Volunteer Monitoring and Missouri Stream Team- Relational Databases for Data Management
A database is an organized collection of information. In relational databases, groups of data reside in separate tables,
linked by one or more fields. The goal is to minimize.or eliminate duplication of data. For example, volunteer name,
address, etc. is one table. This table is linked by a volunteer ID to an activity, to monitoring results, and team
databases. . • , .
The Missouri Volunteer Monitoring Program (V.M.) began in 1993. The program staff recognized the need to use a
relational database instead of multiple lists. The original database was started in FoxPro, and later switched to
Microsoft Access. Originally the V.M. database evolved independently from the "master" Stream Team (ST)
database. Now ST and V.M. databases are linked together. ....
The V.M. database consists of five primary tables. The "Site" table contains the location'of the each site, Each site
has a unique identifier or primary key, "GISID". The data tables "Invert", "Visual," and "Waterchem" contain data
for each monitoring event, and are linked to the Site table. Each record is linked to a site by the field GISID. The
"Members" table contains the name, contact, and training information for each volunteer monitor.
The Site database, which is the list of each monitored location, has 989 individual sites monitored since 1993. The
program is currently monitoring 330 sites, and has trained more than 2045 people. The Water chemistry database has
3,537 records, each record is a monitoring event. The Macroinvertebrate database has 1,665 records. The Visual
database has 1,3 87 records. The combined ST and V.M. databases fill 15 megabytes of disk space.
Lessons Learned
The Missouri ST and V.M. staff has done a tremendous job of coordinating a vast amount of information for the
various beneficiaries of the program. Here are some of the lessons learned along the way:
Maintain uniform field names and field types across tables. Tables with fields for County, Co, or Cnty
can't be linked until the field names are changed. It is easy to change the field names, but renaming fields
will mess up existing queries and reports.
Spelling, naming conventions, and abbreviations are important. Searching for "Stone Cr." won't find
"Stone Creek" or "Stone Branch". Do you use periods or not? For example "Cr." (period inside of quotation
marks) is not the same as "Cr" (no period inside of quotation marks).
• ' Add comments to all your data, fields, queries, etc. How will you remember what the query "getall" does a
year from now?
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000-Austin, TX
199
-------
Conference Proceedings
Sanity check all data, use QA/QC info for each record. QA/QC levels change as volunteers get more
experience and training.
Repeat, or check, data entry. Better yet, do both.
Keep all original paper records. If something dies, you can go back and recreate from the original records.
Make field names as explicit as possible.
The site location is the most difficult item from which to get correct data from volunteers. Volunteers have
a hard time obtaining GIS compatible location information. The program staff resorted to asking for a map
with an "X" on it. The staff determines legal description and latitude/longitude or UTM coordinates. The
correct location information is important to create an accurate Geographic Information System (GIS) map.
• Need a database to track people, and their level of training.
Don't delete names or records from the database. In Missouri, "Sunshine Law" (public access to state
records, meetings) requires this. Mark as inactive.
Make one person, or a committee, responsible for the database or anarchy will quickly take over. Old, one
time use queries and reports fill up space.
Many state, county, and local agencies, as well as private organizations and individual citizens, benefit from the data
that the ST and V.M. programs have collected. The site geographic information is important to generate reports by
county, state representative district, watershed, etc. Many volunteers want to know who is sampling in their area.
The volunteer monitoring data is used to supplement enforcement data, and create baselines to measure the change
in streams over time. Quarterly activity and water quality reports are sent to regional state environmental offices.
The amount of volunteer time spent monitoring, and number of monitoring events, can be sorted and reported in
various ways. One way is the ST program annual report, which estimates the value of the volunteer's time. The ST
database also generates the program mailing list, and tracks the distribution of incentives and rewards.
Any mention of the Internet brings to mind security and privacy issues. In Missouri, all monitoring data is available
online. The names of the program volunteer submitting monitoring data are not available online, and are not linked
to the volunteers' data except through the GISID field. The program limits the distribution of volunteer names to
protect the volunteer's privacy.
200
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
DATA MANAGEMENT IN ACTION 2:
WEB-BASED SYSTEMS AND EDAS
DEMOS .
EDAS: Facilitating the Analysis and
Archiving of Ecological Data
CONTACT INFORMATION
Mellini Sloan, Environmental Scientist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 110
Owings Mills, MD 21117
phone: 410/356-8993, fax: 410/356-9005
email: Mellini.Sloan@tetratech.com
Ecological data derived from assessment and
monitoring programs include biological, physical, chemical, and geographical data. In an effort to facilitate the
analysis of this data, we have developed a tool to calculate various biological and habitat metrics used to assess the
health of waterbodies. The Ecological Data Application System (EDAS) is a relational database application for
Microsoft Access®, designed to enable users to easily manage, aggregate, integrate, and analyze ecological data.
•Often, data are collected and individual sites are described on field sheets, but this data lingers on paper and no
integrated or comprehensive analyses are performed. Data management systems, like the USEPA's STORET, which
are designed to organize this data, do not incorporate components to analyze, interpret and incorporate the data they
store into management decisions.
EDAS provides flexibility in data manipulation through a collection of tables that are linked by one or more fields.
Edits, additions, or other changes in the data can be easily accommodated by modifying tables without affecting the
overall database design. EDAS can be linked to various other applications such as ArcView®,. Arclnfo®, USEPA's
STORET system, image files, etc. Access® supports Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) and Structured Query
Language (SQL), allowing it to interact with other ODBC-compliant databases.
EDAS draws on data stored within its own data tables to perform queries for data reduction and data analysis to
accelerate biological assessment of water resource quality. EDAS utilizes sequential and "spreadsheet" type forms
for data entry to minimize the burden of learning new software, and creates batch files for upload into STORET.
Through its assemblage of abilities, EDAS eases the transition of state data from spreadsheets to a centralized
database; increases state's willingness to archive data in STORET, and facilitates data analysis and the development
of biological criteria to be integrated into management efforts.
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
201
-------
Conference Proceedings
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Lindsay Abraham
Environmental Resource Specialist, West Virginia
DEP
PO Box 6064
Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Ph: (304) 293-2867 Fax: (304)293-4334
Labraham@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Steve Amos
Austin Science Academy, 4Empowerment
1607 Waterson
Austin, TX 78703
Ph: (512) 469-7447 Fax: (512)469-0552
steve@4empowerment.com
Jim Arden
Chairman, Washoe-Storey Conservation District
2340 Ives
Reno, NV 89503
Ph: (775) 747-4043 Fax: (775) 322-9924
jearden@earthlink.net
Ben Barber
Program Coordinator, Illinois EcoWatch Network,
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
208 S. Lasalle, Suite 2055
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: (312) 201-0650 Fax: (312)201-0653
bbarber@dnrmail.state.il.us
Diana Bell
Colorado River Watch Network
1508 Bell Springs Road
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Ph: (512)264-1637
bsrl508@ccsi.com
Aaron Bennett
Catskill Center for Conservation & Development
Route 28
Arkville, NY 12406
Ph: (914) 586-2611 Fax: (914)586-3044
educat@catskill.net
Chrys Bertolotto
Water Quality & Habitat Stewardship Coordinator,
Cityoflssaquah
PO Box 1307
Issaquah, WA 98027
Ph: (425) 837-3442 Fax: (425)837-3409
chrysb@ci.issaquah.wa.us
Mike Bira
USEPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Ave 6WQ-EW
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Ph: (214) 665-6668 Fax: (214)665-6689
bira.mike@epa.gov
Rebecca Boger
Project Scientist, The GLOBE Program
744 Jackson PI., NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
Ph: (202) 395-7600 Fax: (202)395-7611
rboger@globe.gov
Andrea Bourgeois
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
P.O. Box 6965
Metairie, LA 70009
Ph: (504) 836-2238 Fax: (504) 836-7283
educpro@communique.net
Laura Brock
Texas Watch
601 University Dr.
San Marcos, TX 78666
Ph: (512)245-0324
lbrock@swt.edu
Stacey Thurmond Brown
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
PO Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240
Pli: (804) 698-4026 or (800) 592-5482 x4026
stbrown@deq.state.va.us
Rita Bruckler
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Ave. C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
Ph: (410) 260-8696 Fax: (410)260-8620
Rbruckler@dnr.state.md.us
Greg Bryant
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Ph: (512) 239-6941 Fax: (512)239-4410
gbryant@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Glenn Buckley
Sam Houston Area Council - Boy Scouts of America
2427 Blue Lake Dr.
Magnolia, TX 77354
Ph: (281)423-5723 Fax: (409)321-0764
bugs@argolink.net *
202
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Rob Buirgy
Coordinator, Big Thompson Watershed Forum
1669 Eagle Dr.
Loveland, CO 80537
Ph: (970)613-7951 Fax: (970)613-7909
rbuirgy@btwatershed.org
Hana Burwinkle
Storm Water Management Authority, Inc.
2121 8th Ave. N, Suite 1101
Birmingham, AL 35203
Ph: (205) 325-1440 Fax: (205)325-5228
burwinkh@swma.com
Mike Buttnam
Caddo Lake Institute, Texarkana College
Texarkana, TX 75599
Ph: (803)838-4541
mbuttnam@tc.cc.tx.us
John Calvin
Jefferson Parish School System
824 N. Atlanta Street
Metairie, LA 70003
Ph: (504)466-3174
Ellen Campbell ;
Vice President, The Nitrate Elimination Co., Inc
334 Hecla Street
Lake Linden, MI 49945
Ph: (906) 296-1000 Fax: (906) 296-8003
ellenr@nitrate.com
Mary Carchrie
Cape and Islands Senior Environmental Corps.,
Elder Services of Cape Cod & Islands, Inc.
68 Route 134
South Dennis, MA 02660
Ph: (508) 394-4630 xl 11 Fax: (508)394-3712
escci@capecod.net
Daniel Carder
15 Greens End Lane
West Kingston, RI 02892
Ph: (401) 788-8298 Fax: (401)788-8298
dcartier@sneplanet.com
Bill Cauthron
OK Water Resources Board
3800 North Classen Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Ph: (405)530-8934
wlcauthron@owrb.state.ok.us
Debra Cerda
City of Austin
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78746
Ph: (512)499-2763
debra.cerda@ci.austin.tx.us
Ed Chadd
Stream Keepers of Clallam County, WA
PO Box 863
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Ph: (360) 417-2281 Fax: (360)417-2443
streamkeepers@co.clallam.wa.us
Toni Chew
Classroom on the Creek
PO Box 1242
Marlin,TX 76661
Ph: (254) 803-3561 Fax: (254)883-2864
tonichew@hotmail.com
JeffChristenson
Chemetrics
4295 Catlett Road
Calverton, VA20138
Ph: (800) 356-3072 Fax: (540)788-4856
jeff@chemetrics.com
Allen Clark
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuarine Program, East
Carolina University, I.C.M.R.
Mamie Jenkins Bldg.
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
Ph: (252) 328.-1747 Fax: (252)328-4265
clarka@mail.ecu.edu
>
Josh demons
University of Arizona - GLOBE
3401 N. Columbus Blvd. APT#23-A
Tucson, AZ 85712
Ph: (520)321-9352
jclemons@hwr.arizona.edu
Sharon Clifford
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Ph: (573) 751-7298 Fax: (573)526-5797
nrclifs@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
Gary L. Comer, Jr.
Extension Agent, Water Quality
Indian Lake Watershed Project, Ohio State University
117 East Columbus Avenue, Suite 100
Bellefontaine, OH 43311-2053
Ph: (937) 599-4227 Fax: (937)592-6404
comer.29@osu.edu
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
203
-------
Conference Proceedings
Maya Conrad
Watershed Program Manager, Coastal Watershed
Council
903 Pacific Avenue, #207A
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Ph: (831)426-9012Fax: (831)421-0170
cwc_office@yahoo.com
Ken Cooke
Kentucky Water Watch
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Ph: (800) 928-0045 Fax: (502)564-0111
kywwp@igc.org
Joel Cooper
Cook Inlet Keeper
PO Box 3269
Homer, AK 99603
Ph: (907) 235-4068 Fax: (907)235-4069
joel@inletkeeper.org
David Cowan
Lower Colorado River Authority
POBox220M107
Austin, TX 78767-0220
Ph: (800) 776-5272 Fax: (512)473-3501
dcowan@lcra.org
Bob Craycraft
Educational Program Coordinator, University of New
Hampshire Cooperative Extension
124 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main Street
Durham, NH 03824
Ph: (603) 862-3546 Fax: (603) 862-0107
bob.craycraft@unh.edu
Mary Crowe
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Ph: (703) 385-6000 Fax: (703)934-1057
crowema@tetratech-ffx.com
Jill Csekitz
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Ph: (512) 239-3136 Fax: (512)239-1605
jcsekitz@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Georgie Cunningham
Nebraska Wildlife Federation
2041 N. 66th St
Omaha, NE 68104
Ph: (402) 561-9472 Fax: (402)561-9472
dacesh@aol.com
Dana Curtiss
ENRSIII, State of Illinois- DNR
524 South Second
Springfield, IL 62701-1787
Ph: (217) 785-5409 Fax: (217)785-8575
dcurtiss@dnrmail.state.il.us
Jim Czarnezki
Missouri Dept. of Conservation/Stream Team
1110 S College Ave
Columbia, MO 65201
Ph: (573) 882-9880 Fax: (573)882-4517
czarnj@mail.conservation.state.mo.us
Stacy Daniels
Director of Water Quality Monitoring, Crystal Lake
Watershed Fund, Inc.
999 Crystal Drive
Frankfort, MI 48640
Ph: (517) 496-2233 Fax: (517)496-2695
stacydan@concentric.net
Tom Danielson
Ecologist, USEPA Headquarters, Wetlands Division
401MSt,SW(4502F)
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-5299 Fax: (202)260-8000
danielson.tom@epa.gov
Eric Dannaway
Environmental Resource Specialist, West Virginia
DEP
PO Box 6064
Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Ph: (304) 293-2867 Fax: (304)293-4334
edannaway@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Susanna Danner
Watershed Program Manager, Coastal Watershed
Council
903 Pacific Avenue, #207A
Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4462
Ph: (831)426-9012 Fax: (831)421-0170
cwc_office@yahoo.com
Geoff Dates
Science Director, River Watch Program, River
Network
6 Poor Farm Road
Hartland, VT 05048
Ph: (802) 436-2544 Fax: (802)436-2544
gdates@rivemetwork.org
_
204
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Sherry Dawson
The Nature Conservancy
2250 Overseas Highway
Marathon, FL 33050
Ph: (305) 289-9060 Fax: (305)289-9084
sdawson@tnc.org
Yvette de Boer
SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry
818 Cayuga Heights Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ph: (607) 257-7252 Fax: (607)266-3502
yedeboer@mailbox.syr.edu
Patrick Detscher
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Fl 32399
Ph: (850) 921-9925 Fax: (850)921-5217
Carolyn Dindorf
Hennepin Conservation District
10801 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 240
MTKA, MN 55305
Ph: (612) 544-8572 Fax: (612)544-9437
carolyn@hcd.hennepin.mn.us
Claudia Donegan
Aquatic Ecologist, Dept. of Parks and Planning,
Maryland
1109 Spring Street, Suite 802
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Ph: (301) 650-4361 Fax: (301)650-4371 .
donegan@mncpac.state.md.us
Robert Drakeford
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
206 Duncan-Hall- ACES
Auburn University, AL 36849-5620
Ph: (334) 844-2219 Fax: (334)844-2252
Michele Droszcz
Georgia Adopt-A-Stream
4220 International PKWY, Suite 101
Atlanta, GA 30354
Ph: (404) 675-1636 Fax: (404)675-6245
micheie-droszcz@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
Scott Dye
Sierra Club
914 N. College Suite 1
Columbia, MO 65201
Ph: (573) 815-9250 Fax: (573)442-7051
scott.dye@sierraclub.org
Don Elder
River Network
520 SW 6th Ave, Suite 1130
Portland, OR 97204
Ph: (503) 241-3506 Fax: (503)241-9256
delder@rivernetwork.org
Ellie Ely
Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
50 Dartmouth Street, Apt 9
Pawtucket, RI02860
Ph: (401)723-5151
ellieely@aol.com
PhilEmmling
University of Wisconsin/Water Chemistry Program
660 N. Park Street
Madison, WI 53706
Ph: (608) 262-2899 Fax: (508) 262-0454
emmling@engr.wisc.edu
MaryEnstrom
Director, Volunteer Stewardship Exchange, The
Nature Conservancy
2250 Overseas Highway
Marathon, FL 33050
Ph: (305) 289-9060 Fax: (305)289-9084
menstrom@tnc.org
Jennifer Fairley
Alabama Water Watch Association
1220 Graylynn Circle
VestivaHill,AL35216
Ph: (205) 823-6400 Fax: (205)290-7450
jenniferfairley@hotmail.com
Jane Fava
Brandywine Valley Association
626 Meadow Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
Ph: (610) 429-0109 Fax: (610)431-5783
j afava@enter. net
Natara Feller
Hudson Basin River Watch, 432 MOB1
148 Marine Ave
White Plains, NY 10601
Ph: (914) 285-3786 Fax: (914)285-3780
nnf2@westchestergov.com'
Wenley Ferguson
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Save The Bay
434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908
Ph: (401) 272-3540 Fax: (401)273-7153
wferguson@savebay.org
Moving Into the Mainstream: April'26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
205
-------
Conference Proceedings
Carlos Fernandes
Hillsborough County Public Works /Stormwater
601 E. Kennedy Blvd. 23rd Floor
Tampa, FL 33601
Ph: (813) 272-5912 Fax: (813)272-5320
fernandesc@hillsboroughcounty.org
Sherry Fischer
Missouri Dept. of Conservation/Stream Team
PO Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
Ph: (573) 751-4115 Fax: (573)526-0990
fischs@mail.conservation.state.mo.us
Bill Fleming
Associate Professor, School of Architecture and
Planning, Community and Regional Planning
Program, University of New Mexico
901 Trial Cross
Santa Fe.NM 87505 •
Ph: (505) 982-8313 Fax: (505)982-8313
fleming@la.unm.edu
Karen Font Williams
Oregon DEQ .
1712 SW11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97201
Ph: (503) 229-5983 Fax: (503) 229-6924
williams.karen@deq.state.or.us
Connie Fortin
Fortin Consulting
215 Hamel Road
Hamel, MN 55340
Ph: (763)478-3606
fci@iaxs.net
Melanie Foster
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
3800 N. Classen Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Ph: (405) 530-8800 Fax: (405)530-8900
mfoster@owrb.state.ok.us .
Fred Fox
U.S. Department of the Interior
1951 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
Ph: (202) 208-2527 Fax: (202)219-0239
ffox@osmire.gov
Julia Frost
University of Minnesota
2924 43rd Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55406
Ph: (612) 721-4009 Fax: (612)625-5299
jaf@fw.umn.edu
Shelly Fuller
Education and Training Coordinator, Illinois
Ecowatch
208 S. LaSalle, Ste. 2055
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: (312) 201-0650 Fax: (312)201-0653
sfuller@dnrmail.state.il.us
Robert Furtado
Lower Colorado River Watch Network
14100 Thermal Drive, #505
Austin, TX 78728
Ph: (512) 252-0078 Fax: (512)338-1293
rafur4@hotmail.com
Ashley Galaway
Project Manager, 4Empowerment
1607 Waterston
Austin, TX 78703
Ph: (512) 469-7447 Fax: (512)469-0552
ashley@4empowerment.com
Alvan Gale
West Virginia DEP
1201 Greenbriar St.
Charleston, WV 25311
Ph: (304) 558-2108 Fax: (304)558-5905
agale@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Kim Garrett
Mecklenburg County DEP
700 N. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Ph: (704) 336-5500 Fax: (704)336-4391
Jay Gilliam
Virginia IWLA Save Our Streams
7598 N. Lee HWY
Raphine, VA 24472
Ph: (540) 377-6179 Fax: (540)377-617-9
strmiwla@cfw.com
Paul Godfrey.
University of Massachusetts
Blaisdell House
Amherst, MA 01003-0820
Ph: (413) 545-2842 Fax: (413)545-2304
godfrey@tei.umass.edu
Jack Goodman
Barton Springs/Edward Aquifer C. D.
1124 Regal Row
Austin, TX 78748
Ph: (512) 282-8441 Fax: (512)282-7016
bseacd@mail.bseacd.org
206
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Leah Graff
Technical Director, Save Our Streams, Izaak Walton
League
7.07 Conservation Ln
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Ph: (301) 548-0150 x219 or (800) BUG-IWLA
Fax: (301)548-0146
leah@iwla.org
Linda Green
Watershed Watch, University of Rhode Island,
Cooperative Extension
210 B Woodward Hall
Kingston, RI02881-0804
Ph: (401) 874-2905 Fax: (401)874-4561
lgreen@uri.edu
Ellen Groth
Upper Colorado River Authority
PO Box 1482
San Angelo, TX 76902
Ph: (915) 655-0565 Fax: (915)655-1371
ucra@wcc.net
Ben Gruenwald
Ground Water Protection Council
827 NW 63rd, Suite 103
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
Ph: (405) 516-4972 Fax: (405)516-4973
ben@gwpc.site.net
Fred Guarino
Storm Water Management Authority, Inc.
2121 8th Ave. N, Suite 1101
Birmingham, AL 35203
Ph: (205) 325-1439 Fax: (205)325-5228
edu@swma.com
Otto Gutenson
USEPA - OWOW
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-4909 Fax: (202)260-4909
gutenson.otto@epa.gov
Wes Halverson
University of Wisconsin - Platteville
234 E Madison Street
Spring Green, WI 53588
Ph: (608) 588-3050 Fax: (608)588-3050
halver@merr.com
Claudia Hamblin-Katnik
Ala Wai Watershed Association
66 Queen Street #2902 '
Honolulu, HI 96813
Ph: (808) 529-0394 Fax: (808)529-0394
chk-alawai@juno.com.
Harold Harbert
Georgia Adopt a Stream
4220 International Parkway, Suite 101
Atlanta, GA 30354
Ph: (404) 675-1639 Fax: (404)675-6245
harold_harbert@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
Jim Harrison
Environmental Scientist, Water Management
Division, USEPA - Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta Federal Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
Ph: (404) 562-9271 Fax: (404)562-9224
harrison.jim@epa.gov
Lyn Hartman
Hoosier Riverwatch, Fort Harrison State Park
5785 Glenn Rd
Indianapolis, IN 46216
Ph: (317) 541-0617 Fax: (317)562-0790
hoosierriverwatch@ameritech.net
Patty Hartman
Texarkana College
2500 N. Robinson Road
Texarkana, TX 75599
Ph: (903)838-4541
pharman@tc.cc.tx.us
Katina Henderson
' The Watershed Institute at Boston College
163 Higgins Hall, 140 Commonwealth Ave.
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3811
Ph: (617) 552-1563 Fax: (617)552-1198
katinadove@hotmail.com
Troy Henry
Sabine River Authority
PO Box 1734
Quitman, TX 75783
Ph: (903) 878-2420 Fax: (903)878-2410
ubfo@gokier.net
Elizabeth Herron
Program Coordinator, Watershed Watch, University
of Rhode Island, Cooperative Extension
Room 21 OB Woodward Hall
Kingston, RI 02881
Ph: (401)874-2905 Fax: (401)874-4561
uriww@etal.uri.edu
Sarah Hippensteel
Technical Writer, YSI, Incorporated
1700 Brannum Ln
Yellow Springs, OH 45387
Ph: (937)767-7241 Fax: (937)767-9320
shippensteel@YSI.com
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
207
-------
Conference Proceedings
Betsy Hohenstein
New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Rd, Rm 305
Albany, NY 12233
Ph: (518) 457-3345 Fax: (518)485-7786
Margaret Hopson-Fernandes
University of Florida
12022 Stone Crossing Circle
Tampa, FL 33635
Ph: (813) 814-1181 Fax: (813)814-1181
Barb Horn
Aquatic Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife
151 E 16th
Durango, CO 81301
Ph: (970) 382-6667 Fax: (970)247-4785
barb.horn@state.co.us
Steven Hubbell
Program Coordinator, Colorado River Watch
Network, Lower Colorado River Authority
PO Box 220 MS H219
Austin, TX 78767-0220
Ph: (800) 776-5272 x2403 Fax: (512)473-4066
steven.hubbell@lcra.org
Patti Hurley
Alabama Dept. of Environmental Mgmt.
PO Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
Ph: (334) 394-4350 Fax: (334)394-4383
pah@adem.state.al.us
Lauren Imgrund
The Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring
Dickinson College PO Box 1773
Carlisle, PA 17013
Ph: (717) 245-1135 Fax: (717)245-1940
imgrund@dickinson.edu
Jeanne Ison
Pubic Relations Manager, ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg AVE
Cincinnati, OH 45228
Ph: (513) 231-7719 Fax: (513)231-7761
jison@orsanco.org
Kim Jackson
Florida DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management,
M.S.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Ph: (850)921-9469
kschildt@nettally.com
Gayle Killam
River Network
520 SW 6th Ave, Suite 1130
Portland, OR 97204
Ph: (503) 241-3506 Fax: (503)241-9256
gkillam@rivernetwork.org
Nadia Kingham
Waterwatch Australia
Environmental Australia GPO Box 787
Canberra Australia, 2601, ACT
nadia.kingham@ea.gov.au
Scott Kishbaugh
NYSDEC Division of Water
RM 398, 50 Wolf Rd
Albany, NY 12233-3508
Ph: (518) 457-0734 Fax: (518)485-7786
sakishba@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Jennifer Klang
Program Coordinator, MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd N
St. Paul, MN 55155
Ph: (651)282-2618 Fax: (651)297-8324
jennifer.klang@pca.state.mn.us
Gary Kohlhepp
Aquatic Biologist, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48820
Ph: (517) 335-1289 Fax: (517)373-9958
kohlhepg@state.mi.us
Paul Koska
Environmental Engineer, USEPA - Region 6
114 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202
Ph: (214) 665-8357 Fax: (214)665-6689
koska.paul@epa.gov
Tina Laidlaw
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA - Region
8
8 EPR-EP, 999 18th St., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Ph: (303) 312-6880 Fax: (303)312-6071
laidlaw.tina@epa.gov
Jim Laine
ERSS, West Virginia DEP
1201 Greenbriar St.
Charleston, WV 25311
Ph: (304) 558-2108 Fax: (304)558-2780
Jlaine@mail.dep.state.wv.us
208
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Meg Larsen
Clinton River Watershed Council
1970 East Auburn Road
Rochester Hills, MI 48307-4803
Ph: (248) 853-9580 Fax: (248) 853-0486
educator@crwc.org
Tom Lawrence
Lawrence Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 344
Seal Harbor, ME 04675
Ph: (207) 276-5746 Fax: (207)276-4058
.info@watermonitoring.equip.com
Ric Lawson
Program Specialist, Great Lakes Commission
400 Fourth St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Ph: (734) 665-9135 Fax: (734)665-4370
rlawson@glc.org
Sarah Lehmann
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA - Region
5
77 West Jackson Blvd (WT-15J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: (312) 353-4328 Fax: <312) 886-0168
Lehmann.Sarah@epa.gov
Rich Leopold
Coordinator, IO WATER- University of Iowa, Iowa
DNR, Wallace Office Bldg.
502 E 9th St
DesMoines,IA50319
Ph: (515) 281-3252 Fax: (515)281-8895
richard.leopold@dnr.state.ia.us
Jennifer Lester
Jones Falls Watershed Association
3503 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
Ph: (410) 261-3515 Fax: (410)889-8744
Torrey Lindbo
Technical Coordinator, Student Watershed Research
Project, Saturday Academy, Oregon Graduate
Institute
20000 NW Walker Rd
Beaverton, OR 97006-8921
Ph: (503) 748-1344 Fax: (503)748-1388
tlindbo@.admin.ogi.edu
www.saturdavacademv.ogi/swrp
George Loeb
USEPA Headquarters
MC 4504 1200 Pensylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-0670 Fax: (202)260-9960
loeb.george@epa.gov
Katherine Luscher
River Network
520 SW 6th Ave #1130
Portland, OR 97204
Ph: (503) 241-3506. Fax: (503)241-9256
kluscher@rivernetwork.org
Matthew Lyman
Environmental Analyst, Connecticut DEP
79 Elm St.
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Ph: (860) 424-3158 Fax: "(860) 424-4055
matthew.lyman@po.state.ct.us
Anne Lyon
Water Quality Project Director, Greenacres
Foundation
8255 Spooky Hollow Rd
Cincinnati, OH 45242
,Ph: (513) 891-4227 Fax: (513)792-9199
alyon@green-acres.org or aelyon@hotmail.com
Carol Malcolm
Modeling & Assessment Specialist, Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission .
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
Ph: (512) 239-0902 Fax: (512)239-1605
cmalcolm@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Abby Markowitz
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Blvd., Suite 110
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Ph: (410) 356-8993 Fax: (410)356-9005
Abby.Markowitz@tetratech.com
Joan Martin
Huron River Watershed Council
1100 North Main, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Ph: (734) 769-5971 Fax: (734)998-0163
jmartin@hrwc.org -
Bob Mayer
Volunteer WQM, Oliver Lake Assoc.
PO Box 212
LaGrange, IN 46761-0212
Ph: (219) 463-4998 Fax: (219)463-4018
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
209
-------
Conference Proceedings
Alice Mayio
National Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA
Headquarters
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (4503 F)
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-7018 Fax: (202)260-1977
mayio.alice@epa.gqv
Davis McAuley
Bastrop Advertiser
PO Box 459
Bastrop, TX 78602
Ph: (512) 321-2557 Fax: (512)321-1680
studio@onr.com
Molly McCammon
Executive Director, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council
645 G Street, Suite 401
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ph: (907) 278-8012 Fax: (907)276-7178
molly_mccammon@oilspill.state.ak.us
Marty McComb
USEPA - Region 8
999 18th St., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Ph: (303)313-6774
mccomb.martin@epa.gov
John McCoy
State Science Coordinator, Waterwatch Victoria,
Australia
PO Box 659
Geelong, Victoria 32288
Ph: (610) 352-2691 Fax: (610)522-9349
jmm@barwonwater.vic.gov.au
Jim McLaughlin
Houston-Galveston Area Council
3555 Timmons Lane
Houston, TX 77277
Ph: (713) 499-6660 Fax: (713)993-4503
mclaughlin@hgac.cog.tx.us
Ned Meister
Texas Farm Bureau
PO Box 2689
WacoTX 76702-2689
Ph: (254) 751-2457 Fax: (254)751-2671
nmeister@tfb-waco.org
Jaye Melcher
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
1594 W. North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Ph: (801)538-4864 Fax: (801)538-4745
nrdwr.jmelcher@state.ut.us
Vince Meldrum
Vice President of National Programs, Earth Force
1908 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22301'
Ph: (703) 519-6864 Fax: (703)299-9485
vmeldrum@earthforce.org • •
Eric Mendelman
Program Coordinator, Texas Watch, Department of
Geography SWTSU
ELA 369, SWTSU, 601 University Drive
San Marcos, TX 78666
Ph: (512) 245-1409 Fax: (512)245-2095 '
em20@swt.edu
Nancy Mesner
Utah State University, Department of Geography
5240 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-5240
Ph: (435) 797-2465 Fax: (435) 797-4048
nancym@ext.usu.edu
Donna Meyers
Executive Director, Coastal Watershed Council
903 Pacific Ave, Suite 207A
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Ph: (831)426-9012 Fax: (831)421-0170
cwc_office@yahoo.com
Gerri Miceli
Program Manager, Gordon Research Conferences
URI PO Box 984
West Kingston, RI 02892-0984
15 Greens End Lane
Ph: (401) 783-4011 x!08 Fax: (401) 783-7644
gmiceli@grcmail.grc.uri.edu
Christos Michalopoulos
The GLOBE Program
744 Jackson Place, NW
Washington', DC 20503
Ph: (202)395-7600
michalop@globe.gov
Peter Milholland
Friends of Casco Bay
2 Fort Road
South Portland, ME 04106
Ph: (207) 799-8574 Fax: (207)799-7224
pmilholland@cascobay.org
Daniel Millin
Teacher, West Bend High School
1303 Kimberline Drive
West Bend, WI 53095
Ph: (262) 338-4881
210
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Sue Millin
Information / Education Coordinator, Washington
Co. LCD
333 E. Washington ST., Suite 3200
West Bend, WI53095
Ph: (262) 335-4800
David Mohr
HYDROLAB CORP.
8700 Cameron Rd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78754
Ph: (512),832-8832 Fax:: (512) 832-8839
dmohr@hydrolab.com
Tina Montgomery
Salt River Watershed Watch
PO Box 17037
Louisville, KY 40217
Ph: (502) 852-6773 Fax: (502) 852-0725
jkmontO l@athena.louisville.edu
Jean-Ann Moon
Marshall County Retired & Senior Volunteer
Prog.ram
1805GunterAve.
Guntersville, AL 35976
Ph: (256) 571-7734 Fax: (256) 571-7775
mcrsvp@netnav.com
Stacey Moulds
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
PO Box 1981
Richmond, VA 23218
Ph: (804) 775-0951 Fax: (804) 775-0954
Barry Nichols
MSD Environmental Team
700 W. Liberty Street
Louisville, KY 40203
Ph: (502) 540-6922 Fax: (502) 540-6199
nicols@msdlouky.org
Sandy Nickel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62702
Ph: (217) 782-3362 Fax: (217) 785-1225
epal 193@epa.state.il.us
Dan Obrecht
Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program
302 A.B. Natural Resources Bldg.
Colombia, MO 65211
Ph: (573) 882-5430 Fax: (573) 884-5070
obrechtd@missouri.edu
Ron Ohrel
Project Coordinator, Center for Marine Conservation
1432 N. Great Neck Road, Ste. 103
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
Ph: (757) 496-0920 Fax: (757) 496-3207
rohrel@vacmc.org
Bryan Parker
Missouri Stream Team
20 Richard Drive
Rolla, MO 65401
Ph: (573) 364-6362 Fax: (573) 364-4782
Ph: (573) 341-2226
baparker@rollanet.org
Leisa Parker
Missouri Stream Team
20 Richard Drive
Rolla, MO 65401
Ph: (573) 364-6362 Fax: (571) 364-4782
baparker@rollanet.org
Annette Paulin
Project Manager, DB Environmental Laboratories
414 Richard Rd.
Rockledge, FL 32956
Ph: (407) 824-2302 Fax: (407) 824-6592
ampazurea@aol.com
Joseph Payne
Friends of Casco Bay
2 Fort Road
South Portland, ME 04106
Ph: (207) 799-8574 Fax: (207) 799-7224
keeper@cascobay.org
Annie Phillips
Watch Over Washington, WA Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Ph: (360) 407-6408 Fax: (360) 407-6426
aphi461@ecy.wa.gov
AmyPicotte
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Vermont Lay
Monitoring Program, Water Quality Division
103 S. Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
Ph: (802) 241-3777 Fax: (802) 241-3483 ,
amyp@dec.anr.state.vt.us
Jason Pinchback
Texas Watch
601 University Dr
San Marcos, TX 78666
Ph: (512) 245-9148
jp30@swt.edu
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
211
-------
Conference Proceedings
Walt Pomeroy
Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds & Rivers
PO Box 765
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0765
Ph: (717) 234-7910 Fax: (717) 234-7929
wpomeroy@aol.com
Susan Pufahl
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
299 Foam St.
Monterey, CA 93940
Ph: (831) 647-4256 Fax: (831) 647-4250
susan.pufahl@noaa.gov
Dennis Pyburn
Environmental Analyst, New England Pollution
Control Commission
Bott Mills South, 100 Foot of John St.
Lowell, MA 01852
Ph: (978) 323-7929 Fax: (978) 323-7919
dpyburn@neiwpcc.org
Wendy Quick
Midwest Research Institute
1470 Treeland Blvd. SE
Palm Bay, FL 32909
Ph: (312) 723-4547 Fax: (312) 722-2514
wquick@mriresearch.org
Angie Reed
River Watch Science and Tribal Services Manager,
River Watch Program, River Network
RR 4 Box 4250
Houlton, ME 04730
Ph: (207) 532-4889 Fax: (207) 532-2480
areed@rivernetwork.org
Laura Reed
City of Seattle, Public Utilities
710 Second Ave, Suite 505
Seattle, WA 98104
Ph: (206) 615-0551 Fax: (206) 684-8529
laura.reed@ci.seattle.wa.us
Ann Reid
Great Bay Coast Watch
UNH Kingman Farm
Durham, NH 03824
Ph: (603) 749-1565 Fax: (603) 743-3997
ann.reid@unh.edu
Alicia Reinmund
Supervisor, Clean Rivers, Lower Colorado River
Authority
POBox220MSH219
Austin, TX 78767-0220
Ph: (512) 473-3200 Fax: (512) 473-4066
areinmund@lcra.org
Stacy Renfro
Student Watershed Research Project
20000 NW Walker Rd
Beaverton, OR 97006
Ph: (503) 748-1363 Fax: (503) 748-1388 "
renfro@admin.ogi.edu
Amanda Richardson
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Blvd, Ste 110
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Ph: (410) 356-8993 Fax: (410) 356-9005
amanda.richardson@terratech.com
Klaus Richter
King County Dept. of Natural Resources, Water and
Land Resources Division
201 South Jackson St, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Ph: (206) 205-5622 Fax: (206) 296-0192
klaus.richter@metrokc.gov
Mary Riedl
Environmental Scientist, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89706-0851
Ph: (775) 687-4670 Fax: (775) 687-6396
mriedl@ndep.carson-city.nv.us
Tim Rielly
Missouri Stream Team
PO Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Ph: (573) 526-8998 Fax: (573) 526-3350
David Roberts
Sierra Club
914 N. College Suite 1
Columbia, MO 65201
Ph: (573) 815-9250 Fax: (573) 442-7051
dh-@nemr.net
Mary Rocamora
San Marcos River Rangers
305 W. Mockingbird Lane
Austin, TX 78745
Ph: (512) 441-4179
maryroc@ccms.net
Anne Rogers
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
PO Box 13087 MC-150
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Ph: (512) 239-4597 Fax: (512) 239-4420
anrogers@tnrcc.state.tx.us
212
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Dominic Roques
California State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
Ph: (916) 657-1020 Fax: (916) 675-2127
roqueswild@vdn.com
Patrick Roques
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
.PO Box 13087 MC-150
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Ph: (512) 239-4604 Fax: (512) 239-4420
proques@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Kristi Rose
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper
1900 Emery St., Suite 450
Atlanta, GA 30318
Ph: (404) 352-9828 Fax: (404) 352-8676
riverkeep@mindspring.com
Roman Rowan
Rivers Council of Minnesota
11720 48th PIN
Plymouth, MN 55442
Ph: (612X553-2926
rrowan@msp.analysts.com
Pete Schade
Montana Watercourse
PO Box 170575
Bozeman, MT 59717
Ph: (406) 994-5398 Fax: (406) 994-1919
paschade@montana.edu
Molly Schauffler
NSF Research Fellow, University of Maine
103 Environmental Science Lab
Orono, ME 04469
Ph: (207) 581-2707 Fax: (207) 581-3007
mschauff@maine.edu
JeffSchloss
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
224 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main St.
Durham, NH 03824
Ph: (603) 862-3848 Fax: (6.03) 862-0107
jeff.schloss@unh.edu
Jerry Schoen
Mass. Water Watch Partnership
Blaisdell House Umass
Amherst,MA01003 ' ;
Ph: (413) 545-5532 Fax: (413) 545-2304
j schoen@tei.umass.edu
Julie Schultz
National Outreach Manager, Earth Force
-1908 Mt. Vernon Avenue, 2nd Fir
Alexandria, VA 22301
Ph: (703) 519-6876 Fax: (703) 299-9485
jschultz@earthforce.org
Lori Scinto
Environmental Scientist, Puget Sound Water Quality
Action Team
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
Ph: (360) 407-7337 Fax: (360) 407-7333
lscinto@psat.wa.gov
Mateo Scoggins
Environmental Scientist, City Of Austin
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
Ph: (512) 499-1917 Fax: (512) 499-2846
mateo.scoggins@ci.austin.tx.us
Danielle Seneschal
Cape Fear River Watch, Inc.
617SurrySt.
Wilmington, NC 28401
Ph: (910) 762-5606 Fax: (910) 772-9381
cfrw@wilmington.net
Patricia Serrentino
Deerfield River Watershed Association
72 Hastings St.
Greenfield, MA 01301
Ph: (413) 772-0520
pserr@crocker.com
Sheryl Shapiro
Longfellow Creek Watershed Specialist, City of
Seattle
5200 35th Ave. SW
Seattle, WA 98126
Ph: (206) 233-2046 Fax: (206) 684-7435
sheryl.shapiro@ci.seattle.wa.us
Mike Sheehan
Environmental Resource Specialist, West Virginia
DEP
PO Box 6064
Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Ph: (304) 293-2867 Fax: (304) 293-4334
msheehan@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
213
-------
Conference Proceedings
Charlotte Shover
Dakota County MN Environmental Education
Program
4100 220th St. W., #101
Farmington, MN 55024
Ph: (651) 480-7734 Fax: (651) 463-8002
cshover@extension.umn.edu
Mary Skopec
Iowa Department, of Natural Resources
lOPTrowbridgeHall
Iowa City, IA 52242
Ph: (319) 335-1579 Fax: (319) 335-2754
mskopec@igsb.uiowa.edu
Mellini Sloan
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Blvd.
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Ph: (410) 356-8993 Fax: (410) 356-9005
mellini.sloan@tetratech.com
Daniel Smith
Team Leader (retired), USDA - NRCS
PO Box 2890, Room-6031, South Building
14"1 Street & Independence.Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Ph: (202) 720-3524 Fax: (202) 720-4265
dan.smith@usda.gov
Cheryl Snyder
Pennsylvania DEP
PO Box 8555 '
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
Ph: (717) 787-5259 Fax: (717) 787-9549
snyder.cheryl@dep.state.pa.us
Jona Sperty
City of Austin/Austin Nature & Science Center
301 Nature Center Drive
Austin, TX 78746
Ph: (512) 327-8181
jona.sperty@ci.austin.tx.us
Esperanza Standoff
Statewide Water Quality Biologist,
Director Maine Clean Water Program, University of
Maine Cooperative Extension
Knox-Lincoln Counties Office
PO Box 309,235 Jefferson Street
Waldoboro, ME 04572-0309
Ph: (207) 832-0343 or (800) 244-2104
Fax: (207) 832-0377
esp@umext.maine.edu
Amy Steigerwald
Environmenatal Marketing Specialist, Lamotte
Company
PO Box 329
Chestertown, MD 21620
Ph: (410) 778-3100 Fax: (410) 778-6394
als@lamotte.com
Allan Stokes
America's Clean Water Foundation
750 First Street, NE, Suite 1030
Washington, DC 20002
Ph: (202) 898-0908 Fax: (202) 898-0977
a.stokes@acwf.org
Priscilla Stotts
Missouri Stream Team
PO BOX 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Ph: (573) 526-3406 Fax: (573) 526-5797
-nrstotp@mail.dnr.state.mo '
Bruce Sutherland
Science Advisor, Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program
811 SWNaito Parkway
Portland, OR 97204
Ph: (503) 226-5214 Fax: (503) 226-1565
sutherland.bruce@lcrep.org-
Gary Swick
Fox River Monitoring Network
3819 Crockett CT
Crystal Lake, IL 60014
Ph: (815) 477-7643 Fax: (815) 426-1245
swick@mc.net
Diane Switzer
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, EPA New
England
60 West View Street
Lexington, MA 02421
Ph: (781) 860-4377 Fax: (781) 860-4397
switzer.diane@epa.gov
Ramsay Taum
Kailua Bay Advisory Council
531 Hahaione St.
Honolulu, HI 96825
Ph: (808) 394-5557 Fax: (808) 394-8440
ramico@aloha.net
Justin Taylor
City of Austin Watershed Protection Department
206 E. Ninth St. Ste. 16, 100
Austin, TX 78701
Ph: (572) 499-3553 Fax: (572) 499-2846
jus_taylor@yahoo.com
214
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
-------
Conference Proceedings
Steve Taylor
Program Director, Missouri Corn Growers
Association, Missouri Corn Merchandising Council
3118 Emerald Lane
Jefferson, MO 65109
Ph: (573) 893-4181 Fax: (573) 893-4612
staylor@MOCORN.org
Tara Tracy
702 Spottord Street
Austin, TX 78704
Ph: (512) 448-1400 Fax: (512) 472-2200
tara@newurban.com
Kristen Travers
Stroud Water Research Center
970 Spener Rd.
Avondale, PA19311
Ph: (610) 268-2153 Fax: (610) 268-0490
ktravers@stroudcenter.org
Michele L. Tremblay
Upper Merrimack naturesource communications
Monitoring Program
PO Box 3019
Boscawen, NH 03303
www.des.state.nh.us/upperme 1 .htm
Ph: (603) 796-2615 Fax: (603) 796-2600
mtrembla@tds.net
www.naturesource.net
JeffVarricchione
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
312CancoRd
Portland, ME 04103
Ph: (207) 822-6317 Fax: (207) 822-6303
Jeffrey .t.varricchione@state.me.us
Sheila Vukovich
Environmental Resource Specialist, West Virginia
DEP
PO Box 6064
'Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Ph: (304) 293-2867 Fax: (304) 293-4334
svukovich@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Marie-Fran9oise Walk
Mass. Water Watch Partnership
Blaisdell House Umass Box 30820
Amherst, MA 01003-0820
Ph: (413) 545-5531 Fax: (413) 545-2304
mfwalk@tei.umass.edu
Kathleen Waren
Jones Falls Watershed Association
3501-3503 North Charles Street
.Baltimore, MD 21218
Ph: (410) 261-3515 Fax: (410) 889-8744
kathleenwarren@hotmail.com
Elizabeth Welsh
Colorado River Watch Foundation
619 W. 7th Street
Austin, TX 78701
Ph: (512) 708-9115 Fax: (512) 708-1184
crwf2@aol.com
Kristi Westphal
Texas Watch
211 W Annie St. #114
Austin, TX 78704
Ph: (512) 912-8308 Fax: (512) 245-8353
kw58392@swt.edu
Christy Williams
Environmental Analyst, Science Application
International Corp.
5000 Bee Caves Road, Suite 106
Austin, TX 78703
Ph: (512) 329-0490 Fax: (512) 329-8721
m.christine.williams@saic.com
Dr. Robert Williams
Director, Rivers Project
Box 2222, Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville, IL 62026
Ph: (618) 650-3788 Fax: (618) 650-3359
rivers@siue.edu
Tony Williams
Baywatchers Water Quality Coordinator, Coalition
for Buzzards Bay
17 Hamilton Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
Ph: (508) 999-6363 Fax: (508) 984-7913
williams@savebuzzardsbay.org
Vallie Williamson
City of Longview
PO Box 1952-WWTP
Longview, TX 75606
Ph: (903) 753-4870 Fax: (903) 753-4127
wqcol@internetwork.net
Moving Into the Mainstream: April 26-29, 2000 • Austin, TX
215
-------
Conference Proceedings
Diane Wilson
Program Coordinator, Citizens' Volunteer
Monitoring Program, Pennsylvania DEP
400 Market Street
PO Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
Ph: (717) 787-3730 Fax: (717) 787-9549
wilson.diane@dep.state.pa.us
Michele Witten
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental
Democracy
104 East State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Ph: (802) 229-6070 Fax: (802) 229-6076
mwitten@gmied.org
James Woodley
USEPA Headquarters
4504 F, Ariel Rios, 1200 Penn. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-1998 Fax: (202) 260-9920
Meredith Worthen
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Ph: (512) 239-0954 Fax: (512) 239-1605
mworthen@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Riley Young Morse
Phytoplankton/Water Quality Monitoring
Coordinator, University of Maine Cooperative
Extension
235 Jefferson St. P.O. Box 309
Waldoboro, ME 04572-0300
Ph: (207) 832-0343 Fax: (207) 832-0377
rmorse@umext.maine.edu
CliffYounger
Grand Lake Association
6807HWY59N
Grove, OK 74344
Ph: (918) 786-9327 Fax: (918) 786-3386
cyounger@GCInet.net
216
Sixth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference
------- |