x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
.Agency ., =
Office of .Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA841-R-92-004
September 1992
Proceedings of
THIRD NfflONAL
CITIZENS'VOLUNTEER WATER
MONITORING CONFERENCE
Building Partnerships
in the Year of Clean Water
March 29 - April 2, 1992
AMERICA'S
v-xEPA
FOUNDATION
Alliance
fcitfie
-------
-------
Proceedings of the
Third National Citizens9 Volunteer
Water Monitoring Conference
March 29-April 2,1992
Annapolis, Maryland
Co-Sponsored by:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Izaak Walton League of America
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
America's Clean Water Foundation
Conference facilitated by:
Izaak Walton League of America
Proceedings edited by:
Jacqueline Doherty>
Izaak Walton League of America
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
On March 29, 1992, over 300 people who volunteer to monitor water quality, and
representatives from federal, state, and local governments, businesses, academia, and
environmental groups, gathered in Annapolis, Maryland to strengthen and build new
partnerships in volunteer water monitoring. This was the third such national volunteer
monitoring conference co-sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and the largest to date.
The conference brought together a disparate collection of people united by their
enthusiasm, talents, and desire to protect our nation's water resources. At general sessions,
technical workshops, discussion workgroups and field trips, participants exchanged ideas,
taught each other new techniques, and helped set future directions for the national volunteer
monitoring movement.
The EPA would like to thank all those who came to Annapolis. They made the
conference a great success because they were eager to share their knowledge, energy and
insights. The EPA also extends special thanks to our co-sponsors the Izaak Walton
League of America, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, and America's Clean Water
Foundation for their hard work organizing and promoting the conference. In addition, we
would like to thank the members of the Conference Steering Committee listed at the back of
these proceedings.
These conference proceedings are intended as a detailed reference tool. We hope they
will prove valuable both to conference attendees and to anyone interested in developing a
volunteer monitoring program or improving on an established program. We encourage you,
the reader, to contact speakers and other conference attendees and to continue to build the
partnerships we need to protect our water environment. We in EPA's Office of Water
enthusiastically support volunteer monitoring efforts and will continue to provide tools
volunteers can use.
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ;.,... 1
Monday, March 30 Day I
GENERAL SESSION FORMING GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPS
Introduction and "Welcome . .... 3
The Honorabk William Donald Schaefer, Governor of the State of Maryland
Opening Remarks .. ,...........;,;..;.,...;..... 4
Lajuana Wilcher, Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Agency Roles . . 7
State Agency Partnerships 20
Local Government Partnerships , ; ...30
WORKSHOPS SESSION I: PLANNING AND DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS
Goal Setting and Organizing ....,. 33
Reassessing and Expanding Current Projects ..... ,., ,...,..,....36
Procedures for Collecting Quality Data , ,... ; 39
Deciding Data Objectives , . 49
Developing a National Coastal Database ; i , I..!.,...;,..,.,.,.,,; ,...51
MEETING ON NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONITORING NEWSLETTER , , 53
Tuesday, March 31 Day 2
GENERAL SESSION FORMING PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Opening Remarks , . , 55
Virginia Tipple, Director, Coastal America,
Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality
Partnerships with Environmental and Educational Organizations , , .....58
Partnerships with Businesses . 52
WORKSHOPS SESSION II: PLANNING AND DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS
Training Monitors ;..... ,...,..;..,. ;.. , 67
Integrated Monitoring Systems 72
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
-------
Setting Up Data Sharing Projects with State and Local Governments 75
Make it Yourself 81
Talking Trash 85
WORKSHOPS SESSION III: IMPLEMENTING AND SUSTAINING A VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring 88
q-i
Computer Data Management 7J
Data Applications and Presentation 101
Meeting Scientific Standards for Biological Monitoring 108
Study Design -114
MEETING ON ORGANIZING A NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONITORING SOCIETY .......120
Wednesday, April I Day 3
Opening Remarks 122
Roberta Savage, President, America's Clean Water Foundation
WORKSHOPS SESSION IV: OUTREACH AND ACTION
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring 12/*
Watershed Walking 128
Environmental Education and Community Outreach 135
Fund Raising 14°
Citizen Participation in the New Clean Water Act 145
TECHNICAL SESSIONS
River and Stream Monitoring Techniques 148
Lake Monitoring Techniques 152
Wetland Monitoring Techniques 160
Estuary Monitoring Techniques 165
WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Building Partnerships with Government 170
Building Partnerships with Environmental Groups 172
Building Partnerships with Schools and Universities 173
APPENDICES
Members of Steering Committee i75
List of Conference Participants
VI
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
PREFACE
The Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water
Monitoring Conference focused on how volunteer
monitoring groups, businesses and local, state and
federal governments can work together to monitor
the quality of rivers, lakes, wetlands and estuaries.
The conference was sponsored by the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, the Izaak Walton
League of America, the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Partial proceedings funding was
provided by America's Clean Water Foundation.
The objectives of the Third National Citizens'
Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference were
to:
Promote successful partnerships between gov-
ernments, schools, environmental organiza-
tions and businesses;
° Teach implementation and maintenance of
successful volunteer monitoring programs;
Provide hands-on training in developing sci-
entific monitoring methods;
Help participants translate collected data into
useful environmental education and action;
Create an opportunity to network and ex-
change information with other successful
programs; and
Set the future direction for volunteer moni-
toring nationwide.
To encourage sharing of ideas and hands-on
learning, the conference offered more than 25 work-
shops, panel discussions, group meetings and field
trips. More than 70 conference speakers and panel-
ists were selected for their diverse perspectives and
knowledge of volunteer water monitoring. Special
thanks to all the speakers, whose participation and
insight enabled the conference to be a success.
These proceedings were prepared by the Izaak
Walton League of America (IWLA) under coopera-
tive agreement with the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The principal editor was Jacqueline
Doherty of IWLA's Save Our Streams Program.
Due to space limitations, the enclosed papers were
edited for length, with special care taken to maintain
key points. We apologize for any inadvertent omis-
sions or inaccuracies. It should also be noted that not all
speakers provided transcripts for inclusion in these
proceedings. To the majority of speakers who did
provide papers, we extend our sincere thanks.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
-------
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Day I: Forming Government Partnerships
INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
Governor William Donald Schaefer
Maryland
I would like to welcome everyone to Maryland.
There's so much to see here. I hope you'll have time
to see some of it, such as the wildlife, especially
around the Chesapeake Bay area, and the historic
sites here in Annapolis.
We have some similar interests. You are inter-
ested in water monitoring, and I want to see the bay
cleaned up. In 1987, I joined governors from Vir-
ginia and Pennsylvania, and the mayor of Washing-
ton, in signing the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Agree-
ment. A big part of what we're trying to do with this
agreement is educate the public and get more
volunteers involved in restoring the bay.
We have citizen volunteers to help monitor
water quality. We're lucky to have groups like Save
Our Streams, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and
the Izaak Walton League, who train volunteers to be
stewards for the environment. We had 26,000 vol-
unteers in the rain for our Give a Day for the
Bay, Earth Day event in 1990. They planted marsh
grass and trees, and picked up trash. We also have a
Senior Conservation Corps who build bird boxes,
plant wildflowers and other plants, and teach young
people about the environment. And we have Chesa-
peake Cleanup Campaign coordinators helping to
cleanup our parks and work on recycling.
Last year, Marylanders planted 1.5 million seed-
lings to help clean the air and preserve the environ-
ment. We've also got a program called Tree-Mendous
Maryland. '.
How do we get these people involved and keep
them interested? We make their volunteer activities
easy and fun. You also have to make your volunteers
feel their activities are worthwhile. They want to
make a difference.
We all have tight budgets these days. And gov-
ernment can't do everything alone. We need more
volunteers and more people involved in partner-
ships to protect our natural resources. That's why
the work you do is so important.
Best of luck in your work getting more people
involved.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
-------
OPENING REMARKS
Lajuana S. Wilcher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A TRIBUTE TO THE NATION'S
VOLUNTEER WATER MONITORS
Good morning. It is a pleasure to help you open
the Third National Citizens' Volunteer WaterMoni-
toring Conference. Let me first thank the Izaak
Walton League of America and the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, who have been working with EPA
to pull this conference together. You have done a
terrific job, presenting a conference of this size and
scope. "We have a special thank you for Karen
Firehock, who directs the Save Our Streams pro-
gram at the Izaak Walton League.
This is the third conference EPA has sponsored.
The first one, in May of 1988 at the University of
Rhode Island, was an informal workshop of less
than 50 people. Many of them went on to become
leaders in the field today.
In December of 1989,160 volunteers, organizers
and program managers held the second national
conference in New Orleans. In between late nights
in the French Quarter they worked out the design
and management of a successful volunteer program;
how to control the quality of volunteer data; and
how to forge links with government.
A TRIBUTE TO VOLUNTEER EFFECTIVENESS
There are 300 people here today, and there
would have been more if we had the room. These
conferences have really spread the word that it takes
all of us working together to stop pollution. You are
proof that the volunteer concept and these confer-
ences work. I was eager to come to Annapolis to pay
tribute to you, the citizens and program organizers
who are truly in the trenches of the fight against
pollution. I want to help celebrate your incredible
dedication and enthusiasm.
We've proven that volunteers can collect high-
quality data. They can work with all levels of
government to make change happen. They can also
educate themselves and their neighbors about water
pollution issues. And, ultimately, each becomes a
steward of the environment.
More than 30 states, and many local and regional
governments now sponsor volunteer monitoring
programs. In my own home state of Kentucky, the
Division of Water manages the Water Watch Pro-
gram, launched in 1985. Water Watch volunteers
monitor rivers, lakes and wetlands. Their data are
used for nonpoint source assessments, watchdog-
ging or reporting polluters, and measuring trends.
Kentucky Water Watch is one of the oldest and most
respected state-sponsored programs.
We're also seeing lots of new programs being
born. Later today we'll hear about Texas Watch,
which was established in 1991 and already includes
800 volunteers.
Besides the state-managed volunteer programs,
there are thousands of independent or locally man-
aged volunteer monitoring groups in the United
States today. More than 10,000 volunteers receive a
copy of the EPA-funded Volunteer Monitor newslet-
ter. That's 10,000 engaged, active and educated
people. That's 10,000 people committed to the
environment and doing something to make a differ-
ence. With each conference, we reach new audi-
ences and build more energy to fight pollution.
PARTNERSHIPS IN FIGHTING POLLUTION
This conference is tided Building Partnerships in the
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Year of Clean Water. What sort of partnerships do we
mean? We mean partnerships among state, local and
federal governments, private citizens, businesses and
academia. We mean partnerships to share money,
knowledge, data and plain old elbow grease. At this
conference, you'lllearn how some of the finest of these
partnerships came about and how they work.
You'll also spend the next few days exploring and
learning new ways to collect stream critters, manage
databases and motivate volunteers. Some of the
most capable and experienced experts in the field
will speak, but so will you. We want you to share
your knowledge, ask questions and help define the
needs and future goals of the nation's volunteer
monitoring movement. Your ideas and perspectives
are essential to make this conference a success.
DEFINING WET WEATHER RUNOFF
About two weeks ago, EPA sent Congress our
report on the quality of the nation's rivers, lakes,
estuaries, coastal waters and wetlands. It summarizes
what the states know about their water quality, and
it is our best way to report that information to our
lawmakers and the public.
The 1990 report is sobering. It tells us, that despite
the progress we have made controlling pollution from
sewage treatment plants and industries, we still face
enormous challenges. We still have areas closed to
fishermen because the fish are contaminated by PCBs,
mercury or dioxin. There were more than 1,000
fishing restrictions in the country in 1990. States
reported 300 beach closures because of high bacteria
levels, and there were probably many more. ,
We still have beaches closed to swimming. We
still have rivers that can't support fish, and lakes
overgrown with pernicious vegetation. States found
these sorts of problems in fully one third of the
waters they monitored. By far the most common
reason for these problems is wet weather runoff.
If the term is new to you, let me tell you what I
mean by wet weather runoff. You'll be hearing it a
lot at EPA's Office ofWater. When it rains or snows,
water flows across the ground and picks up a lot of
pollutants. The biggest load by far is dirt. The wet .-
weather runofFwashes silt from eroded stream banks,
construction sites and farm fields. The waters also
carry fertilizers and pesticides from croplands, and
the bacteria from animal grazing areas. The runoff
gathers the .weed and bug killers people spray on
their lawns and shrubs, and the oil your neighbor put
down the storm drain after tuning her car. The wet
weather runoff collects the dirt, oil and used hypo-
dermic needles from city streets and parking lots,
and flows on, carrying its burden of soil and heavy
metals and filth.
Where does the wet weather runoff go? Through
storm drains or over the ground, the water goes into
streams. Streams feed into rivers which empty into
lakes or coastal estuaries. At every stop along the
way, wet weather runofFleaves some of its poison-
ous burden behind. It kills the life in our waters. It
grows noxious pknts that suck the oxygen from the
water and suffocate beneficial plants and fish. It
makes the waters unsafe even for swimming.
The states tell us that agricultural runoff creates
more than half of the pollution problems in rivers
and lakes. In estuaries, sewage treatment plants
continue as the biggest problem, followed by runoff
from storm sewers and urban areas.
SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF POLLUTION FROM
WET WEATHER RUNOFF
EPA is working with state and local govern-
ments, and non-government organizations to tackle
these pollution problems. The federal government
has spent more than $65 billion in the last 20 years
to upgrade and construct municipal sewage treat-
ment plants. We've imposed increasingly stringent
controls on industrial discharges. And we're waging
war on wet weather runoff on a variety of fronts.
We began awarding state grants to implement
approved nonpoint source pollution control pro-
grams in 1990, and, as of this fall, we will have
awarded $140 million worth. Last June, under the
Coastal Zone Act amendments of 1990, we pro-
posed new guidelines for reducing nonpoint source
pollution in coastal areas. We're pushing hard to
implement the 1989 National Combined Sewer
Overflow Strategy, and we have established major
new stormwater regulations.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
-------
But it isn't enough for EPA to implement regu-
lations, award grants and propose guidelines. There
is more to be done than EPA or your state agencies
can do. Citizens have to become involved, as you
have.
Volunteer monitors help our water bodies in two
major ways. The report I just mentioned is based on
data states collected for 36 percent of total U.S. river
miles, 47 percent of lake acres, and 75 percent of
estuarine square miles. That's a substantial increase
over previous reporting, but it still leaves a large
percentage of our nation's waters unmonitored.
Volunteer monitoring data have proven their
usefulness and reliability. We know we can use
volunteer data right along with the information
water professionals gather. Some states use volun-
teer data to identify potential problems for detailed
study. In other states, volunteers collect valuable
information on waters the states don't have re-
sources to monitor. We know as long as they follow
good quality-control procedures and are well trained,
volunteers can gather a lot of the information we
need to make vital water quality management deci-
sions.
EDUCATION AND STEWARDSHIP
Citizen volunteers also help improve our water
quality through their stewardship. As citizens learn
how to monitor, they learn about water pollution.
They learn how everyday actions things as basic
as putting fertilizer or pesticides on their lawns, or
used oil disposal can affect the waters in which
they fish and swim. They become involved in
protecting water quality and they raise their voices
against polluters.
It is only by joining in partnership with citizen-r
stewards can EPA and other government and non-
government organizations effectively beat the prob-
lems of wet weather runoff.
When we talk about effective volunteers, I think
of a story about a woman walking along a beach at
sunrise. Ahead she could see a young girl playing at
the water's edge. When she reached the child she
saw that she was picking up starfish, one by one, and
tossing them into the sea. The woman asked why,
and the girl replied, "The tide is going out, arid if the
starfish are left here when the sun rises, they will
die."
"But there are thousands of miles of beach," the
woman said, "and millions of starfish. How can
what you're doing really make a difference?"
The girl smiled as she bent over, picked up
another starfish and tossed it into the waves. "It
makes a difference to this one," she said.
You are good stewards. Thank you for what you
are doing. Keep on doing it, please. EPA cannot do
its job without you. I assure you that EPA will be
here and will continue to support you in the years to
come.
Thank you.
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY ROLES
Panelists: Dave Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Jeffrey Anliker, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service; Don Duff, U.S.D.A. Forest Service; P. Patrick
Leahy, U.S. Geological Survey; Gary Rosenlieb, Na-
tional Park Service; Trudy Coxe, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and Neil Carriker, Tennes-
see Valley Authority.
Dave Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
THE EPA ROLE IN VOLUNTEER
MONITORING
EPA has been actively involved in supporting the
nation's volunteer monitoringmovement since 1988,
when we co-sponsored the first national conference
in Rhode Island. We also co-sponsored the second
conference in New Orleans and. this Annapolis
conference.
In addition to sponsoring conferences, EPA's role
traditionally has been to develop national-level guid-
ance and other products to support the movement,
and to advocate the use of volunteer data by state and
local governments. Various EPA grant programs
such as Section 319 (nonpoint sources) and Section
314 (clean lakes) also support state-level volunteer
monitoring programs.
We recognize that some volunteer groups are
primarily educational in focus: their great value lies
in increasing their knowledge about water and
creating a sense of stewardship among volunteers
and those they reach. Other groups are more scien-
tifically oriented and become trained in quality
control methods to generate data managers can use.
Both types of groups are invaluable to EPA. We
need good data because states can't monitor every-
where, and we need good citizens who understand
their environment and work to protect it.
EPA's activities to support volunteer monitoring
are managed primarily by two divisions within the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW) and by the 10 EPA regions. I'll talk for a
minute about this organizational sharing of respon-
sibilities, briefly mention some of EPA's volunteer
monitoring activities and products, and close with
some words about future directions.
EPA STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
First of all, we're strengthening our volunteer
monitoring programs at EPA, both at the headquar-
ters and regional levels. "We still have a long way to
go and hope to learn from this conference how we
might best support the movement.
EPA's 10 regional offices offer a limited degree of
technical assistance to volunteer monitoring organi-
zations, primarily through our Environmental Ser-
vices Divisions, who are our lab and science folks.
Staff in our Water Management Divisions often
assist in program coordination and outreach. Some
regions have already taken a leadership role.
For example, our Region 10 office in Seattle re-
cently sponsored its own regional volunteer confer-
ence, developed a streamwalk protocol to assess river-
ine habitat, and coordinated with the vast number of
volunteer groups in the Pacific Northwest.
EPA does not spend a great amount of resources
in monitoring water quality itself. Rather, EPA
gives the states grants for water monitoring and
pollution control programs; our regional offices and
the states develop agreements on what those pro-
grams should look like. Many regions are now
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
-------
including volunteer monitoring as a condition to be
negotiated in these state/EPA agreements.
At the headquarters level, the Assessment and
Watershed Division is responsible for overall water-
quality monitoring and assessment, and is taking a
leadership role within the office on volunteer moni-
toring. The Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
supports volunteer monitoring for coastal and ma-
rine waters. The Wetlands Division provides out-
reach and information on the value and function of
wetland resources.
OWOW VOLUNTEER MONITORING PRODUCTS
OWOW has worked with grantees to develop
the following products to support volunteer moni-
toring programs:
Directory of National Citizen Volunteer Envi-
ronmental Monitoring Programs. We've put out
three editions and are planning a fourth. We
feel this is a handy reference tool because it
includes a bit of information about each
program and includes contacts. (Grantee:
Rhode Island Sea Grant/University ofRhode
Island)
Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State
Managers. This publication runs through the
steps needed to plan, implement arid main-
tain a volunteer monitoring program. The
document was targeted to skeptical state man-
agers, and we feel it has had a significant
impact on illustrating how quality-controlled
data can be generated by trained volunteers.
(Grantee: The Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay)
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual.
Recenflyprinted, this manual illustrates meth-
ods for lake volunteer monitoring on a step-
by-step fashion. This is the first of our meth-
ods manuals; we have one for rivers under
development and one for estuaries in plan-
ning. (Grantee: Jon Simpson, formerly of
NALMS)
The Volunteer Monitor. This friendly, infor-
mative newsletter for volunteers has a circu-
lation of 10,000. (Grantee: Eleanor Ely)
Citizens in Environmental Monitoring. The
proceedings from Volunteer Monitoring Con-
ferences co-sponsored by the EPA.
We also publish various outreach and informa-
tion exchange tools such as our newsletters
Nonpoint Source News Notes, The Water Monitor,
Coastlines (a computerized nonpoint source bulletin
board) and a wetlands hotline.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
We want to learn from you what sorts of help you
think EPA can provide the volunteer movement.
Our own plans are to continue developing methods
rhanuals, continue supporting the Volunteer Monitor
and the fourth edition of the directory, and continue
encouraging state use of volunteer data through a
variety of approaches.
For example, our guidance to states for the prepara-
tion of the biennial state water quality assessment (305
b) reports identifies volunteer data as a legitimate
source of information. Grants under EPA's Clean
Lakes, Nonpoint Source, National Estuary Program
and Near Coastal Waters Program encourage citizen
participation and support volunteer monitoring.
We will continue to sponsor workshops and
conferences at the regional and national level; we
will continue to strengthen our liaison with other
federal agencies and encourage their activities in
support of volunteer monitoring; and we will con-
tinue to establish a clearinghouse of information
related to volunteer monitoring.
Despite EPA's enthusiasm about volunteer moni-
toring, however, our approach needs to be inte-
grated into the larger picture. It is important to
remember:
1. Volunteers may collect excellent data, but
they don't replace the professional biologists
and chemists in state water quality agencies.
Volunteer data serves best when it screens for
problems in areas the professionals can't get
to and alerts them to possible problems.
Budgets are tight all over, and we don't want
states to get the message that they can disinvest
in monitoring because volunteers will do all
the work for them.
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
2. Volunteer monitoringprograms are cost-effec-
tive, but they aren't free. Anyone who decides
to set one up should be committed to maintain
it, to fully support and train the volunteers, and
to manage and use the data they generate.
We in EPA's Office of Water also emphasize
some resource protection activities that place even
more importance on volunteer monitoring in our
scheme of thinking:
Geographic Targeting: We don't have the
resources to monitor or manage every water
segment in the country, so we need to iden-
tify and target for action our priority problem
areas for protection. Volunteers can help.
Watershed Protection Approach: We need
to think in ecosystem terms, to monitor and
manage whole watersheds with all their in-
terconnected resources. Volunteers can help.
Habitat: We need to act on a principle we all
recognize; that without its habitat, no animal
survives, least of all man. And that aquatic and
terrestrial habitats must be monitored and pro-
tected to ensure good water quality. Volunteers
can be especially helpful in monitoring habitat
conditions and surrounding land uses.
In summary, EPA has actively supported the
volunteer montioring movement for years and will
be strengthening that support in years to come. If
you would like to receive a copy of any of the
publications mentioned, or learn more about EPA's
volunteer monitoring program, call or write Alice
Mayio, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA/
OWOW, WH-553, 401 M St., SW, Washigton,
DC 20460; 202-260-7018.
Jeffrey G. Anliker
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
THE EARTH TEAM VOLUNTEER
PROGRAM
Earth Team, the volunteer program of the U.S.D .A.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), presently has over
8,500 volunteers donating 400,000 hours in more
than 1,600 SCS offices throughout the country.
SCS, with more than 3,000 local offices, provides
many opportunities for volunteers to actively sup-
port the improvement of natural resources in their
local communities. Earth Team volunteers provide
many services to SCS such as administrative, educa-
tion information, technical and professional. Earth
Team volunteers receive worker's compensation
and tort claims liability protection and in many
instances, reimbursement of expenses.
Nationally, SCS concentrates on the following
Earth Team initiatives:
1. Environmental Education: Using volunteers
to provide materials, training and instruction
to educators and students.
2. Residue Management: Using volunteers to
provide information, training and field mea-
surement of residue cover to fanners; hosting
field tours and public relations activities to
increase the amount of residue on agricul-
tural land to decrease erosion and runoff.
3. Organizational Outreach: Developingmemo-
randa of understanding (MOU) with other
agencies and organizations for educating em-
ployees and members of the need for proper
resource management and how to imple-
ment practical solutions to local resource
problems. Presently, MOUs have been signed
with EPA, Ruritan National, and the Na-
tional Council of Catholic Women. SCS is
working on developing MOUs with the
Izaak Walton League of America, the Gen-
eral Federation of Women's Clubs, the Na-
tional Association of Civilian Conservation
Corps Alumni, and many others.
4. Water Quality: Using volunteers for infor-
mation and educational activities, presenta-
tions, taking water samples, doing nonpoint
source and wetland inventories, and evaluat-
ing irrigation systems.
With the focus of this conference on water
quality, I want to stress that SCS, in at least 10 states,
is using volunteers for water-quality activities in
support of state or local interests. The states I know
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
-------
use Earth Team volunteers for water-quality activi-
ties include Alabama, California, Indiana, Maine,
Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia
and West Virginia.
SCS cooperates with the Extension Service (ES)
and the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS), all within the United States De-
partment of Agriculture, on special water quality
areas. This effort includes establishing 74 hydrologic
units and 16 demonstration areas throughout the
country. In these identified special water quality
areas, SCS and ES are providing increased technical
capabilities to offer additional assistance to land-
owners/users. ASCS provides accelerated federal
cost-sharing for the implementation of conservation
or management practices that reduce water quality
problems.
In summary, I want to jpatch our technical
expertise and local delivery system with your orga-
nization to actively pursue a volunteer effort to
implement water quality monitoring where needed.
The results will guide our country's future water
quality efforts. For additional information, call 1-
800-THE-SOIL.
Don Duff
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
PARTNERSHIPS FOR AQUATIC
RESOURCES
The Forest Service has implemented a program
that involves working with natural resources on
America's National Forests, National Grasslands and
National Recreation Areas. These resources involve
habitats on some 128,000 miles of waterways, 2.2
million acres of lakes and 16,500 miles of coastline,
which amounts to about 50 percent of all trout and
salmon habitat in the United States. It involves more
than 3,000 kinds offish, wildlife, plants, and some
140 threatened and endangered species, all on unique
terrestrial or aquatic habitat on National Forest
System Land (NFS).
The program also involves water quantity and
quality resources on watersheds on National Forest
lands. These watersheds provide over 173 trillion
gallons of water annually to maintain their depen-
dent resources as well as water for downstream
economic uses. Some 42 million acres of municipal
watersheds are being managed on NFS lands, and
more than 50 percent of the surface water supply of
the western United States originates on NFS lands.
A resurgence of partnerships developed at the
urging of concerned citizens and conservation groups
looking for a better, more visible fisheries habitat
management program within the Forest Service
(FS). These citizen monitoring programs defined
the role of citizens in meeting agency management
goals for aquatic ecosystems, fisheries and water
quality.
"With the support and urging of concerned con-
servationists, the U.S. Congress initiated the Chal-
lenge Cost-Share Program on National Forest Sys-
tem lands in 1986. It is designed to facilitate and
encourage direct public involvement in managing
National Forest habitats. The program involves
cost-sharing, in dollars, services and equipment, with
interested individuals, groups and agencies, for spe-
cific habitat improvement activities. These partner-
ships can involve matching monies, labor and equip-
ment, or sharing technical skills. But in all cases, the
results are direct, on-the-ground habitat improve-
ment to benefit wildlife, fish, people and America.
The Forest Service started with 57 partners in
1986 and increased partnerships to 867 in four years.
In 1989, the FS and its partners completed 5,028
habitat improvement structures, enhanced some
131,660 acres of habitat and completed 82 invento-
ries, reports and surveys for fish and wildlife habitats.
The program has been so successful that it grew from
$2.5 million in 1986 (partner at 64 percent and FS
at 36 percent contributions) to more than $15.8
million in 1989 (partner at 60 percent and FS at 40
percent).
For example, Trout Unlimited (TU) and FS
formed a partnership agreement in 1987 which
joined more than 50,000 citizen fishing enthusiasts
10
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
in 465 chapters throughout the United States for the
purpose of maintaining and enhancing the produc-
tivity of coldwater habitats on National Forests. The
goal was to improve trout and salmon populations
and provide for the best interests of the American
public.
Since the TU/FS agreement, local and regional
partnership agreements have been affected in 20
states (20 TU Councils with 71 National Forests).
These agreements cover habitat work on more than
90,000 stream miles (71 percent of NF stream miles)
and over 785,000 acres of lakes (36 percent of NF
coldwater lake acres).
In addition, TU has become an effective partner
in lobbying Congress for increased funding for the
FS Rise to the Future Program. Due in part to TU
efforts, the Forest Service's budget of $5.6 million in
fisheries for fiscal year 1986 increased to $27.8
million for fiscal year 1990. Fisheries biologist posi-
tions within the FS also rose from 113 in 1986 to 220
in 1989.
To improve coordination between the two groups,
a FS fisheries biologist was assigned to Trout Unlim-
ited as national partnership coordinator, which was
the first time a partner cost-shared in a full-time
position with the Forest Service. The FS has as-
signed employees to work with states and profes-
sional societies before, such as the American Fisher-
ies Society, but this was the first time a formal
arrangement was made with a volunteer group. The
position helped facilitate more effective communi-
cation and technology transfer between TU and FS.
Another key benefit was increased dialogue be-
tween TU chapters and National Forests in manag-
ing coldwater fisheries habitat resources, resolving
conflicts and establishing opportunities for increas-
ing involvement in proj ects between the two groups.
Involvement is a key item, and the proof is on the
ground; the partnership works.
In 1986 a total of 1,700 fisheries structural im-
provements were installed by TU and other fish
partners. In 1987, that number rose to 3,100 struc-
tures, an increase of over 80 percent. In 1989, 68
percent of the FS structural habitat improvement
program was for anadromous and inland fish species
(4,000 structures). This work was accomplished by
our partners who donated their time, manpower,
equipment and supplies which matched or exceeded
FS appropriated funds.
FS initiated an Adopt-A-Stream program for TU
and other partners to focus on specific habitats and fish
species of interest. The program enables the public to
have a voice in the management of their resources on
National Forest System lands. Some TU chapters have
adopted streams outside their local area. Some eastern
and mid-western TU chapters are even considering
adopting a western stream, and planning family vaca-
tions around that project effort.
Partnerships work at all levels as more citizens and
public agencies become concerned about resource
management. The following are suggestions on
how to structure partnerships to the mutual benefit
of everyone concerned:
1. Establish early involvement and communi-
cations in all aspects of project planning,
construction and monitoring.
2. To have good partners, be a good partner.
Show interest, establish dialogue, give own-
ership and build a level of trust and integrity
between partners.
3. Be receptive to new and innovative propos-
als. NO is a bad word if you wish to be
sensitive to new resource user needs.
4. Understand your partner's missions and goals,
and how it meshes with your agency's objec-
tives.
5. Outline desired future conditions for habitat
and fisheries so all have a clear understanding
of where you are going and how to get there.
6. Develop good proposals with concrete re-
sults to meet objectives and provide tangible,
achievable benefits.
7. Present well-planned proposals and provide
more information if requested.
8. Provide recognition to partners through high
profile public relations.
9. Build active internal and external support
networks.
10. Leverage funds to the maximum extent fea-
sible. Provide for commitment and account-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
11
-------
ability to the partner in all budget and plan-
ning aspects of a project or program.
11. Target news media to communicate ideas to
potential new partners. Project yourself into
newmarketsyouhave anattracrive, sellable
product. Take risks to achieve the desired
product rather than adopting a business as
usual attitude.
12. Build on successes and learn from mistakes.
Be positive, cultivate a winner attitude. You
never fail until you stop trying.
The Forest Service is actively seeking more citi-
zen involvement through CMPs on NFS lands for
the monitoring and management of these important
aquatic ecosystems and water-related dependent
species. For more information on how your group
can become actively involved in National Forest
resources management, contact any of the following
regional fisheries program managers for your geo-
graphic area:
CONTACTS FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE PARTNER-
SHIPS FOR AQUATIC RESOURCES
Northern Region: Contact Rick Stowell,
Program Manager, Wildlife and Fisheries,
USDA Forest Service, Federal Building, PO
Box 7669, Missoula, Mont. 59807; 406-329-
3520.
Rocky Mountain Region: Contact Gordon
Sloane, Program Manager, Range, Wildlife,
Fisheries and Ecology, USD A Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Region, 11177 West 8th
Avenue, Box25127, Lakewood, Colo. 80225;
303-236-9536.
Southwestern Region: Contact Jim Cooper,
Program Manager, Wildlife Management,
USDA Forest Service, FederalBuilding, 5127
Gold Avenue, S.W. Albuquerque, N.M.
87102; 505-842-3264.
Intermountain Region: Contact Don Bartschi,
Program Manager, Fisheries and Wildlife
Management, USDA Forest Service, Federal
Building, 324 25thStreet,Ogden, Utah 84401;
801-625-5666; or Fred Mangum, Regional
andNationalAquaticEcologist,USDA Forest
Service, Macroinvertebrate Laboratory (for
Biological Water Quality Monitoring) 105
Page School, BYU, Provo, UT 84602; 801-
378-4928.
Pacific Southwest Region: Contact Lynn
Decker, Program Manager, Fisheries and
Wildlife Management, USDA Forest Ser-
vice, 630 Sansome Street, San Francisco,
Calif. 94111; 415-705-1158.
Pacific Northwest Region: Contact Dave
Heller, Program Manager, Fish and Wildlife
Management, USDA Forest Service, 319
S.W. Pine Street, PO Box 3623, Portland,
Ore. 97208; 503-326-4091.
Southern Region: Contact Cindy Wih'ams,
Fish and Wildlife Management, USDA For-
est Service, 1720 Peachtree Road, NW, At-
lanta, Ga. 30367; 404-347-4082.
Northeastern Region: Contact Robert W.
Hollingsworth, Program Manager, USDA
Forest Service, Room 500, Milwaukee, Wis.
53203; 414-291-1749.
Alaska Region: Contact Jack Capp, Fish and
Wildlife Management, USDA Forest Ser-
vice, Federal Office Building, Box 21628,
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628; 907-586-8752.
Washington Office: Contact Harvey Forsgren,
National Fisheries Program Manager, or Cindy
Deacon Williams, Assistant National Fisher-
ies Program Manager, Wildlife and Fisheries
Management, USDA Forest Service, 14th
N.W. Auditor's, P.O. Box 96090, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20090-6090; 202-205-0830.
P. Patrick Leahy and Norman Schmidt, Jr.
U.S. Geological Survey
VOLUNTEER FOR SCIENCE PROGRAM
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) initiated the
Volunteer for Science Program in June 1986 as a
way for members of the public interested in the
12
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
earth sciences to meet President Bush's challenge to
"serve others and enrich your community" as one of
his "thousand points of light." The Volunteer for
Science Program is a companion effort to the Fed-
eral Government's Take Pride in America Program,
coordinated by the Department of the Interior.
Take Pride in America is a national public awareness
campaign to encourage the public to become stew-
ards in preserving the nation's natural and cultural
resources. The focus of the campaign is on volunteer
activities by individuals, organizations and commu-
nities in caring for their public lands and resources.
The motto of the USGS is "Earth Science in the
Public Service." There is perhaps no better way to
meet the spirit of this motto than to establish and
foster a program of volunteer service within the
USGS.
Since its inception, the Volunteer,for Science
Program has benefited from the efforts of more than
3,000 people who have donated thousands of hours
of valuable service. The USGS estimates that volun-
teers have saved the federal government more than
$6.6 million since the program began. Among the
3,000-plus volunteers are students and faculty from
about 200 colleges and universities, and 68 elemen-
tary and secondary schools.
Each volunteer must prepare a written agreement
describing his or her individual time commitment
and the services to be performed. Volunteers under
the age of 18 require the written consent of their
parents or guardians. Volunteers need not be United
States citizens. The purpose of the program is to give
volunteers an opportunity to become stewards of
the nation's resources by working side by side with
the nation's largest earth-science research organiza-
tion. Volunteers are involved in a wide array of
activities such as assisting in geologic and hydrologic
investigations, collecting water-resources data, pro-
viding computer support for the analysis of informa-
tion, performing administrative support, assisting
with library and map archival services, and review-
ing technical manuscripts. Some recent examples of
services provided by volunteers in support of water-
resources investigations include:
General hydrologic data collection in Alaska;
Field assistance on the Grand Canyon Water-
Quality Study;
Collection of water samples to study geochemi-
cal processes;
0 Servicing water-quality mini-monitors in
Texas; ,
Providing laboratory support for the analysis
of organic and inorganic constituents;
Sampling stream bed and bank material, sam-
pling and identifying plant species; and
Sampling sediment and organisms from the
bottom of San Francisco Bay.
An emerging opportunity for volunteer involve-
ment is the USGS National Water-Quality Assess-
ment Program (NAWQA). The NAWQA Program
began in 1991 following a successful five-year pilot
effort to test and refine assessment concepts. The
goals of the NAWQA Program are to describe the
status and trends in the regional water quality of a
large representative sample of the nation's ground-
water and surface-water resources, and to develop
an understanding of the natural and human factors
affecting the quality of these resources. This infor-
mation will provide a sound scientific basis upon
which water-resource decision-making at all gov-
ernmental levels can be based and improved.
The NAWQA Program is designed to be perennial
and consists of rotational and comprehensive water-
quality investigations in 60 key areas of the nation
representing a wide array of climatic, hydrologic and
land-use settings. The study areas include major re-
gional hydrologic systems (river basins and aquifers)
each covering 1,200 to about 50,000 square miles. All
study areas will be sampled for a national set of water-
quality characteristics consisting of a common set of
physical measurements, inorganic constituents and
organic compounds. The data will be collected and
quality assured using a prescribed set of national proto-
cols. Information will also be collected to define the
characteristics of aquatic biological communities to
relate these characteristics to the physical and chemical
properties of streams, and to define the biological
processes that affect water quality in a particular setting.
Key findings from the NAWQA Program will be used
along with other information to provide issue-oriented
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
13
-------
water-quality assessments of regional and national
interest.
In summary, the USGS currently has an active
Volunteer for Science Program that is providing a
valuable service to the nation. In water resources,
volunteers are active in the collection, compilation,
interpretation and reporting of hydrologic data. The
recently implemented NAWQA Program has the
potential for future volunteer involvement because of
its multi-disciplinary scope and national coverage.
Gary Rosenlieb
National Park Service
OPPORTUNITIES FOR VOLUNTEERS WITH
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Volunteers have historically provided important
contributions for the protection and resource man-
agement activities of the National Park Service
(NPS). Countless hours have been donated by
volunteers representing national organizations such
as the Student Conservation Association, Rotary
International, Kiwanis Clubs, local school organiza-
tions and friends of the parks groups. These volun-
teers construct and maintain trails, collect litter and
refuse, and monitor a wide variety of resource
conditions. In today's world of decreasing budgets
for natural-resource management programs, many
parks could not function without the valuable assis-
tance of volunteers.
The NPS manages a wide variety of water re-
sources where water quality is an especially critical
attribute that must be managed, protected and pre-
served. Maintenance of clean water is an especially
important goal at all of the NPS recreation areas and
national seashores where body contact recreation is
a major use of the water resource. Many parks are
responsible for the management of aquatic habitats
that contain endangered or threatened species, such
as the sea manatee that migrates through estuarine
habitats managed by Canaveral National Seashore.
Water quality monitoring is a vital tool for the
management of sensitive water quality dependent
environments, and opportunities abound in the
nation's parks for volunteer involvement in water
quality related monitoring programs.
VOLUNTEER WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
The monitoring protocols of certain volunteer
water quality organizations have been incorporated
into at least one park's student educational outreach
program. Using the techniques of the Izaak Walton
League's Save Our Streams Program, rangers at
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park have been
instructing local sixth grade students in the tech-
niques of biological monitoring on tributaries of the
Potomac River. The data that is collected by the
students is compiled and forwarded to the Izaak
Walton League and the West Virginia Department
of Natural Resources.
One of the park's more successful volunteer
programs related to water quality is being conducted
under the auspices of the National Park Marine
Debris Program. In this cooperative effort with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, volunteers con-
duct technically sound beach surveys of the human-
generated debris that wash up on the beaches of
National Park Service units. Eight geographically
disparate parks and national seashores are participat-
ing in this program: Cape Cod, Assateaque Island,
Cape Hatteras, and Canaveral National Seashores
represent the northern-southern Atlantic coastal
area; Gulf Island and Padre Island National Sea-
shores represent the Gulf of Mexico; and Olympic
and Channel Islands National Parks represent the
Pacific Coast. Quarterly beach surveys conducted
by volunteers in these parks recorded a total of
113,722 debris items in 1989-1990.
VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES
With the advent of numerous volunteer groups
that are solely devoting their efforts to water quality
monitoring, the National Park Service offers a
spectrum of fresh water, marine and estuarine envi-
ronments in which to work. Needless to say, most
parks could use the services of a competent group of
14
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
local volunteers to collect quality assured, quality
controlled data in a standardized, systematic and
consistent fashion. Many parks have existing objec-
tive-driven water-quality monitoringprograms which
could use the services of volunteers. Other parks are
facing significant water quality issues and are now in
the initial stages of implementing major water qual-
ity monitoring programs with state and federal
agencies. Coulee Dam National Recreation Area
and Assateaque National Seashore are two examples
of programs where citizen volunteers are needed.
The Coulee Dam National Recreation Area
(CODA) offers an opportunity to become involved
in a cooperative study of significant water quality
issues that are impacting aquatic life and are interna-
tional in scope. Located in the upper Columbia
River Basin, CODA is responsible for many aspects
of the administration of Lake Roosevelt, an 80,000-
acre reservoir that was created by the construction of
the Coulee Dam. Lake Roosevelt provides oppor-
tunities for numerous forms of water-based recre-
ation, including sport fishing for rainbow trout,
white sturgeon, perch, kokanee and walleye. Un-
fortunately, recent studies sponsored by the Wash-
ington Department of Ecology have found that
sediment and fish in Lake Roosevelt are seriously
contaminated with heavy metals and chlorinated
species of dioxin and furan. This has required the
posting of health advisories on Lake Roosevelt and
the Columbia River that warn the public to limit
their consumption of flesh from certain species of
sport fish that are captured from the river and lake.
As a result of these water quality problems, federal
(including the NFS) and state agencies with responsi-
bilities for management of the lake, and private citizens
groups have formed the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality
Council which has obtained $500,000 from Congress
for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive water
quality evaluation of the lake. The investigation will be
conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. The project
proposal adopted by the Lake Roosevelt Water Qual-
ity Council calls for the formation of a cadre of trained
citizen volunteer water-quality monitors that will
collect physical, chemical and biological data on the
Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt.
Assateaque Island is the only undeveloped barrier
island within the state of Maryland and the northern
most island within the chain of islands off the
Virginia coast. Although Assateaque and its adjacent
waters are not totally free from human disturbance,
park resources are relatively pristine and are being
managed in such a fashion that natural conditions are
being restored. Bay waters to the west of the island
are important nurseries for aquatic species and pro-
vide recreational opportunities for millions of people
each year. Threats to the integrity of the water
quality around Assateaque Island are pervasive and
increasing in both number and complexity, with
contaminant sources consisting of runoff from ur-
ban and agricultural areas which lack central sewage
treatment facilities. These sources threaten to de-
grade the bay waters for both aquatic habitat and
recreational uses.
To address the magnitude of potential problems,
park staff initiated a water quality monitoring pro-
gram in 1987 that measures several chemical, physi-
cal and biological parameters in Chincoteaque Bay
and the surf water along Assateaque Island. Overall,
park personnel are collecting monitoring informa-
tion at 13 stations, with each station sampled seven
times annually. Interpretation of the information
from this program indicates a need to continue the
monitoring program for the next several years. The
park is seeking energetic volunteers that are inter-
ested in conducting bacteriological sampling in surf
waters and potentially to assist with some bay water
quality monitoring.
Trudy Coxe
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admininstration
VOLUNTEER MONITORING OF
COASTAL WATERS
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(CZMA) established the first national program to
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
15
-------
promote the protection and wise use of the nation's
coastal areas, which extend over 95,000 miles and
border three oceans and the Great Lakes. Adminis-
tered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Re-
source Management (OCRM), the CZMA estab-
lished a voluntary program through which states
receive technical assistance, policy guidance and
federal matching grants to develop and implement
programs aimed at more rational management of the
nation's coastal resources. These state programs
must address important concerns, such as the pro-
tection of valuable natural coastal resources, im-
proved coastal water quality, better management of
development in coastal hazard areas, enhanced pub-
lic access to the coasts, and improved coordination
of government activities. To date, 29 of 35 eligible
states and U.S. island territories have received fed-
eral program approval and are implementing their
coastal management programs. These programs,
which cover 94 percent of the nation's shoreline, are
unique in their comprehensive approach to manag-
ing our nation's valuable coastal resources.
The CZMA also established a national system of
cstuarine research reserves to assist states in acquir-
ingand managingestuarine areas. More than 300,000
acres of estuarine lands and water are currently being
protected by OCRM. In the coming years, an
additional 300,000 acres will be protected. The
estuarine research reserves provide field laboratories
for studying the natural and human processes that
affect estuaries so that stresses on these highly bio-
logically productive areas can be minimized. These
areas, which are chosen to reflect regional differ-
ences and a variety of e'cosystem types, are primarily
used for long-term scientific and educational pro-
grams that provide information essential to coastal
management decision-making.
Under the CZMA, OCRM has funded a variety
of state efforts to establish citizen monitoring pro-
grams as part of the coastal zone management (CZM)
and estuarine reserve programs. For example, state
CZM programs have funded efforts to get citizens
involved in water quality monitoring, beach clean-
ups, adopt-a-beach programs, and community edu-
cation projects. These volunteer programs have
provided valuable information on the quality of the
nation's coastal lands and waters, and have served to
heighten public awareness of the sensitive nature of
these resources and the need to protect them.
In the Chesapeake Bay region, CZM program
grants funded efforts to institute a network of citizen
monitoring programs in Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania. To date, there are over 30 sites being
monitored by volunteers in these states. Several
water quality factors are recorded by the volunteers,
including water and air temperature, pH, water
clarity, salinity, dissolved oxygen and nitrate nitro-
gen. Data collected through these volunteer pro-
grams are entered into the Chesapeake Bay Program
database at the Regional Computer Center, where
they are available to all bay program managers.
A volunteer monitoring program has also been
established along Alabama's gulf coast using CZM
funds. Alabama's Department of Economic and
Community Affairs, and Department of Environ-
mental Management joined forces with the Dau-
phin Island Sea Lab to establish 25 citizens' water-
quality monitoring stations. Concerned about de-
clining water quality in the state's bays, volunteers at
these stations regularly monitor dissolved oxygen,
salinity, secchi depth, water temperature and rain-
fall. Known as the Baywatch Program, this volun-
teer effort includes participants in both Mobile Bay
and Perdido Bay. Baywatch also has its own news-
letter to report tips, results, basic science, training
and membership news.
Volunteer citizen monitoring programs have also
played an important role at the nation's estuarine
research reserves. At the Chesapeake Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve in Virginia, volunteers
have conducted estuarine debris cleanups on a quar-
terly basis. The data gathered during these cleanup
events are reported to the Center for Marine Con-
servation, which sponsors the NationalMarine Debris
Database, a national network of volunteers who
participate in beach cleanups and use standard data
cards to record information on types and quantities
of marine debris collected. The cleanup events at the
Chesapeake Bay Reserve have taught volunteers
16
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
about problems facing our estuaries, explained how
their work will help in the search for solutions and
provided general knowledge about the environ-
ment.
A citizen's monitoring program has operated at
the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve in Rhode Island since the fall of 1988. The
Prudence Conservancy provides the volunteers for
this effort, which includes a study of atmospheric
deposition of nutrients to Narragansett Bay, a quan-
titative investigation to determine the available ground-
water on Prudence Island, and a marine monitoring
program to determine water quality at seven stations
along the coast and salt marshes.
These are just a few examples of the types of
volunteer monitoring programs that have been es-
tablished with assistance from CZMA grants. These
volunteer efforts have proved to be a cost-effective
way of tracking the quality of the nation's coastal
waters. They have also been valuable for increasing
community awareness of coastal water-quality pro-
tection and gaining public support for management
tools.
In the future, there will be an even greater need
for citizens to participate in monitoring programs.
The 1990 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act created a new program that requires
states and U.S. island territories with federally ap-
proved CZM projects to develop coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs. The program's purpose
is to develop and implement management measures
for nonpoint source pollution to help restore and
protect coastal waters from adjacent land uses.
Implemented by NOAA and EPA, management
measures to reduce polluted runoff from nonpoint
sources include buffer zones around streams and
coastal waters, density limits which can be applied to
adjacent land development, improved construction
standards, erosion and sedimentation controls, and
farming and pesticide management. NOAA is also
reviewing the landward boundary of state coastal
programs and will recommend changes needed to
control nonpoint pollution in May.
Coastal states have until November 1994 to -
develop their coastal nonpoint pollution control
programs for approval by NOAA and EPA. Funding
for this effort is limited, and states will need to rely
increasingly on volunteers to implement their pro-
grams. Volunteers can help by monitoring existing
water quality and documenting the relative effec-
tiveness of various management measures to reduce
nonpoint pollution over time; information that will
enable managers to make the most cost-effective
decisions.
Neil E. Carriker
Tennessee Valley Authority
CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FOR WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) cur-
rently uses citizen volunteers to collect water quality
data in three monitoring projects. These are:
1. A Teacher/Student Water Quality Monitor-
ing Network (T/SWQMN);
2. A cooperative project with the Western North
Carolina Alliance (WNCA) surveying stream
conditions in selected watersheds; and
3. A Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Net-
work (CWQMN) collecting data on condi-
tions in embayments of several TVA reser-
voirs.
The three projects illustrate different approaches
to citizen involvement in water resources monitor-
ing. This paper will focus on those variations and
discuss some of their strengths and weaknesses from
TVA's point of view.
TEACHER/STUDENT WATER QUALITY
MONITORING NETWORK
The primary objectives of TVA's Teacher/Stu-
dent Water Quality Monitoring Network is the
collection of low-cost water quality data and incor-
poration of water resource management concepts
into school science curricula. Secondary benefits
include increased public awareness of the value of
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
17
-------
water resources, career development opportunities
for participating teachers, and stimulation of student
interest in environmental management careers.
The approach includes four key elements: teacher
recruitment, basic training, teacher-directed studies
and rewards for participation. The program is aimed
at high school science teachers and students, with
competitive selection of eight new teachers each
year. Each teacher brings two students to a fall
training workshop, where they join 16 other teacher/
student teams who already have completed one or
two years in the program. "Water resources and
environmental education specialists from TVA and
the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga orga-
nize and conduct the workshop. "Workshop topics
include basic instruction on stream ecology, water
chemistry, hydrology, study design and safety plan-
ning. Each new team also receives a chemical water
quality test kit.
After returning to their schools, each team incor-
porates some of the water resources concepts from
the workshop into a curriculum unit, selects a local
water body for study, develops and implements a
study plan, and records their results for publication
in a T/SWQMN yearbook. Early the next summer
the teams attend a one-week "Water Camp where
they receive additional training and exchange infor-
mation on their field and classroom experiences.
The school that performs best in a "Water Quality
Olympiad is awarded a monitoring instrument, and
the teachers and students whose overall perfor-
mance in the program is judged best receive a plaque
designating them as Teacher or Student of the Year.
Depending on available funding, teachers may be
selected to make presentations at national profes-
sional meetings.
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA ALLIANCE
WATERSHED PROJECT
TVA's primary objectives in the WNCA project
are to obtain low-cost data useful in identifying
resources to protect or problems to address, and to
increase local awareness of and participation in
water resources management. Studies currently are
underway on the upper 400 square miles of the Little
Tennessee River watershed near Franklin, North
Carolina, and on Spring Creek and Laurel River,
which have a combined watershed area of about 200
square miles near Hot Springs, North Carolina.
The project is conducted by the WNCA under a
contract with TVA. TVA provides funds for locally
based project leaders selected by the Alliance. In
addition, TVA provides training on sampling proce-
dures, analysis of invertebrate samples, and consul-
tation on study design and data analysis. TVA
publishes annual reports prepared by the project
leaders. The Alliance identifies a professional biolo-
gist, ecologist or engineer who is qualified and
interested in conducting a stream and watershed
study. The project leader identifies and reviews
available information, designs the study, recruits
citizen volunteers, directs and performs the field
work, prepares annual reports, and makes presenta-
tions to civic and community groups, schools and
others.
To date, over 200 volunteers have assisted the
project leaders in sample collection, organization,
report preparation and other tasks. Biological and
riparian land use surveys have been completed for
essentially all streams in the upper Little Tennessee
River drainage basin and have been started in the
Spring Creek/Laurel River basins. Subwatersheds
in the Little Tennessee basin have been prioritized
for water quality improvement efforts, and substan-
tial community support has been mobilized for
resource protection and improvement.
CITIZEN WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK
Objectives of the CWQMN are to develop
information on water quality conditions in reservoir
embayments to supplement TVA's own monitoring
efforts and to educate participants about both the
dynamic nature of reservoirs and TVA's role in
reservoir management. Because of the number of
TVA reservoirs, it is impossible to routinely include
embayment stations in TVA's reservoir water qual-
ity monitoring program. The CWQMN provides
useful information on temperature, dissolved oxy-
gen and water clarity in embayments that would
otherwise be unavailable.
18
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Working with lake user associations, TVA re-
cruits lakeshore residents, dock operators and fisher-
men to serve as citizen water quality monitors. Each
participant is trained in equipment use and receives
a temperature and dissolved oxygen meter, a secchi
disk and postage-paid forms for reporting results.
Participants select one or two stations to monitor
biweekly from May through September. Most sta-
tions are located near the centers oflarge embayments,
but the TVA-developed list may include a few main
reservoir stations.
TVA compiles and analyzes the results mailed in
by participants. Each year results are summarized in
a report specific to the reservoir and are used to
supplement analysis of TVA's reservoir monitoring
data. Five reservoirs currently have one or more
CWQMN participants collecting data.
EVALUATION AND PROGNOSIS
Each of these projects illustrates a slightly differ-
ent approach for involving local citizens in water
resources monitoring. m all three cases the citizen
volunteers have been enthusiastic and capable, and
have produced high quality data. Results have been
useful to TVA and to state agencies in evaluating
conditions in Tennessee Valley streams and lakes. As
a result of these projects, several hundred private
citizens have participated in water quality monitor-
ing and a number of them have become effective
advocates for better water resources management.
The only data quality problems have been due to
the quality of the instruments provided to the
CWQMN participants. In an effort to reduce costs,
TVA purchased temperature/DO meters that proved
to be unreliable. There have been a few participants
in each project who fall well below the standards
established by their peers in producing useful results,
but they constitute a small percentage overall a
proportion probably similar to the underachievers
in the ranks of professional water resource special-
ists.
The most significant problems TVA has encoun-
tered with its citizen volunteer water quality moni-
toring projects are underestimating the amount of
staff time required, and allowing other, often un-
scheduled, work to divert staff away from managing
these projects. While that problem is not likely to
disappear completely, as the value of volunteer
monitoring programs becomes more obvious, the
agency will likely commit adequate staff resources to
the job and resist the temptation to divert assigned
staff to other work.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
19
-------
STATE AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS
Presenters: Alan Stokes, Association of State and Inter-
stale WalerPoIlution Control Administrators;JoeBachant,
Missouri Department of Conservation; Dave Buzan,
Texas Water Commission; Mike Arcuri, West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources; and Scott Kishbaugh,
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation,*
Alan Stokes
State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators
STATE OF THE STATES: VOLUNTEER
MONITORING EXPANDS NATIONWIDE
The following national report was presented by Alan
Stokes, State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, and researched by Karen Firehock, Izaak
Walton League of America.
The idea of using volunteers to monitor water
quality is not new. In the early 1970s participants in
the Maryland Save Our Streams Program^ initiated
by the Izaak Walton League of America, were
conducting biological monitoring using simple in-
dicator macroinvertebrates to determine evidence
of impairment of state rivers. Since these early days,
groups such as the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
and others have become active in supplying the state
of Maryland with vital data on the quality of its lakes,
wetlands, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. In the
early 1970s the Izaak Walton League spread the idea
of volunteer monitoring nationwide using the water
wagon, a large mobile lab which visited every state
(except Alaska and Hawaii) lecturing to as many as
2,000 people a day on monitoring water quality.
The Water Wagon retired after a year with 130,000
miles accumulated.
Since then, volunteer monitoring programs have
been springing up around the country as states have
realized the vast resources of volunteer energy avail-
able to monitor, assess and restore America's waters.
Organizations such as schools, environmental orga-
nizations, civic groups, government at all levels
federal, state and local have realized that volun-
teers can effectively monitor waters using scientific,
reliable methods to produce high quality data on the
condition of surface waters. These monitoringprojects
have become even more critical as additional water
assessment requirements are placed on states while
budgets are becoming tighter. In addition, with only
36 percent of America's rivers and 47 percent of
lakes currently being monitored by government
programs, more information is needed to adequately
assess pollution problems. Volunteers can fill the
gaps in monitoring programs and focus extra atten-
tion on problem areas.
The following list reflects our current knowledge
of state-managed volunteer monitoring programs.
Virtually all states have independent or locally-
sponsored programs. Many of these groups are
currently working to encourage their state environ-
mental agency to begin a volunteer monitoring
program and/or work with existing projects.
To date, 33 states have initiated statewide moni-
toring programs. The following chart provides a
brief overview of monitoring programs in various
states:
*TTonsaift Unavailable
20
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
STATE MANAGED VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAMS, 1988
STATE MANAGED VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAMS, 1992
Has Program
Under
Development
No Program
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
21
-------
State
State-Ran Program
Coordinating Agency
Water Types
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Alabama Coastal Cleanup
Perdido Bay Volunteer
Monitoring Program
Baywatch
Alaska Water Watch
Under development
none
none
Rivers of Colorado
Under development
Delaware Stream Watch
Under development
Florida Lakewatch
Adopt-A-Stream
Under development
Citizens Volunteer
Stream-walk
Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program
Volunteer Lake
Monitoring
Under development
Under development
Kentucky Water Watch
Louisiana Beachsweep
Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program
Maine's Voluntary
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Alaska Department Environmental
Conservation
Arizona Department
Environmental Quality
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Division of Water Resources
DNREC
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Idaho Division of Environmental
Monitoring Program Quality
Idaho State University
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of Environmental
Management
Kentucky Division of Water
Office of Litter Control and
Recycling
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Inland Fish and
Coastal
Estuary
Estuary
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Rivers
Rivers
Lakes
Rivers
Lakes
River
Rivers
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
Lakes
Coastal
Lakes
Rivers
Anglers
WildKfe
22
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
State-Run Program
Adopt-A-Stream
Chesapeake Bay Citizens
Monitoring Program
Adopt-A-Stream
Acid Rain Monitoring
Project
Self Help Water Quality
Monitoring Program
Citizen Lake Monitoring
Program
Minnesota Clean Rivers
Project
Missouri Stream Team
Lake Citizen Monitoring
Coordinating Agency
. Maryland Department of Natural
1 Resources
Maryland Department of Natural. .
Resources
Mass. Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife
Mass. Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Land and Water Management
Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department Natural
Resources
Missouri Department Conservation
Missouri Department of Natural
Water Types
Rivers
Riven
Estuary
Rivers
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Estuaries
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
Rivers
Lakes
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N. Carolina
N. Dakota
Program
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Under development
Under development
Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Network
None
New Hampshire Volunt
Lake Assessment
Program
Waterwatch
Environmental Protection
The Clean Lakes Program
None
New York Citizens
Statewide Lake
Assessment Program
Adopt A Water Body
N. Carolina Stream Watch
None
Resources
Nebraska Department
of Environmental Control
Department of Environmental.
Services
New Jersey Department pf
Lakes
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
N. Carolina Division of Water
Resources, Department Natural
Resources
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
Wetlands
Estuaries
Lakes
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
23
-------
State
State-Run Program
Coordinating Agency
Water Types
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S.CaroUna
South Dakota.
Tenncwee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia.
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Stream Quality
Monitoring
Citizen Lake
Improvement Program
Under development
Salmonid Trout
Enhancement Program
Clean Lakes Program
None
Watershed Watch Program
Under development
Under development
Tennessee Save Our
Streams
Texas Water Watch
Under development
Milfoil Watcher's
Program
Lake Lay Monitoring
Virginia Save Our
Streams
West Virginia Save Our
Streams
Citizen Lake Monitoring
Volunteer Monitoring
Self-Help Lake
Monitoring Program
Wyoming Association of
Conservation Districts
Volunteer Monitoring
Program
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Health and
Environment
Texas Water Commission
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Conservation and
Recreation
West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources
Washington Department of Ecology
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Rivers
Lakes
Rivers
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
Rivers
Rivers
Lakes
Estuary
Lakes
Lakes
Rivers
Rivers
Lakes
Estuary
Lakes
Rivers
Lakes
* Under development reflects states which have begun planning for a state-coordinated volunteer monitoring program.
Information contained in this report is from the national database of the Save Our Streams Program called Monitors. Contact
the Save Our Streams Program of the Izaak Walton League of America for additional information on any of the projects
mentioned in this report.
24
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Joseph P. Bachant
Missouri Department of Conservation
A VIEW FROM THE WATERSHED:
MISSOURI'S HOLISTIC RIVER PROGRAM
Missouri is a stream state with more than 56,000
miles of warm and cold water streams. The quality
of these resources has steadily declined over the past
century due to land clearing, channelization, pollu-
tion, impoundments, diversions and other abuses.
Over 5,000 miles of streams have been channelized
and an additional 2,920 miles are affected by the
permanent and flood pools of mainstream reser-
voirs.
Missouri's citizens first became alarmed at the
declining condition of their river resources in the
late 1960s and early 1970s when it seemed that every
remaining free-flowing stream had at least one
proposed major dam project. The 1970s and early
1980s were a period when all efforts focused on
stopping or altering massive federal water projects.
While these efforts were largely successful, a tunnel-
vision mentality resulted, which prevented many
people from seeing rivers as large complex systems.
During the last decade, however, natural re-
source scientists and managers began to see the need
to examine all the river basin parts to better under-
stand the whole. Required impact analyses of a wide
range of activities demanded a keener insight to
cause and effect relationships on a watershed level.
This new science is rapidly evolving on many fronts
and is confronting the professional worker with the
problem of keeping up with the literature in several
different disciplines. Unfortunately, many concerned
citizens have not had the opportunity to gain these
new insights.
In 1986, the Missouri Department of Conserva-
tion created a. comprehensive river conservation
program called Streams for the Future. Basic aspects
of this program include training department and
allied agency personnel in the scientific/technical
functions of riverine ecosystems, including their
watersheds. The Department's approach to river
problems is holistic in nature and geared to applying
solutions from the top of the watershed down. For
example, Missouri has sustained massive topsoil
losses. Restoration of viable river systems is not
feasible until the uplands within affected watersheds
have corrective land-use practices installed.
Another fundamental cornerstone of the pro-
gram is to raise public awareness of river/watershed
problems, especially as they affect areas of public
concern such as water quality, fish and wildlife, and
recreation. An important subset of the public aware-
ness effort is to create a new constituency for river
conservation with a broader vision than a decade or
more ago. One approach to seeking, informing and
involving this new constituency is through our
Missouri Stream Team program. Our goal is to find
potential leaders and educate and empower them to
become better resource advocates.
One of the first tools created for accomplishing
this education is a subjective environmental assess-
ment called the Stream Team Inventory. This simple
survey instrument causes laypersons to look at seven
basic parameters of stream health: watershed, ripar-
ian corridors, streambanks, stream channels, fish
and wildlife, scenic features and water quality. In-
troductory training is available, though the assess-
ment was designed to be self-explanatory. The main
goal was to force people to begin thinking holisti-
cally.
Advanced inventory training planned for the near
future will dwell in detail on the seven parameters,
but with a focus on the context of its influence or
interaction with each of the other parameters.
Based on our experience, initial training for a
watershed assessment should be very basic. Most
persons are familiar with their address on a political
boundary basis (city, state), fewer on a ecological
basis (great plains, prairie), but hardly any person can
geographically place themselves on a watershed
basis.
In addition to map reading and similar basic skills,
most laypersons will have to learn to read the
landscape. For example, major land-use activities
such as clear cutting or subdivision construction
may easily draw attention, but the cumulative effect
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
25
-------
of sheet soil erosion within a watershed can be even
more damagingand easily overlooked. Crash courses
in soils, vegetation and landforms such as karst will
also be needed. Once these skills are mastered,
sampling strategies can be devised to help observers
rate watershed conditions. Then and only then do
we believe that valid judgements on watershed
condition can be generated by the concerned pub-
lic.
Our goal is to cultivate a true partnership with
these new constituents. In addition to generating a
common ground of concern for our state's water
resources, this partnership must also prosper on a
common wealth of knowledge. Training and edu-
cation are the clues. Professional knowledge must be
effectively transferred to the private sector if a new
era of informed resource concern and advocacy is to
arise.
As a former governor from the state of Oregon
recently said in a meeting similar to this, "Political
action is the project of public opinion, and public
opinion is the product of informed individual ac-
tion."
Learning to understand broader landscapes such
as watersheds yields a holistic view to the nature of
river and water quality problems. This insight then
suggests the stewardship and advocacy opportuni-
ties open to each individual. When this is achieved,
perhaps the day of positive political action on major
land-use issues will be at hand.
Dave Buzan
Texas Water Commission
THE TEXAS WATER COMMISSION IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH CITIZENS
In the fall of 1988, the Texas Water Commission
(TWC) held a series of public meetings to discuss
massive fish kills along the Pecos Pviver. One pur-
pose of the meetings was to recruit support for a
citizen's monitoring program along the river.
Fish kills began on the Pecos Pviver in the fall of
1985 and were repeated during the fall of 1986 and
1988. Each kill lasted for several weeks and included
hundreds of miles of river. The three kills resulted in
more than 2.5 million dead fish. The only known
cause of the fish kill was identified as a microscopic
plant (alga) that under certain unknown conditions
created an extremely toxic environment in the river.
This alga, named prymnesium parvum, had never
been found in the United States before.
The Texas Water Commission faced several prob-
lems associated with the Pecos Pviver fish kills:
Investigating the kills was difficult because of the
extreme remoteness of the river. The local commu-
nity did not know who to contact about the kills and
was distrustful of the agency. In addition, technical
questions remained unanswered regardingthephysical
and chemical conditions that were creating the
toxicity in the river.
The TWC did not know what weather or water
quality conditions caused the alga to bloom. Why
were massive toxic alga blooms occurring when
there was no documentation of prior problems?
Also, it was unknown to what extent, if any, oil and
gas production activities might be contributing to
the kills. Since the major industry in the area was oil
and gas production, the public believed those indus-
tries were in some-way responsible for causing the
kills. TWC's explanation that toxic alga caused the
kills and that there was no known practical way to
control it was met with great skepticism by the
public.
The need for more information about the Pecos
Pviver and improved communication with the local
comrnmunity was obvious. Attempts to meet those
needs would eventually lead to the creation of Texas
Watch and its volunteer monitoring programs.
The Texas Water Commission first became ac-
tively involved in citizen monitoring in May 1988
when an agency representative attended a national
conference on citizen monitoring held in Pvhode
Island. Upon his return from Pvhode Island, he
suggested setting up public meetings to describe the
cause of the fish kills and to recruit volunteer
monitors. The goal was to train volunteers who
26
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
could collect samples for algal analysis and be able to
make basic observations about the river.
Pecos River volunteers first met and began sam-
pling the river in May 1989. The volunteers in-
cluded ranchers, retirees and members from local
industry. By March 1992, they had collected over
450 sets of measurements from nine sites. The
samples showed that the blooms had occurred dur-
ing each of the three fall seasons since volunteers
began monitoring the river, but that the blooms had
not been toxic. During the same time, TWC col-
lected about 30 samples from four sites on the river.
Whether by providence or design, the Pecos River
has not suffered any major fish kills since the imple-
mentation of the citizen's monitoring program.
From the beginning of the plan to use citizens,
TWC's mid-level administration reflected typical
concerns about state involvement with volunteer
monitors. Administrators were fearful that the pub-
lic would express anger about TWC to their legis-
lators because the state was asking volunteers to help
do something the agency was getting paid to do.
In addition, there were no funds or other re-
sources set aside for working with volunteers. There
were no public, state or federal directives requiring
the agency to work with volunteers, and TWC's
potential liability if volunteers were injured was an
added concern. Finally, some administrators felt
working with volunteers would be time-consuming
and not yield any worthwhile information.
In the spring of 1990, TWC established an inter-
agency task force to evaluate the potential roles of
the agency with respect to volunteer monitoring.
The task force recommended that the Texas Water
Commission take an active role in supporting and
developing citizen monitoring programs. The task
force concluded:
1. Volunteer monitoring was already happening
in Texas and was going to grow throughout the state
with or without the participation of the Texas
Water Commission. As the agency charged with
protecting water in the state, TWC should be in a
position to work positively with groups that wished
to do volunteer monitoring.
2. Participation in these programs is not free.
The agency would need financial and physical re-
sources to support volunteer monitoring.
3. There were considerable advantages to in-
volvement in volunteer monitoring. Other pro-
grams had shown that volunteer monitoring infor-
mation can be of acceptable quality and can be used
to improve management decisions. Working with
volunteers was also an opportunity to better under-
stand public needs and public perceptions, as well as
gain public support for TWC regulatory and man-
agement decisions and improve public awareness of
environmental issues.
The task force recommended that the Texas
Water Commission provide a broad level of support
for citizen monitoring, establish a centralized
coordinator's office within the Field Operations
Division, designate field coordinators within the
district field offices, organize statewide and local
volunteer monitoring committees, and create a
technical advisory committee composed of various
agency representatives. The task force applied for a
Lake Water Quality Assessment grant from the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency in order to begin
supporting citizen monitoring.
Receipt of the Lake Water Quality Assessment
grant allowed creation of Texas Watch in February
1991. Our experience since then shows that the
rapidly growing demands of the public are quickly
outstripping the program's current resources. There
is a great deal of public interest in participating in
these types of programs.
Texas Watch is currently placing emphasis on
developing collaborative efforts with other agen-
cies, cities and some industries that provide direct
support to volunteer monitoring groups around the
state. These partnerships will help improve support
for volunteer groups that are widely separated geo-
graphically. It will also encourage other agencies
and organizations to experience the positive benefits
of working with the public through volunteer moni-
toring.
The Texas Water Commission has also launched
a new initiative, Clean Texas 2000, that will provide
recognition for businesses that support environ-
mental activities such as volunteer monitoring.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
27
-------
Mike Arcuri
West Virginia Divison of Natural Resources
CITIZEN MONITORING IN WEST VIRGINIA
Citizen water quality monitoring started in West
Virginia in 1989 when the Izaak Walton League of
America (IWLA) signed a memorandum of agree-
ment with the State Division of Natural Resources
pNR) for the purpose of establishing IWLA's Save
Our Streams Program.
From DNR's point of view, the benefits would
be two-fold. First, it would increase environmental
awareness among the state's citizens. Second, it
would provide baseline data for streams which had
rarely or perhaps never been sampled previously.
DNR felt that the SOS biological monitoring
approach would suit its needs because the state was
primarily interested in obtaining information on
nonpoint source (NFS) impacts, and it is generally
felt that biological monitoring is the best way to
document such impacts. Chemical monitoring alone
does not always reveal nonpoint pollution impair-
ment.
Because the state itself is able to monitor only 41
stations on its 29,000 miles of streams, the SOS
program provides an opportunity for citizens to fill
in large gaps that currently exist in the data.
Initially, the West Virginia SOS program did not
specifically focus on a particular stream or water-
shed. Instead, citizens were provided training at
general workshops held throughout the state, then
encouraged to adopt any stream of their choice,
regardless of location or size.
The program has evolved a great deal since the
early days, and the initial focus has changed. Instead
of a generalized, random approach to stream moni-
toring, citizens are now trained to work in targeted
priority watersheds across the state. The targeted
watersheds are ones where nonpoint pollution im-
pacts have been previously documented or are
strongly suspected.
Training workshops are now held in close prox-
imity to priority watersheds and citizens are encour-
aged to adopt monitoring stations on streams within
the priority areas. The goal is to have volunteers
adopt at least 20 stations within each targeted water-
shed and monitor them not less than quarterly, for
a period of one year.
For each priority watershed, DNR provides to
the Izaak Walton League a wish list of potential
monitoring sites. The lists are provided to citizens at
the training workshops and the volunteers are en-
couraged to adopt one or more of the recommended
sites. In many cases, however, it is not practical for
citizens to adopt sites that have been recommended.
Site selection then becomes a compromise between
what DNR would like to see monitored and what
is practical for citizens to adopt. Once a network of
stations is established, DNR personnel select a
subset of the sites at random for supplemental chemical
monitoring, which increases both the value and
reliability of the program data.
Initially, DNR's major concern with citizen
monitoring was the lack of adequate quality assur-
ance. It was often difficult to determine whether the
data being collected was valid. Today, an improved
QA program has made the data generated much
more reliable.
In addition to the regular training workshops, re-
training (QA) workshops are held approximately
six weeks after the initial training. At the re-training
workshops, the monitoring skills of the volunteers
are tested. Citizens are given a written exam which
tests their ability to identify various groups of
aquatic organisms and are taken into the field where
their monitoring techniques are observed first hand.
This approach enables SOS trainers to spot and
correct problems the volunteers may be having with
either the collection or identification of the organ-
isms.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the quality
assurance program is the oversight and coordination
provided by local employees of the State Soil Con-
servation Committee (SSCC). SSCC technicians
who are trained in the SOS program provide guid-
ance and technical support to citizens working in
the targeted watersheds. The technicians provide
individual support in the field for volunteers who
28
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
might be having problems with monitoring tech-
niques or data analysis.
Currently, 90 sites have been adopted statewide
by volunteers, with the majority of the sites being
located in five targeted priority watersheds. In the
upcoming year, we hope to add three more priority
watersheds to the program.
Ultimately, the DNR plans to use citizen-col-
lected data to improve its understanding of NFS
impacts in priority watersheds. It is also hoped that
volunteer monitoring can help track the progress of
Best Management Practices (BMPs) instituted in the
watersheds to control runoff pollution. In addition,
if volunteer-collected data is deemed of adequate
quality, it may be included in the State Water
Quality Assessment 305 (b) report.
In conclusion, citizen concern for the environ-
ment is vital in making state water quality protection
programs work. Often the important decision-mak-
ers, such as administrators and politicians, are more
inclined to heed the advice of concerned citizens
rather than recommendations from state personnel.
In light of this fact, citizens should never underesti-
mate their potential to effect positive environmental
change.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
29
-------
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPS
Panelists: Nancy Richardson Hansen, City ofBellevue,
Bellevue, Washington, Storm and Surface Water Utility;
Ray Tesh, State Water Control Board, Bridgewater
Office, Virginia; and Terry Lee, Olmsted County Envi-
ronmental Commission, Minnesota.*
Nancy Richardson Hansen
City of Bellevue, Washington
BELLEVUE'S STREAM TEAM
PROGRAM
Local governments receive valuable assistance in
fulfilling their water quality management mandate
through the work of volunteers who can help in the
following ways:
1. Volunteers help generate community sup-
port for the water quality and resource pro-
tection mission of your agency. By involving
volunteers, you enlarge the circle of people
who understand and support important re-
source management functions, which trans-
lates into long-term political and financial
support.
2. Volunteers enhance efforts to educate the
public about water quality and resource pro-
tection issues. Through interaction with their
families, friends, schools and community
groups, volunteers help spread the word and
raise awareness about water resources and
how to protect them.
3. Volunteers contribute to on-the-ground im-
provements in water quality and habitat pro-
*TTOttscript Unavailable
tection. They can detect water quality prob-
lems, help revegetate or otherwise enhance
fish habitat, prevent thoughtless actions such
as pouring oil down a storm drain, and assist
a resource management agency accomplish
important tasks, such as monitoring, that
might otherwise be left undone.
The city ofBellevue's Stream Team program was
created in 1988 for all of these reasons. It involves
citizens in monitoring and observing/recording the
water quality and habitat value of our streams,
which helps protect, preserve and enhance the
stream environment. The Stream Team offers an
annual series of public workshops as well as oppor-
tunities for children and adults to conduct hands-on
monitoring activities. The workshops include top-
ics such as water quality, aquatic insects, stream
habitat, salmon lifecycle and habitat requirements,
flood control, and wetlands and landscaping for
healthy streams. Each workshop has a correspond-
ing activity for interested volunteers.
Several written materials, including the Stream
Team guidebook, newsletter and information on work-
shops and trainings, are regularly distributed to Bellevue
citizens, businesses and the media. The Stream Team
program also offers a variety of general volunteer
activities such as storm drain stenciling, streamside
revegetation projects and stream clean-ups.
Experience with the Stream Team program has
taught city ofBellevue staff several valuable lessons
about working with volunteers:
1. Plan to the last detail. Be very careful about
going through the logistics beforehand to
make sure everything will run smoothly for
the volunteers. Develop checklists. Do a dry
run. Prepare for contingencies. Bring extra
supplies and equipment. It's also a good idea
30
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
to plan for the maximum number of volun-
teers a project can handle so that every vol-
unteer has something to do. For large projects,
include volunteers in the planning process.
This allows for some volunteers to assume a
leadership role and alleviates some staff re-
sponsibilities.
2. Don't be overambitious. Design your activi-
ties, whether an indoor workshop or an
outdoor project, with a definite start and
finish. Design a project that will be doable
and fun, not one that is burdensome and
exhausting.
3. Show appreciation. Like all of us, volunteers
need to feel their efforts are appreciated.
There are many ways to accomplish this,
from a well-planned event that anticipates
their every need to a personalized thank-you
note the week after the activity. Never forget
to provide coffee and donuts!
4. Make the activity meaningful. Be sure to
show the volunteers how or why the event is
important. Make sure they understand how
their efforts fit into the bigger picture. In-
volve volunteers in projects that are impor-
tant, and give them plenty of feedback to let
them know what has become of their labor.
5. Have something for everyone. Design enough
variety into your program that you have
activities to satisfy aU levels of interest. Some
people want to spend an entire day mucking
in the mud while others may want to do
something very limited and simple. A variety
of activities will lead to greater volunteer
involvement.
6. Be there for your volunteers. Make sure
someone is available to work one-on-one
with volunteers. If the activity requires prior
training, make sure it is offered at convenient
times (after work, for example). Again, per-
sonal contact and valuing each individual
goes a long way toward keeping volunteers
involved.
7. Listen to your volunteers. Volunteers know
best what their needs are. They have ex-
tremely insightful comments on how to make
activities run more smoothly and make them
more meaningful.
More information on developing a Stream Team-
type program can be found in the document, Stream
Teach Program Checklist: Involving Residents in Stream
Protection, which is available from the Stream Team
Program, City ofBellevue, SSWU, P.O. Box 90012,
Bellevue, WA 98009.
RayTesh
Bridgewater Valley Regional Office,
Virginia State Water Control Board
VOLUNTEERS AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The value of volunteer environmental organiza-
tions to the Commonwealth of Virginia has not
been assessed, although it is quite high and the
untapped potential is even higher. In the Shenandoah
Valley of Virginia, I work with:
1. Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah
River;
2. Friends of the Shenandoah River;
3. Friends of the North River; and
4. Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA)
Chapters in Front Royal, "Winchester, Staunton
and Harrisonburg.
These organizations assist their local communities
by educating citizens, monitoring their respective
geographical areas, and interacting with governing
bodies. The degree of bonding to state government
varies with each organization, as well as the methods for
achieving the organization's goals. Each organization
has communicated its goals to me in terms of the area
in which they wish to make an impact, their agenda,
and how we can work together.
I manage the pollution complaints program and
supervise the response for my region. In this capac-
ity, I function as an adviser to these environmental
organizations, as well as addressing complaints over
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
31
-------
which state law gives me authority. For the indi-
vidual wanting to know who in state government to
call about a specific problem, I can offer advice or
refer them to the appropriate person. I believe
public officials have a responsibility to assist indi-
viduals with real problems, to find a solution rather
than pass the buck. Regrettably, there are still many
pollution problems for which state and local agen-
cies do not have defined programs and cannot satisfy
the needs of the individual. "We are, however,
making progress. It is because of citizen groups and
individuals speaking to their legislative representa-
tives that increased authority and responsibility to
address pollution problems is given to state and local
government.
There are four methods to assist in achieving an
environmental organization's goals:
1. water quality;
2. stream quality monitoring;
3. visual surveillance of the drainage area; and
4. review of industrial and domestic proposals
which will impact the ground or surface
water in some manner.
All of these methods are useful. It is up to the
organization as to where to place the emphasis to
solve each problem.
Two of our organizations have a substantial in-
vestment of time and money in water quality moni-
toring to establish a database which can detect trends
in water quality degradation or improvement. All of
our organizations are involved in stream quality
monitoring which, for the most part, relies on the
IWLA-initiated biological monitoring method. This
program is important because it combines the effect
of water quality with parameters frequently not
monitored in the laboratory, such as siltation and
erosion. Visual surveillance is also useful in that
potential problems can be detected before extensive
damage occurs.
In addition, citizen involvement in proposals for
urban or industrial development inform decision-
makers of an environmental organization's knowl-
edge and opinions regarding specific actions. The
local environmental organization knows more about
a nearby stream than anyone else, and this knowl-
edge must be shared.
Those of us in local and regional government are
experiencing a time of tight budgets and certainly
cannot accomplish the degree of monitoring and
surveillance which we all desire. Now, more than
ever, a partnership between active environmental
groups and local government agencies is necessary.
32
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Workshop Session I: Planning and Developing Successful Programs
GOAL SETTING AND ORGANIZING
Presenters: Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of
America's Save Our Streams Program; and Ken Cooke,
Kentucky Water Watch.*
Karen Firehock
Izaak Walton League of America
STARTING A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM:
IT'S EASIER THAN YOU THINK
There are many different reasons for deciding to
begin a volunteer water monitoring program. The
Izaak Walton League of America began its program,
Save Our Streams (SOS), in the early 1970s as a way to
educate and involve the public in the protection and
restoration of rivers and streams. Since the 1970s, our
biological stream monitoring techniques have under-
gone scientific revisions, and we have formed many
partnerships with state governments so SOS data could
be used by state agencies and volunteers alike.
When beginning a volunteer monitoring
project the most important question to answer is:
What are your goals? For instance, the SOS program
has several equally important goals. The first is to
educate the public about water quality through
hands-on monitoring and to provide citizens with a
way of revealing if a stream or river is polluted. We
also try to give volunteers the knowledge to address
pollution problems they discover.
The second goal is to help state governments expand
their monitoring capabilities to survey rivers that might
otherwise not get monitored and augment existing
monitoring projects when the state has indicated more
data are needed. This partnership approach, designed
*Transcript Unavailable
to serve both citizens and state agencies and enable
them to help each other, has proved very successful in
achieving maximum environmental benefits while
minimizing costs. Be clear about what you hope to
accomplish with your network and do not attempt to
accomplish too much at once.
The following are some possible reasons you may
be considering forming a volunteer monitoring
network.
If you are a regional, state or local government:
Educate the public on general water quality
issues;
Increase public involvement in state conser-
vation programs;
Increase the number of waterways you are
able to monitor;
Augment existing monitoring programs with
more data;
Activate citizens at the local level to address
water pollution.
If you are an environmental organization or com-
munity group:
Develop a way in which volunteers can
readily detect water pollution;
Help state and local governments monitor
more waterways or obtain more thorough
data on particular watersheds;
Get your organization's members involved
in hands-on protection of the environment;
Increase community knowledge of water
pollution causes and cures.
If you are a local business:
Provide a way to get your employees in-
volved in community service;
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
33
-------
Demonstrate that your company is commit-
ted to environmental protection;
Form a link between community needs and
services your business can provide.
If you are a school:
Provide students with a hands-on approach
to learning about water quality and commu-
nity stewardship;
Assist local and state governments with their
monitoring programs;
Assure that future decision-makers and plan-
ners will have personal knowledge of water
quality protection and restoration.
Once you have determined your goals, the next
step is to choose a network structure and make it
work. You will need to answer the following ques-
tions: Do you want to begin on a pilot basis and do
a small-scale project so you can work the bugs out?
Who will participate in your project (federal, state
and/or local government or environmental organi-
zations, schools or businesses)?
What type of monitoring will your group con-
duct, and what methods will you use to do this
monitoring (chemical, biological, physical, habitat
quality)?
How will you train your staff and/or volunteers
to use these techniques? Will you train volunteers to
train others, or will you train monitors directly?
Will you periodically retrain monitors?
How will you build in a quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) program as recommended by
EPA so your data are assured to be scientifically
valid? Who will accept, review and manage the
collected data? Will the data be stored in files or on
computer? How accessible will the data be, and who
will need to access it? What feedback will be pro-
vided to the volunteers regarding the quality of their
collected data? How can the data be reported to the
public?
It is not always necessary to computerize your
data if you are doing a small-scale project. It is also
not necessary to have paid staff. Many successful
volunteer monitoring programs, such as Friends of
the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, are run
entirely by volunteer coordinators. However, if you
are a state agency, you should realize that a commit-
ment by your agency to begin a volunteer monitor-
ing program means increased time committed to the
public, and a person should be designated to head
the project. You should also make sure the position
you create is discrete; do not simply assign one of
your state water-quality staff to add these responsi-
bilities to his or her already overloaded schedules or
you will disappoint the public and lose their faith.
Your state agency may also want to form a
partnership with an existing environmental organi-
zation. In West Virginia, for example, the Izaak
Walton League runs the state volunteer monitoring
program, which is funded half by the state and half
by foundation monies. The state has a designated
liaison who works with league staff, provides tech-
nical oversight and uses the data in state 305 (b)
reports, which are statewide river assessments.
Will your program include monitoring, identifi-
cation of pollution problems and/or restoration of
damaged ecosystems? How will you help volunteers
deal with these issues? Will someone be available to
answer volunteers' questions on a regular basis, such
as a help line they can call or regular meetings to
address concerns and questions?
How large will you allow your program to grow?
For example, even though your project may be very
popular, you may have to limit it to a certain number
of stations, river miles, number of lakes or geo-
graphical range. If your program grows too large too
quickly, you may end up not adequately serving
existing monitors' needs, and you can become
ineffective. You may want to develop a five-year
plan after the first six months of the program so you
know where you are headed. Share this information
with others and plan for growth and funding.
Finally, how will you fund your project? While
it may seem odd to ask this question last, it is better
to have a clear idea of what you hope to accomplish
before you seek funding. You should also develop at
least three different funding scales for the project.
Your first level should include a budget that allows
you to run the program on a minimal but adequate
34
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
budget with no sacrifices in quality of data or
assistance to monitors. This first budget may not
include specialized publications, statewide confer-
ences and the like, but it should cover the minimum
needed to begin the project and run it for a year.
The second budget should include materials that
would enhance your project, such as manuals on
water quality issues, quarterly reports, press releases,
new publications or workshops to address a variety
of topics.
Your final budget (or third level) should include
everything you need plus a wish list of things not
critical to the project but which would enhance it.
This budget might include big-ticket items such as
statewide conferences, money to hire consultants
for specialized trainings, teachers' trainingprograms,
additional staffer computer equipment.
Finally, it is important to remember that there is
no exact prescription or model for a successful
program. Each state has unique issues, concerns,
political make-up, staff, funding and monitoring
needs. The Izaak Walton League runs three state-
wide networks, all of which are organized some-
what differently to meet the unique needs of each
state and the capability of the League. Although we
organize projects in many other states, we use these
three states to learn what works and what does not.
The League created the Citizen Monitoring Bibli-
ography, a list of useful publications, equipment and
materials about how to start an effective volunteer
monitoring program. To recieve a copy of the
bibliography, write to: Save Our Streams Program,
Izaak Walton League of America, 1401 Wilson
Blvd., Level B, Arlington, Va. 22209.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
35
-------
REASSESSING AND EXPANDING
CURRENT PROJECTS
Susan Handle/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Kathy Ellett
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Mary Francoise Walk
Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring Project
HOW TO BREATHE NEW LIFE
INTO EXISTING PROGRAMS
In reassessing any volunteer-based program, it is
vital to take a dose look from the perspective of your
volunteers at how the program is designed and
implemented. An error made by most program
managers is that they design and implement pro-
grams to meet their needs, not those of the volun-
teers. This is the major cause of program problems
and failures.
We have experienced a related problem in the
Chesapeake Bay Citizens Monitoring Program
(CBCMP). The data collected by the volunteers is
only a small part of a very large monitoring effort.
Consequently, the analysis and reporting of these
data is never a high priority, and it has been difficult
to get anything other than simple listings and plots
produced. Many managers feel that a report that
does not contain results based on sophisticated
analyses is a waste of time and paper. However,
seeing their data in print, even with a limited
interpretation based on comparisons of data col-
lected in previous years, is the single most important
motivator for volunteer monitors.
A typical example is the clash of interest between
scientists managing a project and the volunteer
monitors. At the beginning of a project, the scien-
tists want to establish a baseline of data from which
they can infer, over time, existing problems and the
direction the monitoring will follow next. Volun-
teers, on the other hand, want sexy data right away;
for instance, data that can be used to unveil a
suspected pollution source that they want to fix
immediately. If the project manager disregards this
need, volunteer monitors lose interest rapidly and
leave the project.
For instance, the Massachusetts Acid Rain Moni-
toring Project (ARM) recently lost some volunteers
who thought that acid rain is no longer a problem.
If we had known that was their perception, we
could have nipped that notion in the bud (by writing
apiece in the newsletter on the current status of acid
rain and research needs).
How then do you gain your volunteers' perspec-
tive and keep them interested? One way is to try to
decipher what motivates a person to volunteer and
stay with your program. There has been a tremen-
dous amount of research and study done on human
motivation. For our purposes today, we will look at
the studies done by David McClelland on work-
related behaviors.
McClelland divides motivation into three major
types: achievement, affiliation and power. Those
who are achievement motivated tend to be task
oriented and need to be successful. Their strengths
are that they get the job done and are willing to
overcome obstacles. Their weakness is they would
rather do new, different and challenging tasks and
work on their own. People in this group are good at
gathering information, systematizing, developing
procedures and evaluating results.
36
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Those who are affiliation motivated need to work
with others and feel that they are a well-liked and
important part of the team. The strength of this
group is that they have excellent interpersonal skills
and work well with others. The weakness of this
group is that they are easily hurt, can't say no and
avoid any conflict. They don't always get the task
done. These are the people to promote compro-
mise, relieve tension and encourage others.
Those who are power motivated need to be in
positions of status where they can influence others.
Their strength is that they are confident, articulate
and willing to take risks. Their weakness is that they
can appear to be domineering, impatient and some-
times arrogant. These are the people who initiate
programs and activities, and press for results.
We're not recommending that managers sit in
their offices and guess what motivates their volun-
teers, but rather that they take time to talk to their
volunteers. Interviewing volunteers is critical for
many reasons: placement, training, evaluation and
understanding their perspective on their role in your
program. Even for experienced managers, practic-
ing interviewing skills is always beneficial.
Another element in reassessing your program
from the volunteer's perspective is to have an under-
standing of what is referred to as the Volunteer Life
Cycle. This concept has been presented by Sue
Vineyard and has value for all managers. Its basis is
that most volunteers go through a predictable life
cycle in their volunteering experience. Managers
need to look at why the volunteer joined the
program. Have those needs been met? Remember,
a met need is no longer a motivating force. What
other and different needs does the volunteer have
which can be met by the program? Go back to your
understanding of motivation. Is the volunteer in
need of more social opportunities (affiliation)? Is it
time to give the volunteer some responsibilities
(achievement) ? Is the volunteer in a position to train
or lead others (influence)? Are there opportunities
for volunteers to help with program evaluation and
redesign? One of the most effective tools in deter-
mining what to do at these junctures is to convene.
a volunteer steering committee to bring the volun-
teer perspective to program design and manage-
ment. Another way is to send out a questionnaire or,
if time permits, conduct phone surveys.
Other questions managers should ask themselves
include: Are all volunteers leaving at the same spot
in the cycle? Are all volunteers, regardless of where
they are in the cycle, treated the same? Is there
opportunity for volunteers to share and lead? For
instance, ARM and CBCMP volunteers leave ei-
ther very shortly after they started volunteering
(within a year) or after a long time with us (more like
seven years).
Often managers provide volunteers with recog-
nition that is not meaningful or significant to the
volunteer. A re-examination of recognition activi-
ties, taking into account the volunteer's perspective,
will make recognition more meaningful and cost-
effective. In the 1980s, Ardis Young from Washing-
ton State University did a study on volunteer recog-
nition using 4-H leaders. The overall conclusion of
the study was that volunteer rewards and recogni-
tion should be intrinsic to the job itself. People do
not volunteer for pins or plaques, and most appre-
ciate recognition that is personalized. Recognizing
a group as a whole is much less meaningful than
recognizing individuals for their unique contribu-
tion. In the Young study, the first response to what
volunteers felt was most rewarding about their work
was that the volunteer reached a personal goal; the
second response was that they were accepted as a
person; and the third response was that others asked
the volunteer for his/her opinion. As you can see,
recognition need not be expensive or complicated.
Some good techniques are to ask a volunteer's
advice, write a personal thank-you note or design
methods to let family or peers know of the volunteer's
accomplishments. Examples of other types of recog-
nition include writing a volunteer's job supervisor,
praising the volunteer's commitment and precise
work. This is sometimes taken into account when
the volunteer is up for a promotion in his/her
profession (we did this for a college professor who
is a laboratory analyst volunteer in ARM).
ARM also wrote an article about the project,
personalized to each region, at the request of volun-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
37
-------
teers who submitted the article with a photograph to
their local newspapers. Several newspaper reporters
and a couple ofTV stations have interviewed volun-
teers and published stories about CBCMP. We
found that the best reward is to share results promptly
and to demonstrate how they are used. A visit to the
volunteers with a slide show sounds like a good idea,
although we don't always get good attendance.
CBCMP also has speakers, tours and pot luck
suppers at quality control sessions. APvM has printed
tee-shirts, buttons, stickers and certificates of appre-
ciation. All have been favorably received and give
the volunteers a sense of belonging to the group,
which can be lacking in projects spread throughout
a state or region.
CBCMP volunteers receive a thank-you gift
each year. Past gifts include ornaments, organizer
folders, posters, matted prints and plaques. This year
ARM didn't have the money to give out tee-shirts,
so we printed a calendar, which serves two purposes:
A thank-you gesture to our volunteers, and (if they
use it) a reminder of the collection dates, which are
printed directly on the appropriate days on the
calendar. Forgetfulness about sampling dates is a
common problem for us.
Program expansion can be a natural outgrowth of
the reassessment process, but it should be based on
matching volunteers' needs and interests with pro-
gram objectives. Expansion can provide additional
opportunities that are needed at critical points in the
volunteer's life cycle.
A program review is a good idea when you have
accomplished something. If you have gathered the
data you needed, are you using it? If your ultimate
goal is to clean up your state's lakes, have you turned
your results into legislation or on a smaller scale, into
bylaws? Ifyour goal is to preserve a specific river, are
you usingyour data toward a designation to preserve
the status quo?
It may be time for remedial action. For instance,
finding bacteria in streams running through grazing
ranges could prompt you to work with Trout
Unlimited on a fencingproject to keep the cattle out
of the streams. If you have confirmed a problem, say
fecal coliforms in your water body, have you found
the pollution source? If not, isn't it time to expand
the project and increase the monitoring to more
sites or even to the whole watershed?
Review your program regularly. Is there slippage
in volunteer commitment? Are new methods avail-
able? Is your QA/QC program working? Is there a
better way to conduct your project? Get your
volunteers' point of view.
If all is well, move to forestall boredom. For
example, the Massachusetts Water Watch Partner-
ship has various monitoring modules; they start
simple and tailor the monitoring to each local group.
When the volunteers have mastered a basic module
(monitoring for temperature, pH, alkalinity and
dissolved oxygen), they can move on to a more
advanced module (phosphorus, chlorophyll, heavy
metal, organics) or they can add a different module,
such as biological monitoring. .
ARM periodically does side studies, which add
interest to the otherwise monotonous routine of
quarterly sampling. A couple of times we asked
volunteers to measure stream temperature and char-
acterize stream substrate for a Fisheries and Wildlife
study on stream candidates for trout stocking. Cur-
rently, we have a few volunteers read U.S. Geologial
Survey gages to help us in our analyses. If we provide
the equipment and good instructions, volunteers are
happy to do it. We haven't asked for stream tem-
perature in two years, but some volunteers are still
reporting it quarterly!
Also, encourage individual associations to use
their data themselves and build a larger context
around the monitoring, such as setting up a museum
exhibit about their river to tell the community
about it.
38
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING
QUALITY DATA
Linda Green
University of Rhode island
Bettina Fletcher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DEVELOPING A QUALITY CONTROLS
QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
Collectingbelievable water-quality data and veri-
fying its validity has always been a challenge to the
professional or the layperson. One of the strengths
of citizen monitoring groups is that they often have
many willing and enthusiastic volunteers, whereas
government agencies at all levels are often limited by
staff and finances. Although policy makers and
regulators welcome volunteers' enthusiasm, time
and energy, they are often initially skeptical of
whether volunteers can provide meaningful data, as
well as proof of its value. One of the biggest
questions confronting users of any sort of data is how
accurate and precise is it? How many measurements
were made in order to reach this number? How
variable is the measurement? How accurately does it
reflect the actual situation?
These questions can be addressed by the formula-
tion of a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/
QC) plan. In this paper we will discuss setting up and
using QA/QC plans, particularly in terms of the most
common measurements (parameters) used by many
volunteer water quality monitoring groups. The ap-
proach will be as non-statistical as possible and is
directed toward volunteer monitors, especially those
involved in ecological monitoring. Readers are
directed to EPA's guidance document, Volunteer
3.
Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers (1990).
The purpose of a quality assurance program is to
ensure that data meet desired levels of accuracy and
precision. This includes both quality control and
quality assessment activities. To assure accuracy,
one needs to evaluate and control the quality and
reliability of data collected and tests run. This is
known as quality control. Some standard quality
control activities are:
1. Use methods that have been well studied and
accepted by experts in the field;
2. Routinely analyze samples of known com-
position and concentration (internal stan-
dards) , so that you know what and how much
you are analyzing and if your procedure is
consistent from one date to the next;
Confirm your monitoring group's (or
laboratory's) ability to provide acceptable
results by analyzing reference samples (exter-
nal standards). This is an excellent process
especially if your procedures are different
from established ones;
Incorporate field and analytical blanks into
your procedures. Unexpected sources of con-
tamination can often be detected, as well as
background contributions to what you are
measuring.
Quality assessment involves continued evalua-
tion of people collecting and analyzing data in order
to minimize/correct individual errors and their
cumulative effect.
There are five terms that are used to assess quality
known as Data Quality Indicators (DQI). They are
accuracy, precision, representativeness, compara-
bility and completeness. Some of them have precise
statistical definitions as well as conceptual
meanings:
4.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
39
-------
ACCURACY
Accuracy is determined by analyzing a sample of
known concentration and comparing the results to
the "true value." Accuracy is also known by the
terms bias or relative error. It is a measurement of
variation in data that can be due to either the
equipment used or the procedure. (This is known as
a systematic error.) Accuracy is computed statisti-
cally by the following equation: 100 X (true value -
actual value) /true value.
What happens if you don't know what the true
value is? This can be the case in a number of
situations such as using a secchi disk to measure
water clarity or using a kit to measure a parameter
without confirming it using a different method. The
most practical solution is to make a number of
measurements, average them, and state that no
estimation of the accuracy can be made. However,
if volunteers are using a test kit, for example, to
measure dissolved oxygen or pH, there are a number
of alternatives. If the data using the kits is to be
believed and accepted, it would be a wise invest-
ment to purchase or borrow an analytical or labora-
tory grade meter to compare results against initially
and during QC sessions. An alternative would be to
see if alocal analytical or university laboratory might
agree to compare the results from your kits with
their equipment. If the measurement is to detect a
trend, using the kit alone might be sufficient. The
choice depends on your data quality objectives.
PRECISION
Precision is a measurement of how close data points
are to each other. Measuring precision gives no infor-
mation about the accuracy or closeness to the true value
of the measurement. Other terms for precision are
repeatability or replicability. They all refer to the
measurement of random variation in data.
Precision is measured statistically by calculating
the standard deviation. Many hand-held calculators
have been pre-programmed to calculate the stan-
dard deviation, usually denoted by s or sx. The
standard deviation is an indication of the range of
variation in the measurement. Even more useful is
the calculation of the coefficient of variation, which
is simply the standard deviation divided by the
average of the data, multiplied by 100. A large
coefficient of variation means that the measurement
is less precise, a small one that is more precise.
As an example, suppose your group is interested
in their precision in determining the clarity of a
body of water. Ten volunteers, assigned letters A
through J, have each taken one measurement at the
same location. Their measurements are tabulated
below, along with the standard deviation and coef-
ficient of variation. Overall, these data would be
reported as 5.0m, standard deviation = 0.38m. The
7.7 percent coefficient of variation indicates that the
variation in the data is about 8 percent of the
average. This is also an indication of the variation in
the data that might be expected from the group as a
whole.
Volunteer Secchi Volunteer Secchi
Depth (m) Depth (m)
A
B
C
D
E
5.1
5.2
4.8
4.1
5.3
F
G
H
I
J
5.1
5.4
4.8
4.8
5.3
Average = 5.0m
Standard Deviation = 0.38m
Coefficient of Variation = 7.7%
REPRESENTATIVENESS
Representativeness attempts to answer the ques-
tion of whether the data accurately and precisely
represent the actual environmental conditions. This
is not easily answered because errors can be intro-
duced in any number of places, from choice of
monitoringlocation to sampling containers to sample
holding to lab errors to data entry errors to calcula-
tion errors. It is important that there are clear
instructions for where, when and how many samples
to collect, what to collect in them, and how they are
to be treated once they have been collected. In
general, as the number of samples increase, the
amount of bias or inaccuracy decreases.
A sample may become unrepresentative by virtue
of the choice of sampling locations, also known as
40
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
the sampling design or sampling scheme. There are
three general types of sampling schemes: judgmen-
tal, systematic and random. Judgmental sampling
indicates that you may be drawing a conclusion
where you are monitoring: This is the least statisti-
cally valid scheme and usually the least expensive.
Systematic sampling involves making a measure-
ment at certain intervals which may be in space or
in time, such as sampling every other Saturday.
Random sampling is the statistically best choice and
may be required; it also usually costs the most. There
are a number of different combinations of these
three schemes which will not be discussed here.
Sampling devices can introduce errors by either
adding to the amount of a sample o.r even subtract-
ing from it. For example, if you are interested in
measuring the dissolved oxygen content of a body of
water, you should not use a pump to collect the
water, since the turbulence of the pumping can
introduce air into the water. If you are collecting a
water sample to measure petroleum hydrocarbons,
do not use a pump with greased fittings. Sample
contamination may become efficient after analysis
of field blanks. This involves bringing a container of
distilled water to the field, rinsing the sampling
apparatus with it, collecting this water in the usual
sample containers and processing it identically with
the rest of your samples. Remember, the possibility
of contamination increases as the concentration of
the parameter decreases. It is much easier to con-
taminate something being measured at the part per
billion level than at the part per million level!
Choice of sample container and how it is cleaned
can be crucial. Texts such as the American Public
Health Association's Standard Methods for the Exami-
nation of Water and Wastewater detail the preferred
container, depending on the type of analysis. Several
suggestions in terms of container preparation in-
clude not washing with phosphate detergents if you
plan to measure phosphorus, not using containers
rinsed with nitric acid (used to prepare containers
for metals analysis) for the measurement of nitrates
in water. Acid-washed glassware that has not been
allowed to equilibrate in distilled water may absorb
metals or salts out of solution, decreasing their
apparent concentration.
Sample handling and transport can be equally
critical. Certain analyses, such as pH and bacterial
indicators, must be initiated within hours after
sampling. Samples for other analyses may be stored
for up to a month. Water samples generally should
be kept cool and in the dark to prevent acceleration
of chemical reactions or degradation of biologically
sensitive materials. If you plan to measure water
temperature, do it before you put your water sample
in the cooler.
COMPLETENESS
Completeness is the percentage of valid data
obtained as compared to that expected to be ob-
tained under normal conditions. Sampling sites may
be inaccessible at certain times of the year; there may
be equipment failure or breakage, or samples may be
spilled during collection, handling, transport or
analysis. Depending on the group's data quality
objectives, it can be acceptable, for example, to
expect to receive 80 to 90 percent of secchi depth
and water temperature data, since sampling dates
may be missed due to illness, vacations or even
hurricanes! The situations where you most likely
expect to lose data should be pointed out, with
remedies specified.
COMPARABILITY
Comparability is a measure of the confidence
with which one group's measurements can be com-
pared to another. How well do the data from one
monitoring program compare with another? Types
of comparison can include:
1. Locations of sampling sites (if all lake sam-
pling stations are located over the lake's deep
spot, each program has the same probability
of collecting a representative sample);
2. Parameters measured (secchi, temperature, nu-
trients) as well as units of measurements used;
3. Procedures and methods for sample collec-
tion and analysis; and
4. How data can be compared (statistically)
among programs in terms of precision and
accuracy.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
41
-------
Simply stated, a quality assurance project plan
(QAPjP) documents the thought process that goes
into planning, carrying out and reviewing a specific
data collection activity. The discipline of develop-
ing QAPjP forces study organizers to develop a
rationale for their data collection to document it.
The plan conveys direction serving as a map for your
data collection activity. It can serve as a training tool
for new participants and with regular updates, it
provides an historical record of the project design
over time. One configuration of a QAPjP com-
monly utilized inEnvironmentalProtection Agency-
related plans is drawn from the agency project plan
guidance known as QAMS 005/80. This QAPjP
plan with its 16 elements takes the project planner
through a series of descriptions and decisions which,
when complete, should substantiate the design of
the monitoring program. This plan should be con-
sidered a dynamic and living document which is
routinely reviewed and modified to reflect the
current operation ofthemonitoringprogram. Changes
should be dated and a record should be maintained
which includes the dates of all changes so that
potential effects upon the data can be evaluated.
The 16 elements of a QAPjP should include:
1. Tide page;
2. Table of contents;
3. Project description;
4. Project organization and responsibilities;
5. QA objectives for measurement data, in terms
of precision, accuracy, completeness, com-
parability and representativeness;
6. Sampling procedures;
7. Sample custody;
8. Calibration procedures and references;
9. Analytical procedures;
10. Data analysis, validation and reporting;
11. Internal QC checks;
12. Performance and systems audits;
13. Preventative maintenance procedures and
schedules;
14. Specific procedures to be used to routinely
assess data precision, accuracy, comparability
and representativeness of specific measure-
ment parameters involved;
15. Corrective action;
16. QA reports to the data requestor.
There is nothing magical or rigid about these ele-
ments. However, this 16 element approach or an-
other like it represents an investment in the proper
design for a monitoring program which is likely to
meet the needs of the project for data of a specified
quality. Keep in mind, if you don't have time to do
it light, when will you have time to do it over?
For a QA/QC program to be successful, it must
become an integral part of a monitoring program.
Volunteers must be made aware of the need for
ongoing QA/QC checks, and not feel threatened by
the thought of being tested. When volunteers are
first trained, QC tests can be conducted to get an
idea of the initial accuracy and precision that may be
expected. A subsequent QC session should be held
about one-third of the way through the monitoring
season to check on the monitors' techniques and
answer questions. Two QC sessions per monitoring
season are generally sufficient. All volunteers should
attend these sessions, which provide an opportunity
to socialize as well as remind monitors that they are
part of a team. At the sessions, it is preferable to have
monitors use their own kits to test the same water
samples, since this is a more realistic portrayal of
their actual monitoring.
An alternative QC check is to have the volunteer
coordinator visit each monitoring location with the
volunteer to monitor the water body simultaneously
and to observe his/her monitoring technique. A
return visit, without the monitor, at approximately
the usual monitoring time and date can be made as
an additional check. This is generally more time-
consuming, but may be necessary to validate volun-
teer-collected data.
42
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
DECIDING DATA OBJECTIVES
Presenters: George Norris, North Carolina Stream Watch;
Mary Kelly, Western North Carolina Alliance; and Jeff
SMoss, New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Pro-
gram.
George Norris
North Carolina Stream Watch
MEETING YOUR GOALS WITH
DATA COLLECTION
What do you want to know and why do you want
to know it? In an attempt to be as rational as possible,
it is a good idea to look at data collection in
comparison with the goals of your program. In
North Carolina's Stream "Watch program, our pri-
mary goal is education. This leads to our secondary
goal of taking personal action based on knowledge
of water quality. Personal action might include:
reporting unusual conditions or discharges to the
Division of Environmental Management (North
Carolina's regulatory agency for water quality);
organizing cleanups; or becoming active in local
zoning decisions.
The Stream "Watch program has always sought to
be all-inclusive and decentralized. As a result, our
program goals are very broad and perhaps fuzzy.
Each Stream "Watch group may have different goals
and undertake different activities. We have very few
restrictions beyond illegal actions. In my experi-
ence, this diversity has made clearly stated objectives
for volunteer monitoring more difficult to develop.
North Carolina Stream Watch includes conser-
vation groups, girl and boy scouts, neighborhood
groups, 4-H'ers, Trout Unlimited chapters, various
canoe clubs and school groups. More than one
quarter of our groups are school related. Very few of
these groups can afford to participate in a chemical
monitoring effort.
Money is the dominant issue for North Carolina's
chemical monitoring network. Out of 190 groups
that have adopted streams, only 16 routinely partici-
pate in chemical monitoring. The reason is simple:
The Stream Watch program is unable to assist
groups with the cost of acquiring chemical test kits.
Most groups that participate in chemical monitoring
are associated with an existing conservation group
which has many members who pay dues; therefore
these groups have more people, a greater sense of
direction and purpose, and of course, financial
resources.
In addition, many of these groups are based in
urban areas where streams are not always in the best
shape. The results ofbiological monitoring alone are
often not that useful on a stream degraded by
channeling, urban runoff, peak flow scouring or
vegetation removal. In such instances, biological
monitoring will indicate poor water quality (big
surprise) and reinforce evidence of a problem. How-
ever, the problems in urban streams are so pervasive
that chemical monitoring is often needed to identify
sources of pollution.
Given the nature of the groups doing the testing,
what tests should be run? All tests and information
are important. The key is to prioritize tests based on
your environment, group interests and cost, and
what information matters most. In North Carolina,
we have chosen to run tests for pH, nitrate, phos-
phate and dissolved oxygen.
The test for pH is run because a wide fluctuation
in pH often indicates a cataclysmic event, such as a
chemical spill. This is particularly relevant in urban
and suburban streams with numerous road crossings
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
43
-------
and opportunities for spills. However, there is the
drawback of monitoring once per month and miss-
ing the spill that occurred last week. Finally, pH has
obvious implications for aquatic life and is inexpen-
sive and easy to perform.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is another test that over
time gives important information on stream health
and has an obvious impact on aquatic life. When
monitoringDO, it is always important to remember
the influence of temperature, time of day, and
seasonal variation. DO readings are crucial for de-
ciding whether or not new sources of effluent are
allowed and can alert Stream Watchers and the state
to the possibility offish kills. Low DO readings can
also indicate sewage leaks, which is especially im-
portant in urban areas where extensive sewer sys-
tems include sewer lines along stream banks.
Our chemical testing network also measures phos-
phate and nitrate levels in given streams. These tests
are valuable because nonpoint source pollution is
difficult to get a handle on. Also, large rivers in the
coastal plain are plagued by algal blooms in the
summer, and a large part of the problem arises from
nutrient loading occurring in the Piedmont. Nutri-
ent loading is not only a rural, agricultural issue, but
also an urban and suburban one.
Stream Watch monitors perform biological as-
sessments as well as chemical tests. As mentioned,
some of these streams have very few species of
macroinvertebrates, but biological monitoring is
much less expensive and lends a living element to
monitoring. It also gives a much broader view of a
stream's health and works well in combination with
chemical monitoring. Many things can be wrong
with a stream that the four chemical tests will not
detect, but a biological test can give you an overall
statement of a stream's health.
There is another type of monitoring which I call
monitoring the obvious or simply noting the stream's
environment. Does the substrate consist of sand, silt
or gravel? Does the stream have a closed canopy?
What is the water temperature? Has it rained re-
cently? Is the stream flow high, low or average?
Does the stream appear to have a sediment problem?
Answers to these basic questions serve as a context
in which to read the chemical and biological tests,
and this information should always be included in a
reporting format.
Coliform testing is another area in which volun-
teers have expressed interest. There are inexpensive
tests that let you know if coliform is present, but
these do not really tell you much about the stream,
except to flag possible sewer line breaks or areas
where animal waste loads are heavy. Unfortunately,
most quantitative coliform tests involve heated wa-
ter baths which make them too expensive to be
practical for most groups.
There are other valuable water tests, which the
Stream Watch volunteers do not perform. Heavy
metal tests could be helpful for many urban streams.
Groups monitoring trout streams in the mountains
would value knowing the alkalinity or the buffering
capacity of their streams. Salinity is crucial in estu-
aries, but not important in freshwater areas.
Whenyou prioritize dataneeds, consider the streams
being monitored and what information is important
for the health of those waterways. Volunteers want to
make a difference, and it is up to us to determine what
data and applications will work best.
To determine what matters, consider how the
data will be used. Primarily, the data should inform
us that something is amiss and provide clues as to the
cause of the problem. Data collection should let the
monitor know the condition of the stream and
whether it is deteriorating, improving or not chang-
ing at all.
When a monitor encounters a problem on the
stream, it is much more helpful to report a dramatic
drop in pH or some other quantitative result, rather
than to merely say the stream smells funny. One of
our monitors was able to pinpoint a chemical spill
resulting in a fine for the culprit. Informed monitors
with knowledge of water quality get better results
with regulatory agencies.
With all this testing, volunteers are generating an
immense amount of data. If it just sits around in some
obscure databank or in a report on a dusty shelf, the
volunteer will lose interest. Our challenge is to make
volunteer-collected data useful to our regulatory agen-
cies. Most streams in North Carolina are monitored
44
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
once a year by the Division ofEnvironmental Manage-
ment (DEM). Our volunteers monitor twelve times a
year, so obviously we have more thorough informa-
tion on our monitored streams. We must present the
data to the DEM and win their confidence concerning
the quality of citizen monitoring efforts.
Towards this end, the Stream "Watch program
generates a report incorporating all data into a graph
format that indicates data-collection consistency as
well as demonstrates any fluctuations in water qual-
ity parameters.
Mary Sauls Kelly
Western North Carolina Alliance
written with William McLamey, consulting biologist
PUNNING AVOIDS PITFALLS
The principles for planning a volunteer monitor-
ing project and the types of data that will be
collected are very similar to planning any scientific
research project. In my portion of this workshop, I
hope to share some of my own experiences and
training as a scientist, researcher and teacher with
the Western North Carolina Alliance.
Successful scientists know that it is extremely
important to put as much thought and effort as
possible to planning for any research project, espe-
cially in determining the data objectives. Such plan-
ning can literally save years of expensive, time-
consuming data collection efforts from turning into
an unmanageable mess and/or a disappointing waste
of time. Successful volunteer monitoring projects
are like scientific research in that:
1. They must be designed to make sense of the
tremendous variation within natural and hu-
man-disturbed systems;
2. They must be able to produce consistent,
manageable data sets;
3. They should be tailored to suit the particular
needs of those who will be using the data to
make future decisions.
All this merits careful planning and regular as-
sessment. There are a large number of physical,
biological and chemical parameters that relate to the
quality of water and aquatic habitats, and the struc-
ture and function of aquatic ecosystems. Data could
be collected on any one or all of the different
parameters.The types of data you decide to collect
should depend on your group's overall purposes,
interests and the specific types of human-induced
alterations that are of concern. The data you collect
should address the questions you hope to answer,
and you can expect to accumulate lots of data. To be
useful, this data must be collected using consistent
methods.
Often, the most important objectives of volun-
teer monitoring projects are the education, involve-
ment and motivation of volunteers. Although the
types of data collected for monitoring purposes may
not need to be as rigorous or carefully designed as
those needed to scientifically test hypotheses, the
same basic principles can be used to avoid the same
types of pitfalls. No one wants to spend a lot of time
collecting data that turns out to be less than useful,
especially if a little planning ahead of time could
have avoided the problem.
When working with a variety of volunteers with
different skill levels, who are scattered across mul-
tiple watersheds, it is crucial that the types of data
you collect and your methods of data collection are
replicable. In a volunteer-based project, the types of
data you can collect in a replicable, consistent
manner may be limited unless you can invest a lot of
time in training volunteers. In terms of statistical
analysis and making decisions with your data, it is
usually more important for your volunteers to be
able to gather multiple replications of consistent
quality than it is to have a small number of highly
precise or accurate measurements. Gathering enough
consistent data is the only way to be able to make
useful, valid comparisons between sites, watersheds
and years.
Any scientific research or monitoring data collec-
tion effort must address the inherent variation in
measured parameters for both disturbed as well as
natural aquatic systems. Factors such as water tern-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
45
-------
peratures, stream flow rates, chemical concentra-
tions, densities and organism behaviors are naturally
going to be variable. In addition to natural variables,
your group will want to determine when and where
man-made peaks or sources of pollution, distur-
bance or alterations to biotic communities oc-
curred. The principles of statistics and sampling
theory are an attempt to allow one to sort out
whether the differences noted in physical, chemical
or biological parameters are within the normal or
natural range or whether they can be attributed to
some unusual event, man-made causes or progres-
sive trends over time.
When thinking about the kinds of data you want,
also keep in mind who you hope to influence with
your data. Most groups don't collect data just for
their own members. Useful data augments the ef-
forts of local, state or federal regulatory or monitor-
ing agencies. One of your data objectives should be
to produce a data set that measures the same or
similar parameters (chemicals, DO, species) and that
willbe of acceptable, consistent quality and useful to
the agency you want to influence. In our case, the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was already
committed to using biological monitoring and an
IBI approach for fish. However, we are still trying to
decide which of several macroinvertebrate sampling
techniques will provide us with the most useful
information.
"We collect data which quantifies existing prob-
lems due to poorly constructed roads, parking lots
and other urban runoff problems. WNCA also made
an effort to collect data on brook trout populations
when we learned that the state fish and wildlife
agency had an initiative to urge North Carolina's
Commission to upgrade any stream with brook
trout populations to a more protective classification.
WNCA decided to collect data on shoreline
recreationalopportunities(potentialboat access points)
because of interest from members and others in the
community and because there was an initiative to
identify possible greenways. Likewise, it proved
very useful to record observations on areas where
unfenced pastures were allowing cattle to erode
streambanks. This information, along with the land-
owners name, was given to the local office of the
Soil Conservation Service, which was looking for
farmers who would benefit from participating in a
new state cost-sharing program for streamside fenc-
ing.
Sometimes we find ourselves collecting data be-
cause no one else is doing it, and we hope through
our homegrown efforts to force additional funding
or programs. This can be an extremely important
data objective in cases where a group feels that an
agency is not collecting adequate monitoring data
because they (and you) know that monitoring would
likely cause them to have to shut down or modify
pollution sources. In this case the overall quality or
consistency of your data may be less important than
being able to obtain samples which address the
problem. For example, a series of carefully docu-
mented daily photographs of an ugly, ongoing oil
slick, when waved in front of the press, local gov-
ernment or agency officials may be a far more
effective data set than an expensive, one-time chemical
analysis.
If you are planning a water monitoring project
and are not experienced in principles of statistics,
experimental design and aquatic science, seek the
assistance of water quality experts, aquatic ecolo-
gists, regulatory agencies and others. Even if you feel
you or someone in your group has expertise and
your data collection plans are basically good, it never
hurts to consult with others doing similar work.
Scientists call this peer review, and it is considered
a vital and necessary part of developing and revising
a research proposal. Consider it friendly criticism
that can save you years of work, help you coordinate
your efforts with those doing similar work, and help
you avoid mistakes that others have learned the hard
way.
Some volunteer monitoring networks may be
fortunate enough to be able to collect state-of-the-
art, high quality data suitable for making some
serious decisions (such as regulatory enforcement).
But more often, volunteer monitoring works best as
a flagging technique, to identify and bring needed
attention to problem areas. In most cases, govern-
ment agencies will have to be brought in to replicate
46
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
or confirm volunteer network findings. But volun-
teer networks and the data they collect can play a
vital role in helping to gauge priorities and keep the
pressure on for cleaner streams, rivers and lakes. For
these reasons, volunteer network planners should
think long and hard about the tradeoffs between
trying to collect top-notch data versus being able to
collect poorer quality data, but using a larger num-
ber of sites and volunteers.
As part of this workshop, we were asked to discuss
the pros and cons of biological and chemical moni-
toring. I have to admit that when it comes to
monitoring stream and river ecosystems, we are
strongly biased towards biological monitoring. First,
our project was envisioned and implemented by an
aquatic biologist. Chemists may feel differently, but
biomonitoring tends to be much more fun to carry
out. It's the basic differences between collecting a
netful of diverse, squirming, living critters versus a
sample bottle full of water. Most lay people find the
results of biomonitoring to be more meaningful,
intuitive and inspiring. Another advantage (espe-
cially if you can find some low-cost biologists to
identify samples) is that biomonitoring tends to be
less expensive. After an initial out-lay for basic
collection equipment such as nets, buckets and
electro-shockers (for fish), data collection and analysis
expenses can be minimal. One possible disadvantage
(but this applies to chemical data as well) is that it
usually requires at least one biologist to make sense
of your data.
Many aquatic ecologists are increasingly recog-
nizing that the presence/absence and relative abun-
dance of different groups of organisms can be a far
more sensitive and integrative indicator of water
quality than chemical monitoring. This is the basic
principle behind methods such as Index of Biologi-
cal Integrity (IBI), which we used in our studies.
Biomonitoring enables us to gauge the overall health
of a stream over a relatively long period of time. It
has become fairly well established that different
groups of organisms have different levels of sensitiv-
ity to pollutants, temperature changes, sedimenta-
tion, etc. Also, many organisms have life cycles of
one to several years. Therefore, the presence, ab-
sence or abundance of different groups not only
indicates what the current water and habitat quality
is like, but also whether there were any problems in
the past. A healthy, diverse collection of aquatic fish
and insects at a site indicates that water quality must
have been reasonably good at that site for at least as
long as it took those organisms to be born and live
to their current ages.
Contrast this with a sample of water chemistry:
you may or may not catch the offending pollutant in
your sample. If you sample on Monday, the slug of
pollution that was released on Sunday is likely to be
long gone, washed downstream. Biological com-
munities are affected by all factors that affect habitat
quality, and this does not allow for determining one
aspect of water chemistry. Chemical monitoring,
however, is very useful as follow-up.
Jeffrey Schloss
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
SELECTING OBJECTIVES FOR A
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM
So, you have an eager group ready to go out and
start sampling. Before you grab your equipment and
head out the door, make certain you've taken the
time to consider what you want to accomplish.
What are the appropriate procedures needed?
Are the necessary resources available? Will the
sampling frequency allow you to attain the level of
information about your study area adequate to meet
your participants expectations and the data users'
needs? These are just some of the many consider-
ations involved in developing a successful monitor-
ing program.
There are many model citizen monitoring pro-
grams to emulate as well as many proven techniques
and protocols for volunteer assessment. However,
unless your monitoring program is meeting the
decided objectives of your participants and coopera-
tors, the program will not attain its true potential.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
47
-------
Careful consideration must be given to the who,
what, why and hows of volunteer monitoring to be
successful. In this paper, I will take a general ap-
proach to deciding data objectives based on my
experience coordinating a long-term volunteer lake
monitoring program and assisting in the develop-
ment of estuary, river and stream monitoring pro-
grams.
The process should start with a meeting of the
potential cooperators: volunteers, educators, agency
personnel and decision-makers. While certain groups
may not have direct participation in the program, if
they will use the data they should be queried on their
needs. You will not be able to satisfy everyoneno
program, will but you will have a greater insight
into potential goals you may set for your program.
DETERMINING YOUR PROCEDURES
With your goals clearly defined, it is now time to
determine the procedures that will best meet your
objectives. Important considerations for volunteer
program methods include safety, cost and complex-
ity. The challenge to volunteer monitoring pro-
grams is to develop cost-effective field sampling
procedures that will produce acceptable and infor-
mative data. More specific questions often need to
be asked dependent upon your particular scenario.
If you will be working with historical records, are
the procedures chosen consistent with the historical
data or convertible for comparison? If you want
your data to be used by resource agencies, does it
meet their requirements? In this case, the same
procedures do not necessarily need to be used if you
can show that your procedures are comparable or
convertible, and you utilize adequate quality con-
trol/quality assurance. On the other hand, your
procedures do not need to be as rigorous if your
objective is to perform a screening or preliminary
assessment from which your local or state agencies
will follow up with more intensive sampling.
Would it be beneficial to use the same protocols
as other nearby or regional volunteer programs, or
do your specific needs and situation warrant differ-
ent procedures? Take all the particulars into account
and be sure the procedures you choose match your
program goals, available funding, available expertise
(for guidance, assistance and training), and the re-
gional character of the natural resource you moni-
tor.
Testing procedures can generally be broken down
into four categories: physical, chemical, biological
and observational. Generally, programs use a com-
bination of procedures that complement each other.
Physical sampling methods tend to be inexpen-
sive and are generally less complex. Some physical
measurements are frequently overlooked as they
may only provide supplementary information, but
this information may be very important to a group
of data users. For example, the temperature moni-
tored throughout an estuary on a timely basis may
assist researchers in their understanding of the mi-
gration patterns of important fish species. Tempera-
ture changes in a stream documented after forest
clearing can illustrate the importance of shade cover.
Many lake programs use temperature profiles to
determine the depths that water samples will be
drawn from. Lake, pond, river, stream and estuary
programs often require temperature data in con-
junction with oxygen measurements to obtain in-
formation on the level of oxygen saturation of the
waters. This parameter is much more informative
than dissolved oxygen levels alone. *
Chemical methods have been the most popular in
the past for many reasons. Most regulatory agencies
set water quality guidelines according to chemical
concentration levels. Chemical procedures have
been standardized and well documented. Test kits
and equipment are, for the most part, readily avail-
able. On the down side, analysis equipment may be
expensive and complex. More importantly, current
methods are often impractical for volunteer moni-
toring programs when specific preservation meth-
ods or limited holding times are involved. Recently,
some volunteer monitoring groups have shown less
formal and stringent procedures still provide useful
data. Here again, quality control and assurance
procedures are important to document.
The other concern with chemical measurements
is that they represent conditions at the time of
sampling that might not be indicative or consistent
48
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
with the actual water quality conditions. This may
occur because of various interactive biochemical
activities that cause daily cycles. On a sunny day,
photosynthesis by algae in the water may cause an
increase in oxygen and pH until evening when plant
respiration causes a decline in both factors.
More recently, many volunteer groups have turned
to the monitoring of living organisms as bio-indica-
tors of environmental quality. Some species or
groups of aquatic organisms have been found to be
more tolerant than others to various forms of pollu-
tion. Also, for most situations, the more diverse a
particular aquatic community is, the healthier it is.
In addition, these organisms tend to integrate the
water quality conditions occurring through a longer
time period than most chemical monitoring tech-
niques; chemical analysis of water a few days after a
pollution event may not indicate any problem, but
the presence of only pollution tolerant critters or no
life at all will certainly raise suspicions.
The most popular organisms to sample are the
benthic macroinvertebrates, mostly aquatic insect
larvae, that spend a good part of their life cycle at the
bottom oflakes, rivers, streams and estuaries. Stream
monitoring programs have taken the lead with a
variety of standardized sampling procedures and
interpretive indices, from the simple to the com-
plex, that relate type and numbers of organisms
collected to the water and habitat quality. Estuary
groups are currently working on developing inver-
tebrate indices although this will be very challenging
due to the dynamic nature of these systems (a wide
range of salinities, temperatures and tidal cycles).
More common to estuary and wetland monitor-
ing groups are bird surveys. Here again, the type of
birds can be indicative of the habitat quality. For
lakes, we are currently investigating the use offish
condition (length to weight relationships) and growth
information collected by examining the fish scale
growth rings. Preliminary results are very promis-
ing. Fish and birds rely on the intricate food web
structure of the monitored resource as well as habitat
conditions. Any perturbations in the system should
create repercussions that can be measured by popu-
lation condition, structure and size.
As with the other forms of monitoring, bio-
indicator sampling has its limitations. The results of
certain indices may be misleading or inappropriate
for the particular study area or region. Many sites
along the same stream may not be comparable due
to changing bottom type and other factors (some
programs try to get around this by setting their own
rock baskets into a stream to bracket an area of
concern). In addition, the cause of the problem is
often not apparent from bio-indicator monitoring.
Also of concern is that certain state and federal
agencies might not readily accept these data and
favor chemical monitoring results.
While observational monitoring may not offer
the excitement of collection and analysis, many
programs have had success in locating problem
areas, identifying offending land uses and influenc-
ing improved legislation and behavioral change.
Documenting the types of litter on our beaches,
reporting construction sites in violation of sediment
control regulations and providing photo-documen-
tation of pollution can be a real eye opener to
decision-makers. Watershed walks and similar re-
source investigation/inventory programs can be.
instrumental in locating those areas your monitor-
ing group should study further.
CONSIDERING SAMPLING SITE LOCATIONS
Along with your procedures, careful thought
must be given to sampling site locations. Again, your
data objectives come into play. Consider the pos-
sible objectives of a volunteer lake monitoring
program. If you want to conduct an assessment of
the overall character of a lake you might choose to
sample over the deepest waters. If your monitoring
concerns involve detection of problem areas within
or around a lake, you need to sample more sites such
as shallow basins, coves or other areas where impacts
might be occurring (recreational areas, beaches,
marinas and developments). Besides shoreline and
shallow water sampling, tributaries are important to
monitor to detect impacts from the surrounding
watershed. If a tributary is found to be suspect, the
next step would be to determine the source or
sources of the problem.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
49
-------
Estuary, wetland, river and streamprograms need
to address similar questions. For most new programs
the task can be simplified. Unless there are known
problem areas, the general approach would be to
start with a basic program that assesses the quality of
the resource. If a poor situation or decline is de-
tected, move to the next level of sampling to
determine the problem and the areas of impact. The
next step is to consider possible solutions and in-
volve your local or state agency for assistance in
addressing the problem.
HOW FREQUENTLY SHOULD YOU SAMPLE?
With the procedures and locations chosen you
are still left with another important set of consider-
ations involving sampling intervals and frequency.
Do you sample your estuary site during high tide,
low tide or both? If your resources are limited,
should you sample your river during low flow or
high flow occasions? What about storm sampling?
Do you conduct your shoreline survey in the fall
when the leaves are down and you can see land use
easier or do you do it late summer when algae and
emergent plant growth are at their maximum? How
much sampling is necessary to detect significant
changes? There are no easy answers to these ques-
tions and your final decision will often be con-
strained by your finances, volunteer availability and
your data analysis capabilities.
Abasic understanding of the typical daily, weekly,
seasonal and annual cycles that occur within your
study system for the parameters you are measuring
is integral in determining sample timing and fre-
quency. If your data objective is to measure impacts,
you may only have to sample before and after a
storm event or a certain activity of concern. Re-
source inventories and surveys, educational or supple-
mental programs to existing monitoring operations
will also have more straightforward considerations.
Baseline condition and long-term trend analysis
programs need to have frequent sampling to discern
the true-trend signal from the interference caused
by external factors that include climate changes,
storm events, tidal fluctuations, water table fluctua-
tions and short-term impacts. Some other important
factors to consider are water withdrawal and draw-
down schedules, migrations, stocking occurrences
and recreational use patterns.
FINAL COMMENTS
The intent of this review was to examine the
process for which to design a successful monitoring
program. The process seems to be complex, but
remember that this discussion attempts to cover
some kke, stream, river, estuary, wetland and coastal
monitoring situations. While certain considerations
will be universal to all programs, many can be
narrowed down for your particular program objec-
tives. The questions posed are in no way complete,
but it is hoped that they provide a good foundation
to build on. Volunteer monitoring programs across
the country are gaining recognition and acceptance.
The key to your program's success lies in deciding
what your objectives are and choosing the appropri-
ate procedures, sampling sites and sampling schedule
for your available resources that will provide the
proper information to accomplish your goals.
50
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
DEVELOPING A NATIONAL COASTAL
DATABASE
Janet Pawlukiewicz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Virginia Tipple
Coastal America
Norm Edwards
Coastal America
A COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE
AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
The Coastal America Partnership recognizes that there
is no simple way to find out which government
agencies are doing what in the coastal environment.
No single coastal information system or clearinghouse
(for data and education/information materials) exists.
Coastal America believes that a needed service can be
provided by developing a comprehensive coastal refer-
ence and retrieval system (Coastal R & R).
To explore the concept of a user-friendly coastal
reference and retrieval system for citizen monitors
and the general public, several interactive work-
shops were held at the Third National Citizens'
Volunteer Monitoring Conference. Participants were
asked to respond to the following questions:
Who will use the system?
Where will the system be used?
What should be included in the system?
0 What other issues need to be addressed?
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Coastal America partners presented the con-
cept of the coastal information reference and re-
trieval system which includes the following:
Goals
Simplify public and government access to coastal
data sources and information materials.
Stimulate interest in the coastal environ-
ment.
Encourage people to take action.
Objective
Through one source, provide accurate, clear
coastal information materials and/or com-
plete referrals.
Plan of Action for 1992 - 1993
Gather materials and referral information to
build the Coastal R & R information system
database.
Determine what information should be in-
cluded.
Determine appropriate user communities and
their needs.
Determine computer technology most ap-
propriate to user needs.
Pilot test the Coastal R & R system.
Develop marketing and training strategies.
Develop public-private partnerships to help
minimize the costs to the government and the
public for distribution of the system, necessary
equipment/software and training for users.
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Those who participated in the workshop felt that a
need existed for a coastal environmental reference and
retrieval system. There also was agreement that users
have differing needs and knowledge levels. Users also
differ in access to and knowledge of computers. For
these reasons, it was suggested that the system should be
very user-friendly, with easy access from public pkces
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
51
-------
(libraries, town halls, nature centers) and available to
government agencies, schools and universities, re-
searchers and the private sector.
Potential users were identified as educators, the
general public, state and local government units,
researchers, planners, the private sector and federal
agencies with coastal resource management and
development responsibilities.
There were also some specific issues raised during
the workshops that need to be further explored,
such as methods for marketing and distributing the
system to users, updating information contained in
the system, training users on the system and deter-
mining equipment costs. It was suggested that the
Agricultural Extension Service, Marine Advisory
Service and the National Science Teachers Associa-
tion could help with distribution and training.
STATUS
A coastal reference and retrieval ad hoc group has
been established to coordinate the effort. They will
assess existing information systems to determine
their applicability to the identified needs. Although
it is CD-ROM based rather than an on-line system,
the EPA Educational Clearinghouse appears to have
the ability to serve some of the identified potential
users of Coastal R & R, particularly the education
community. Coastal America will continue to re-
view EPA's work and may use the Clearinghouse to
accomplish part or all of the Coastal R & R system
purpose. Other information system options will
continue to be explored.
The Coastal America partners are currently re-
viewing their agencies' materials to decide what
information and/or data they wish to provide.
The ad hoc group is concurrently determining
what information to include from other sources. In
addition, work has begun on the potential for
developing a public/private partnership to mini-
mize the costs of equipment, use, training and
distribution.
52
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
VOLUNTEER MONITORING NEWSLETTER
Eleanor Ely
Editor, The Volunteer Monitor
PART I. PRESENTATION, NEWSLETTER HISTORY
AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. History
The idea for a national newsletter came out of the
first national conference for volunteer monitors,
held in Rhode Island in 1988. Conference partici-
pants recognized the need for a networking tool. It
was felt that one group should not take on the
newsletter project; instead, it should rotate among
monitoring groups so that different points of view
would be represented.
First Issue: Fall 1989 (vol. 1, no. 1): Produced as
a one-time project by the Alliance for the Chesa-
peake Bay, with funding from EPA. All articles
written by Alliance staff. Included an overview of
many different kinds of monitoring programs around
the country and a resource listing.
Fall 1990 (vol. 2, no.l): Published by Adopt-A-
Beach in Seattle, "Washington (edited by Eleanor Ely
as subcontractor). Again a one-time project, funded
by EPA. In response to suggestions made at second
national conference Pec. 1989, New Orleans), the
following changes were made: Newsletter printed
on recycled paper; emphasis on practical, hands-on
information and technical tips; articles written by
people from different programs (to create more of an
information exchange).
Fall 1991 (vol. 3, no.l): Start of new ongoing
arrangement: permanent editor, permanent edito-
rial board (representing a variety of types of moni-
toring and geographical areas), and different moni-
toring groups serving as rotating co-editors for each
issue. This structure gave the newsletter some stabil-
ity and continuity while still allowing for different
perspectives to be represented. Newsletter to be
published twice per year with ongoing funding from
EPA.
Co-editors for Fall 1991: Virginia Lee of Salt
Pond Watchers (RI) and Meg Kerr of Pviver
Rescue (RI)
First issue with a theme (Biological Monitor-
ing)
Spring 1992 (vol. 4, no. 1)
Co-editors: Adopt-A-Stream in Washington
Theme: Monitoring for Advocacy
Future: Fall 1992 (vol. 4, no. 2)
Co-editors: Massachusetts Water Watch Part-
nership
Theme: Building Credibility
B. Audience for Newsletter
Volunteer program managers; volunteer staff of
state and federal water quality and environmental
agencies; environmental preservation and advocacy
groups; researchers and consultants.
C. Distribution
Print run of 10,000 for all issues through fall 1991;
projected print run for spring 1992 of 15,000. Two-
tiered distribution strategy:
1. Mailing list (about 4,000 names for fall 1991;
will be between 7,000 and 8,000 for spring
1992). People on mailing list receive indi-
vidual copies via bulk mailing. Preferable
not to have individual volunteers on this list
(too hard to keep up to date and too many
names).
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
53
-------
2. Batches for redistribution. Groups order large
batches (often several hundred) for redistri-
bution to their volunteers and others on their
ownmailinglists. Groupspayshippingcharges.
Possibility for future: Ask groups who want
100 or more copies to buy into the print run.
D. Newsletter Purposes and Goals
Facilitate the exchange of information
Keep readers up to date on techniques and
methods;
Emphasize practical information and a how-
to format;
List useful resources (books, manuals, videos)
along with complete ordering information.
Serve as a networking tool
Keep readers up to date on what other volun-
teer monitoring groups are doing;
Provide contact names, addresses, and phone
numbers for programs mentioned in articles.
Represent the diversity and scope of monitoring
programs
Maintain a nationwide focus;
Include articles by and about a variety of groups
and activities (different kinds of water bodies,
sizes of programs, types of monitoring).
Provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and
opinions.
PART II. DISCUSSION
The following is a brief summary of the discus-
sion that took place following the presentation.
Evaluation of newsletter content, tone and
audience. Participants reported that they find
the newsletter very useful, like the format
and have found the tone appropriate for
various audiences, including high school stu-
dents.
2. Newsletter distribution.
a. The consensus was that the newsletter
needs to reach more non-East Coast
people, particularly people in the Gulf
states and the Midwest. People from
under-represented areas will send sug-
gested additions for the mailing list to the
editor. Also, attendees will advertise the
availability of The Volunteer Monitor in
their own newsletters.
b. Participants liked the idea of asking people
who want 100 or more copies to buy into
the print run. Cost will be about $15 per
100, which everyone thought was rea-
sonable. This will allow more copies to
be printed and distributed without re-
quiring additional outside funding.
3. Frequency of publication. The consensus
was to aim for four issues per year. Tenta-
tively, try for three issues in 1993 and four in
1994 (if there is sufficient funding, time and
material to be published).
4. Future themes. Working with Schools was
chosen as the theme for spring 1993. Funding
was also a popular idea for a future theme.
54
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean "Water
-------
Day 2: Forming Private Partnerships
OPENING REMARKS
Virginia IK. Tipple
Director, Coastal America
Good Morning. It is a pleasure to be here today
for the Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water
Monitoring Conference. Your goals and objectives
are near and dear to my heart for I have been
committed to citizen coastal monitoring programs
throughout my career.
I know from my own professional experience in
Rhode Island and the Chesapeake Bay that a well-
designed volunteer program can significantly augment
our monitoring efforts. More importantly, citizen
monitoring efforts frequently provide an early warning
signal of problems. Volunteer monitoring stations tend
to be closer to shore and the sources of pollution, and
can be sampled when unusual events occur, such as
major storms or midnight dumps. It is clear that citizens
must play a major role in the assessment and monitor-
ing of our nation's waters.
The challenge we face is how to work together to
achieve our common goal of restoring and protect-
ing our nation's waters. Partnerships for action, or
paralysis and inaction; coalitions or collisions. These
phrases essentially characterize the struggle we face.
If we have the will and imagination to create
positive partnerships and constructive coalitions, we
can avoid the paralyses of inaction and/or destruc-
tive collisions. It is therefore very appropriate that
your theme for this year's conference is building
partnerships and learning how we can work to-
gether to assess, monitor and restore our nation's
waters. This morning, I would like to discuss the
importance of citizen volunteers in all aspects of a
water resource program and then discuss some ideas
for building partnerships.
VOLUNTEERS AND WATER RESOURCE PROGRAMS
In my mind, there are three major components to
an effective resource program:
1. Research studies to assess environmental prob-
lems and determine cause and effect;
2. Monitoring programs to document the status
and evaluate trends in environmental health;
3. Management actions and individual initia-
tives to restore environmental quality.
This three-step approach to water resource man-
agement is a logical, rational way to deal with the
immense water quality problems facing us now and
in the future. The only problem is this is not a
rational world. It is a world constrained by political
reality, economic forces and societal attitudes. For
this reason, citizen involvement in all aspects of a
water-resource program becomes very important. It
is a concerned citizenry that changes political posi-
tions, economic factors and societal attitudes.
The biggest challenge ahead in environmental
research is determining cause and effect in an eco-
system context. To meet this challenge, we need to
increase our environmental effects research and
improve our understanding of ecological integrity.
We need to do the kind of research that clarifies the
ecological mechanisms controlling cause-effect re-
lationships. Citizen monitoring programs can often
provide the missing link that enables us to determine
cause-effect. It was data collected by citizens that
helped to make the case of the DDT eggshell linkage.
On the coastal front, the Rhode Island Salt Pond
Watchers have provided university researchers with
invaluable data which has significantly improved
our understanding of the ecology of the ponds. In
fact, I recall from my University of Rhode Island
days, a five-year interdisciplinary study of the Salt
Ponds in which volunteer data were used to docu-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
55
-------
ment macro-algal blooms, determine fish catch per
unit effort and assess the waterfowl population.
Citizens have also provided invaluable research
information on unusual events. In the Chesapeake,
citizen monitors were able to capture the effects of
Hurricane Gloria and Tropical Storm Juan on the
suspended sediment levels of the James River. I was
technical director of the EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program at the time, and as a marine geologist who
specialized in sediment transport problems, I was
excited by the data. A three-dimensional plot of the
secchi disk data from Richmond to Virginia Beach
over the period from August 17 to November 20,
1985 showed the pulse effect of these two major
storm events. As a scientist from Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences said, "If a picture is worth a thou-
sand words, then this plot is worth ten thousand
numbers."
With regard to monitoring, the key question is
how do we measure the effectiveness of our man-
agement programs. As a scientist, I believe we need
a comprehensive monitoring system that tracks the
status and trends in water quality and evaluates the
ecological response. We need a system that can give
a clear, irrefutable signal of any impending threats in
time to begin the often lengthy process of respond-
ing to those threats. We need to identify easily
measurable ecological indicators. In other words, is
there an equivalent to the miner's yellow canary for
clean water to give us the advance notice necessary
to take action? Needless to say, volunteer monitor-
ing programs can significantly augment the long-
term data sets that help us identify hot spots and
detect trends which can provide important early
warning signals.
The National Weather Service can attest to the
critical importance of a citizens' monitoring pro-
gram with 11,500 volunteers nationwide and over
100 years of experience. This program has provided
time-critical information to forecasters regarding
the development of severe storm events such as
tornadoes and hurricanes. These volunteer weather
men and women have saved lives! They have also
provided the long-term climatological database that
is helping us monitor climate change.
56
On the waterfront, Save Our Streams (SOS) has
been collecting water-quality data since 1970 in
various states. The data sets collected by SOS projects
in selected streams have been useful in assessing the
impact of management actions and in educating
local communities on what they can do to save their
streams. This, in turn, has helped change public
attitudes towards the creeks and streams that are the
life blood of this country.
Volunteer monitoring programs, such as the
watchdog operations of the River Bay Keepers and
the clean-up efforts of the Adopt-a-Beach or river
programs, can really have an impact on manage-
ment, which is the third component of a water
resource program. I was talking to the San Francisco
Bay Keeper the other day and was pleased to find
that there are now seven keeper programs. I was also
impressed that the San Francisco Bay Keeper pro-
gram uncovered a significant case of illegal midnight
dredging which resulted in a $200,000 fine. When
watchdog efforts like this result in major fines, it
sends a strong signal to industry.
However, cleaning up our nation's waters will
take more than enforcement actions against current
violators. We need to address the sins of our past
which come back to haunt us as debris along our
shores. The National Coastal Clean-up effort of the
Center for Marine Conservation is a good example
of an action-oriented effort that addresses this prob-
lem. With more than 100,000 volunteers in 32 states
and 12 foreign countries, they pick up a tremendous
amount of trash and remove it from the system. The
tallied information also helps us evaluate the effec-
tiveness of our management actions and educational
efforts. Although some beach areas are improving,
we're still finding that over 60 percent of the debris
found during beach cleanups is plastic, even though
the MARPOL international agreement banned the
dumping of plastics.
BUILDING AND EXPANDING OUR PARTNERSHIPS
These examples are only a few of the many
volunteer monitoring success stories that have made
a difference. The challenge we face in the future is
how to better link these efforts internally with one
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
another and externally with government agencies
and the private sector. In other words, our challenge
is to do a better job of building and expanding
partnerships. The key is to network internally and
reach out externally - simple concepts but rather
difficult to implement.
Internally: The various volunteer monitoring
groups need to share and exchange information on
a regular basis. Conferences such as this one are
important, as is the national volunteer monitoring
newsletter, The Volunteer Monitor. I also hope you
will move forward with the concept of establishing
a national volunteer monitoring society. The for-
mation of such an alliance will give you a greater
voice. In addition, a national shared data system
which is user friendly would empower citizen groups.
As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. Just
imagine the impact of a state of the coast report that
really discussed the health of the system and tracked
our management actions at all levels.
Externally: We need to reach out and create
partnerships between citizen groups, government
agencies and the private sector. Throughout the
country we're seeing strange bedfellows joining
forces to accomplish specific tasks in the environ-
ment. I am most familiar with two very positive
efforts, the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Shoreline
Protection Project in Texas and the Florida Marine
Resource Council Program.
The Aransas project has involved approximately
1,000 volunteers working to stabilize the shoreline
and restore the habitat of the endangered whooping
crane along the Gulf Intracoastal waterway. Partners
include CONOCO, marine barge companies, con-
servation groups and federal/state agencies. What a
team! In fact, the project was chosen national win-
ner of the President's Take Pride in America Award.
The Florida Marine Resources Council (MRG)
forged an exciting partnership between govern-
ment, businesses and civic groups to manage the
economic and environmental values of the Indian
River. In recognition of its effort, MRC received
one of the President's 1991 Environment and Con-
servation Challenge Awards. We need to continue
to encourage partnership efforts through such rec-
ognition. In fact, I would like to see the proposed
national volunteer monitoring alliance establish its
own national recognition award for partnership
efforts.
We are often thwarted in our efforts to create
partnerships by the myriad of dis-integrated envi-
ronmental programs. We have a lot of different
agencies and groups mucking around in the same
mud. It is apparent that the complexity of water-
quality problems is only matched by the complexity
of the legislative mandates that direct our national
response to those problems.
One effort to better integrate our programs and
cut through the red tape of bureaucracy is a new
Presidential Initiative called Coastal America. This
program is a partnership of the federal agencies with
management responsibilities in the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration, the Corps of Engineers
and the Department of the Interior. By leveraging
expertise, funding and statutory authorities, the
administration is beginning to mount an attack on
the problems of coastal pollution and habitat loss.
We are creating partnerships for action or coalitions
that prevent collisions and the paralysis of inaction.
Projects are shovel-in-the-ground, action-ori-
ented management efforts with a minimum of three
federal agencies and a state/local agency and/or
non-governmental organizations. The private sec-
tor participation has been significant; our projects
this year have over 50 percent match. Projects must
also have a citizen education and monitoring com-
ponent. Your organizations could help, so please
send us your ideas and join our effort.
In summary, each and every one of us can make
a difference, but only if we pull together and create
a strong alliance for the stewardship of our nation's
waters. As partners caring for our environment,
government, the private sector and citizens can and
will preserve, protect and manage our precious
water resources for countless future generations.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
57
-------
PARTNERSHIPS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Panelists: Valerie Fans Kruger, Grand River Expedition
'90; Patrick Reese, Friends of the Fox River; and Tmga Adams
and Chani Gilfeather, Colorado River Watch Network.
Valerie Fons Kruger
Grand River Expedition'90
PARTNERSHIPS FOR WATER QUALITY
Grand River Expedition '90 is a 501(C)(3) non-
profit organization dedicated to river study, cleanup,
protection and environmental education in the Grand
River Watershed of Michigan. The organization be-
gan in 1989 with the intent of producing a highly
visible, structured river study and journey of discovery
to explore and document the values, problems and
opportunities of the Grand River and its 5,570-square-
mfle watershed.
In August 1990, a multi-disciplinary team of 120
peopleincludingscientists, technicians, historians, edu-
cators, students, agriculture and natural resource pro-
fessionals, industry representatives, leaders in civic
organizations, associations, employees and volunteers
of local, state and federal government, native Ameri-
cans and other ethnic/cultural representatives, writers,
video/film specialists and private citizens, paddled the
240-mile length of Michigan's longest river. Leader-
ship for the expedition was provided by Valerie and
Verlen Kruger. Each of the 55 canoe teams conducted
individual or agency studies in one of four areas:
environment, history, recreation and education. From
these studies, team members created over 40 interac-
tive displays and demonstrations to present as a travel-
ing riverfest to people along the route and to commu-
nities who hosted the expedition at scheduled noon
meals and evening camping spots.
Grand River Expedition'90 was successful in con-
58
tributing knowledge, appreciation and awareness of
responsibility for the Grand River, which has con-
nected communities across the Water Wonderland
State throughout history and will continue to do so
into the future.
The goals of the expedition were as follows:
1. Create a database on the present condition
and past history of the river.
2. Identify issues that relate to knowledge of the
river resource, including river conservation
measures that respond to local needs and
problems.
3. Foster public awareness of the river and the
watershed concept including river responsi-
bility.
4. Increase knowledge and appreciation of the
river.
5. Build partnerships in business, government,
education and public involvement in river
use and water quality.
6. Serve as a springboard for further watershed
studies influencing future projects, including
river cleanup and watershed management,
and serve as a model for other river projects
throughout the nation.
Grand River Expedition'90 reached and ex-
ceeded these stated objectives. Due to the efforts of
expedition members, in the two years following the
river expedition citizen sub-watershed groups formed
on each of the Grand River Tributaries. Individual
and agency displays, workshops and lectures created
from the river experience were presented through-
out the watershed at symposiums, river festivals and
special programs. Grand River Expedition'90 be-
came an umbrella organization for Beautification
'91, an extensive river cleanup sponsored by Gen-
eral Motors/UAW Jobs Bank Program, which al-
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
lowed 50 General Motors employees to work for
two months cleaning the Grand River.
In 1991, Grand River Expedition'90 won the
State of Michigan Award in the Take Pride In
America campaign. In 1992, an Expedition '90
member organized the Grand River Project in the
upper watershed. This 27-member group, includ-
ing Consumers Power and the County and City of
Jackson, is presently working on a canoe trail sys-
tem, interschool database, a Grand River Park and
Native American Learning Center. Grand River
Expedition has become a resource group with voice
and action in watershed management, and a model
for river programs throughout the nation.
Since the founding of Grand River Expedition
'90, our strong points have been thinking big;
promoting an attitude of inclusion, encouragement
and working together; avoiding blame placing for
problems discovered; and sharing the excitement of
adventure and actual river experience to promote
and protect water resources.
When Grand River Expedition '90 got people into
the river, lives were changed. We took a step beyond
forming partnerships and found ourselves building
relationships. As our lives changed in relation to the
river and one another, we began to see that it takes
more than water to make the river grand. It takes
everybody working hand in hand. Our motivation is
fueled by the ever-flowing river that we have come to
know and love, and the changes we have seen take
place due to our efforts and work together. Grand
River Expedition '90 made a huge difference and
served as a catalyst for individual and agency commit-
ment to major watershed activities.
Patrick Reese
Friends of the Fox River, Inc.
STARTING A STREAM
MONITORING NETWORK
The Friends Stream Monitoring Network is an
environmental education and citizen action pro-
gram based on an easy-to-learn biological water
quality monitoring activity. Teachers, leaders of
youth groups, and others are trained at workshops to
adopt-a-riffle with their students and provide scien-
tific water quality data.
The monitoring activity is incorporated into
existing environmental studies in grades four through
12, similar to a Project Wild activity. Additionally,
teachers have the option of involving their students
in a more comprehensive curriculum which can be
adapted to any grade level.
Starting a volunteer water monitoring network
can be simple, rewarding and inexpensive for a
membership-based conservation organization. You'll
find that in providing structure for a program, a lot
of exciting and committed people will become
involved. To launch a program, you'll need an
experienced leader with the time and commitment
to pull all the essential organizational elements
together. Next you'll need to recruit a network
coordinator, adopt a technical reference manual,
and bring together an advisory committee of re-
source people who can volunteer the expertise
needed to help design, administer and fund a pro-
gram.
In our case, we based our program on a technical
reference which is modeled after the Izaak Walton
League of America's Save Our Streams Program,
entitled Citizen Stream Monitoring: A Manual For
Illinois. This manual is a complete and easy to
understand curriculum on the ecology and moni-
toring of streams.
We recruited the regional superintendent of schools
to fund training workshops, assist with printing and
help conduct mailings. EPA scientists, university
professors, teachers, naturalists and others volun-
teered time to conduct workshops, order and dis-
tribute equipment, map riffles, maintain a comput-
erized database, and publish a newsletter.
It's an added benefit when advisory committee
members have the support of their employers or are
in a position to allocate some of their resources and
work time to the program. In the future, growth of
the network may require funding a paid coordina-
tor.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
59
-------
We began this program in July 1990. Today, 123
classrooms and eight citizen groups have adopted
riffles and are monitoring the 195-mile Fox River
system in "Wisconsin and Illinois.
We hold basin-wide training workshops twice per
year. In the morning session, participants receive
classroom instruction and learn about watersheds,
water cycles, stream ecology, Fox River issues, pollu-
tionsources and causes, best managementpractices, the
biological monitoring activity and citizen action op-
portunities. In the afternoon, participants receive hands-
on, in-stream training in benthic macroinvertebrate
identification and the biological monitoring proce-
dure. They learn how to chart a Stream Monitoring
Assessment Form for a water quality rating.
Teachers and citizens who want to join the
network submit a Planning and Needs Assessment
Sheet with a Letter of Agreement, co-signed by
their principal or supervisor. The Friend's Fox
River Education Advisory Committee then selects
those most qualified to join the network.
The Friends agree to supply monitoring groups
with materials and equipment on a permanent on-
loan basis. These supplies are donated and include:
a program manual, an educational poster with basin
map and historical time-line, a video documenting
pollution sources and causes, a training video illus-
trating the biological monitoring procedure and
benthic macroinvertebrate identification, a techni-
cal reference manual, netting material, and speci-
men boxes with magnifier lids.
Selected groups agree to construct collection
nets, provide transportation to the streamsite, monitor
their adopted riffle four to six times per year (the
same riffle can be monitored by more than one
group at different times to achieve this standard),
submit water quality data, and select four students to
attend the annual Student Congress.
Teachers welcome the opportunity for training
because they often lack the background, curriculum or
materials necessary to teach about local environmental
issues. The Friends give teachers the opportunity to
share newly acquired environmental knowledge and
teaching skills with their students. Students love the
program because its builds self esteem. They realize
they are citizens too and part of a larger team conduct-
ing real world research vital to protecting and restoring
a polluted and endangered river system.
Each spring, students and their teachers come
together at an annual Student Congress to identify
water quality problems, share data, attend skill-
building workshops and develop an action agenda
for their communities and the watershed.
Our goal is to help raise a new generation of adult
decision-makers able to resolve complex socio-
environmental problems and empower the watershed's
1.5 million residents with the knowledge, skills and
confidence necessary to take responsible steps to
benefit the water quality, ecology, habitat and sce-
nic resources of the Fox River system.
Note: A free copy of Citizen Stream Monitoring: A
Manual For Illinois can be ordered through the ENR
Clearinghouse at 217-785-2800. The Friends pro-
gram manual can be purchased for $40.
Chani Gilfeather
L B. Johnson High School
Colorado River Watch Network
Inga Adams
Westwood High School
Colorado River Watch Network
MONITORING THE
COLORADO RIVER
The Colorado River Watch Network (CRWN)
is a web of water-quality monitoring stations that
reaches fromSan Saba, Texas, to the GulfofMexico.
We test for approximately 10 parameters which
include chemical as well as biological tests. The
network, which is supported by the Lower Colo-
rado River Authority (LCRA), is made up of teach-
ers, students and citizen monitors. Age levels range
from fourth graders to senior citizens, with over 600
participants and a long waiting list of aspirants.
60
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
RECENT ACTIVITIES
QA/QC Quarterly Symposiums for all monitors
Phosphate ban supported by CRWN data
and initiated by concerned student monitors.
CRWN receives funds from the city of Aus-
tin to establish a youth-at-risk environmental
incentive program in local schools.
Students brief director of the EPA.
Annual 24-hour water-monitoring study (di-
urnal) receives extensive attention from the
environmental community and the media.
CRWN featured in many newspaper articles
and public access television programs.
CRWN receives two environmental awards
for environmental education and action from
a prominent local environmental association.
PERSONAL EDUCATIONAL VALUE
A. Value to the monitors in general
students and teachers
citizens
B. Our personal growth
COLLABORATORS
Lower Colorado River Authority
Local communities
Local governments
State legislators
Central Texas school boards
National river watch organization
Private citizens
Environmental community
TRAINERS
Experienced CRWN student monitors train all
incoming monitors. They also participate in outreach
programs and demonstrations to the public, different
communities, government officials and children.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
61
-------
PARTNERSHIPS WITH BUSINESSES
Panelists: Meg Ken, University of Rhode Island; Ron
Bruner, Society of the Plastics Industry; and Joe Gorsuch,
Eastman Kodak Company.
Meg Kerr
University of Rhode Island
RIVER RESCUE PROGRAM
While volunteer monitoring is well established in
Rhode Island, the state's newest program, River
Rescue, is in many ways a landmark for volunteer
monitoring nationwide. The uniqueness of River
Rescue lies in the partnership between its corporate
sponsor, CitizensBank, and the University ofRhode
Island (URI) and Rhode Island Sea Grant. This
private/public sector partnership is one of the first of
its kind in the country.
In 1989, Citizens Bank was in the process of
building their new headquarters facility at the
confluence of the Moshassuck and Woonasquatucket
Rivers in downtown Providence. They approached
URI with the idea of establishing a major environ-
mental public service project. The bank was inter-
ested in developing a program that could help
address the quality of the water in Rhode Island's
urban rivers, while involving employees in volun-
teer efforts along with members of the community.
River Rescue grew out of these discussions.
River Rescue volunteers monitor four urban
rivers that flow into the upper reaches ofNarragansett
Bay. These rivers have received industrial and do-
mestic wastes for more than 100 years and are the
largest contributors of point source pollution to the
bay. During the last ten years, millions of dollars
have been spent to improve the condition of these
rivers. Even greater amounts are planned for the
future. But little data is available to evaluate whether
these improvements have had their desired effect on
the rivers. River Rescue was designed to answer the
following questions:
1. "What is the current condition of these rivers?
2. What are the sources of pollution to the
rivers?
3. How has the condition changed over time?
4. What pollutant loading do these rivers send
to Narragansett Bay?
For the first three years of the River Rescue
project, Citizens Bank committed over $31,000 and
more than 1,000 hours of staff time per year. The
bank provides promotional and financial support for
River Rescue while the university oversees the
technical aspects of the monitoring effort and pro-
vides the essential link with scientists, state regula-
tors and local governments. Sea Grant provides
supplemental funding and technical assistance.
According to Herbert W. Cummings, president
of Citizens Bank, two basic concerns had to be
addressed before the bank would commit such a
substantial amount of money and staff time to the
program. The first concern was that River Rescue
be an honest program that would address real needs
of our rivers and help to bring about positive
change. The second concern was that River Rescue
make business sense for Citizens Bank.
River Rescue has successfully met both criteria.
In the course of its first year, River Rescue estab-
lished itself as a credible monitoring program which
can provide useful data. The program also makes
good business sense for the bank for the following
reasons:
1. Citizens Bank is a major property owner
along the river. The value of the bank's
62
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
investment is clearly affected by the quality
and appearance of the rivers.
2. River Rescue offers numerous opportunities
for positive publicity about the bank.
3. All banks offer the same products. River
Rescue helps differentiate Citizens Bank from
its competition.
4. River Rescue provides the bank with an
opportunity to get its employees involved in
a major public service campaign. More than
100 bank employees and family members
have volunteered for River Rescue projects.
The program has had a very positive effect on
employee morale. Volunteers are proud to be
working for a bank that cares about the
environment.
5. In the long term, clean rivers will help attract
new business to the area and will encourage
existing businesses to increase their invest-
ment. The quality of the rivers also has a
dramatic effect on Narragansett Bay, which
impacts Rhode Island's economy, both for
recreational and commercial applications.
Citizens Bank employees have shown a strong
interest in the program. Approximately one third of
the 70 volunteers are bank employees. Employees
have enthusiastically supported River Rescue spe-
cial events, such as stream bank cleanups and fund-
raising events.
Citizens Bank's participation in the program may
also have implications for other corporations con-
sidering environmental partnerships. With this in
mind, Citizens has begun an outreach program to
encourage other businesses and community groups
to become involved in River Rescue. To date, a law
firm, a computer firm and members of the Provi-
dence Fire Department are participating in the
program. Several other companies have shown strong
interest in the program and discussions are under-
way to develop activities that meet their individual
needs.
While it will take years to achieve the technical
objectives of the River Rescue program, this unique
program has already received the support, of the
Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Manage-
ment, local environmental groups and the scientific
community. In a time of diminishing government
funding for volunteer programs, the need for alter-
native funding will continue to rise. River Rescue
is proof that given a strong commitment by all
parties, private/public partnerships can work. Its
example may well provide a model for the develop-
ment of similar alliances for water-quality monitor-
ing programs across the country.
Ronald G. Bruner
The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
FORMING PARTNERSHIPS
Several days after I was invited to serve on this
panel, I got a follow-up letter with the advance
conference agenda. As I looked through that agenda,
I had a somewhat uneasy feeling that maybe the
invitation was really meant for someone else. After
all, what did I know about monitoring surface
waters, testing for chemicals and identifying bio-
logical pollutants? Essentially nothing. My experi-
ence with water quality was in the area of marine
debris, the visible not the invisible stuff in
water.
But the more I looked at the agenda, the more I
saw the word partnerships. It was at this point that
I decided maybe the invitation had not been in error
because I do have some experiences to share with
you in that area regarding the Society of the Plastics
Industry (SPI).
Compared to some of you, I'm a newcomer to
water quality efforts. It has only been since early
1986 that I've had the opportunity to work closely
with the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC)
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA) on efforts to reduce marine
debris.
The impacts of marine debris are increasingly
well recognized, and they generally fall into five
categories: aesthetics, entanglement, ingestion, ves-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
63
-------
sel disablement and economics. Perhaps less known
are the many sources of marine debris. They range
frommerchant ships, cruise lines and fishing fleets to
pleasure boaters, beach goers, manufacturing activi-
ties and antiquated sewer systems. In fact, the list is
long and varied.
Without recounting the history of how SPI,
CMC and NOAA came to work together, I'll
simply say that discussions in mid-1986 led to the
realization that we all had the same goal, to keep
plastics out of the ocean.
You may have noticed that's the first time I've
mentioned the word plastics. Unfortunately, it's
hard to talk about marine debris without talking
about plastics. The cold reality is that the majority of
marine debris is plastic. Statistical studies have dem-
onstrated that time and again.
My next point may sound like a commercial
message, but appreciation of it will help you under-
stand the foundation that has helped pull our part-
nership together. Plastic has many qualities that
make it ideal for uses on or near the water. It is
durable, lightweight, shatter resistant, waterproof
and it doesn't rust. The problem comes when
someone improperly, or carelessly, disposes of plas-
tic products in the marine environment.
We found that our common ground was a desire
to educate target audiences about the proper dis-
posal of plastics. Our joint educational campaign
started in 1987. The initial focus was a series of
public service print ads for use in publications
targeted at five specific audiences: commercial ship-
pers, the fishing industry, the plastics industry, plea-
sure boaters and recreational fishermen. Media brief-
ings, brochures, guidebooks, posters, television public
service announcements, conference exhibits and a
host of other materials also are part of the effort.
Perhaps one of the most visible and successful
aspects of the educational campaign has been beach
cleanups.
The materials I've just mentioned are some of the
end-products of our efforts. But given the focus of
this conference, perhaps more important for you is
understanding how our three organizations worked
to make them happen.
In most cases, CMC provided the people while
SPI (and NOAA) provided financial resources.
Through SPI and our individual member compa-
nies, the plastics industry made grants for printing
and distributing materials to support participation
and to jump-start state infrastructures for beach
cleanups. Not all of our contributions were mon-
etary, though. Tens of thousands of trash bags were
provided for beach cleanups. SPI arranged for pro
bono agency work to facilitate development of the
public service ads, and SPI personnel travelled ex-
tensively with CMC staff to help tell the story.
Obviously, time constraints force me to skim the
surface of these activities. With my few remaining
minutes, I want to share with you my perspective on
creating a successful partnership. You might think of
this as a recipe, an old-fashioned recipe like the kind
you'd find in you grandmother's cookbook that says
add a pinch of this or a dash of that.
SEVEN STEPS FOR A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP
Step 1: Start with one measure of level-headed
desire to do what is right for the environment. This
ingredient shouldn't be hard to find; however, given
the current recession, you may have to look a little
harder than usual. It's not that people don't care
about the environment, it's that they're focusing
time and resources on keeping bottom-lines in the
black and businesses out of bankruptcy.
Step 2: Add equal quantities of willingness to
listen, willingness to learn, and willingness to change.
Sorting fact from fiction has never been more
difficult. Just because you've read something in a
newspaper or magazine, or seen it on television,
doesn't necessarily make it so. The world is full of
myths, often perpetuated in the media. Be prepared
to adjust your viewpoints based on first-hand expe-
riences. Personally, my understanding and apprecia-
tion of the marine debris problem escalated sharply
after participating in a beach cleanup on Padre Island
in Texas in 1986.
Step 3: Sprinkle with a layer of statesmanship.
Your partnership should have at least a few people
who aren't afraid to stray from the path of tradition.
You'll need wise political leadership with narrow
64
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
partisanship. Stalemates get broken and progress
made when someone is willing to blaze new trails.
Step 4: Whip up liberal amounts of enthusiasm
with a dash of patience. It's not enough to recruit a
few willing allies to your cause. You'll need lots of
helping hands. In the case of the beach cleanups,
what started with a few thousand participants in one
state has grown to encompass more than 100,000
people nationwide annually...and it has now moved
into the international arena.
Step 5: Stir in as much common ground as you
can find. Look for areas of agreement, not disagree-
ment. This may be the single most important step in
building a partnership. Without it, you won't have
any foundation to build upon. In the case of marine
debris, we CMC, NOAA and SPI all agreed
that discarded plastics don't belong in the marine
environment. We were able to build our program
on that common ground.
Step 6: Add a variety of benefits. Recognize that
everybody in the partnership should derive a ben-
efit, but having said that let me add that no single
group in the partnership can be the winner. The
only BIG winner should be an ultimate, higher
cause, in this case the environment.
Step 7: Sprinkle with some crushed Rolaids.
There will be some heartburn along the way, I can
assure you of that. It happens when you first present
those public service ads to your board of directors
ads that are far more candid than anything your
organization has ever done before. Or when a
colleague takes you to task in public for working
with "the other side" on the issue. Nobody has
cornered the market in slings and arrows. We've
seen them fly in all directions while pursuing our
joint educational effort.
In closing, let me offer these final words. When
you set out to form a partnership, you'll hear lots of
reasons why it won't succeed: They'll never work
with us on this, or our members won't like it if we
work with them, or we'll never raise enough money
to make a difference. Don't be too ready to accept
such snap judgements. Be wise enough to throw
away the book on conventional wisdom.
Joseph W. Gorsuch Sr.
Eastman Kodak Company
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY AND
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL
ADOPT-A-STREAM PROGRAM
In 1987, the Eastman Kodak Company Environ-
mental Sciences Section (ESS) of the Corporate
Health and Environment Laboratories formed a
partnership with the Rochester City School District
Charlotte High School Environmental Science
Magnet, which moved a year later to Benjamin
Franklin High School. This partnership provided
opportunities to help Environmental Science Mag-
net (renamed Biosciences and Health Careers Acad-
emy in 1989) students to better understand environ-
mental issues. One focus of this partnership is a
program called Adopt-A-Stream. The material for
this program was prepared by Rochester-based Delta
Labs, a nonprofit company that analyzes chemical
and biological samples.
As a concerned parent interested in sharing my
enthusiasm for environmental sciences, I participated
in the development of the Environmental Sciences
magnet school curriculum between 1984 and 1987.
Also, seeing the need in the classroom, I arranged to
have Kodak donate some surplus equipment for use by
the students. Once the corporate Kodak partnership
with Charlotte High School was formed in 1987, this
new relationship allowed for formal involvement of
volunteers from my entire group. Jay Costanza, a
biosciences teacher at Franklin High School, spent
three summers working in my laboratory. During
Costanza's second summer, we developed the Adopt-
A-Stream Program for his ninth-grade students. In
preparation for the annual spring Adopt-A-Stream
event, which takes place on Oatka Creek, about 20
miles south of Rochester, New York, the ESS staff
visited the classroom to mentor the students' progress
in learning to identify benthic macroinvertebrates; use
water chemistry test kits; and collect, record and
analyze chemical and physical parameters from bodies
of water.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
65
-------
Oatka Creek supports both warm water and cold
water fisheries. The segment of the creek that was
studied by the students in the Bioscience Academy
supports a unique habitat for populations of natural
breeding rainbow, brook and brown trout. Members
of the Seth Green Chapter of Trout Unlimited are
extremely interested in knowing the impact of the
sprawling urban developments approaching the Oatka
Creek watershed. After being approached by Trout
Unlimited, Costanza and I decided that Oatka Creek
would provide an excellent opportunity for the Bio-
science Academy students to practice their classroom
experiences in determining the quality of stream life
and dynamics of ecology.
Most waterways today have the potential of being
touched by some sort of pollution. The streams in the
Rochester, New York, rural area aren't any different.
The high school students collected and analyzed the
water from, the stream. If the data were questionable,
Delta Labs would recheck the samples to see if the
proper analysis techniques were used. ESS staff helped'
students analyze the water for hardness, phosphates,
nitrates, ammonia, zinc, copper, iron, dissolved oxy-
gen and carbon dioxide, color, turbidity, temperature
and acidity. Depth, stream-flow rate, and stream sub-
strate were also determined. ESS staff assisted students
in identifying aquatic life such as insect larvae (mayflies,
caddisflies, midge flies, and water striders), which are
necessary for trout survival. Costanza and the bio-
science students plan to continue analyzing water
samples and aquatic organisms for the next five to ten
years to ensure that the natural breeding of the trout in
Oatka Creek continues. Bioscience students will com-
pile the new data they collect, compare them with data
from previous years, and submit a report of their
finding to their science teacher. These reports will be
shared with the Seth Green Chapter of Trout Unlim-
ited. The results of these efforts have proven to be
valuable. To date, all the data have indicated a negative
impact from urban development in the Oatka Creek
watershed. In late January 1992, Chief Fisheries Biolo-
gist Karl Widmer of the New York State Department
ofEnvironmental Conservation informed me that the
trout population is doing well, and in fact, it has
expanded its range.
By participating in the Adopt-A-Stream project,
students learn things that are relevant outside the
classroom. Efforts to protect the environment are
going on everyday at Kodak where studies to deter-
mine the effects of chemicals on aquatic and plant life
are conducted. My staff and I bring aquatic organisms
used in aquatic bioassays into the classroom and de-
scribe to the students exactly why Kodak looks at these
organisms, how they fit into the food chain, and why
they are considered indicators of water quality. As a
result of this in-class analysis, students have learned to
identify these organisms, how to find them, what
equipment to use to collect them in the wild, and the
techniques involved to study them.
The Adopt-A-StreamProgramisbuilt on thepremise
that our youth must be educated if we are going to do
somethingpositive about the problems in the environ-
ment. If we educate the students, and they start getting
involved in environmental issues, they will begin to
understand how important preserving our environ-
ment is. By seeing first-hand what can be done to
measure environmental change, they can begin to
understand what to do to protect the future of the
environment.
The Adopt-A-Stream Program has provided an
opportunity for Kodak biologists to work with many
students. The Benjamin Franklin High School students
have profited by gaining valuable experience through
working with chemicals, equipment and professional
scientists to collect and analyze data. Kodak, like other
potential employers, needs employees that have highly
technical skills and an understanding of science. Our
investment in these students today will increase their
chance for success in a few years. Businesses need to be
involved in schools (not as educators, but as mentors),
particularly at the local level, to push for adequate
preparation of students to meet society's needs. "We can
provide the role models that students need to make the
decision to choose science as a career path, to thrive in
an academic environment, and to achieve while in
school.
66
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Workshop Session II: Planning and Developing Successful Programs
TRAINING MONITORS
Presenters: Loren Kellogg, Izaak Walton League of
America's Save Our Streams Program; and Tom Murdoch,
Adopt A Stream Foundation.
Loren Kellogg
Izaak Walton League of America
THE IWLA APPROACH TO TRAINING
The Save Our Streams Program (SOS) of the
Izaak Walton League uses a biological monitoring
technique developed in 1983 by the Ohio Depart-
ment of Natural Resources working in association
with the League. The technique is based on the fact
that different groups of stream macroinvertebrates
(the critters that live in a stream) have different
tolerances to pollution, which means they can serve
as useful indicators of water quality. This monitor-
ing technique rates a stream using the number of
different types of stream organisms and their relative
tolerance to pollution to determine stream health.
TRAINING VOLUNTEERS
The two main objectives of the SOS biological
monitoring program are to give participants the
knowledge, resources and support they need to help
them effectively understand and address water-quality
problems, and to increase the supply of credible
information available on water quality. SOS volun-
teer training can be divided into four basic compo-
nents which together work to support these objec-
tives: initial training sessions, support networks,
field spot checks and follow-up workshops.
Our initial training workshops generally last about
four hours. Each participant is given their own SOS
kit to look over before we begin. "Workshops are
broken down into three basic parts. First we have a
slide show that lasts about one and a half hours. This
slide show emphasizes a watershed (or drainage
basin) approach to understanding water quality. We
provide an education on point and nonpoint sources
of pollution, how land uses relate to water quality,
and ways to address the types of problems typically
encountered. Also included in the slide show is an
introduction to biological monitoring,
macroinvertebrate identification, watershed map-
ping and siting monitoring locations. During this
presentation we ask participants to listen closely
without taking notes because the important infor-
mation is contained in our SOS kit.
The next part of the workshop takes place out on
the stream. For our sample site, we look for a riffle
area. Although we do have an approved muddy
bottom sampling technique, sampling in a riffle area
is best because riffles provide similar environments
between stream, with the optimum combination of
high oxygen levels, good habitat, and an abundance
of food for stream critters.
Using a kick-seine to trap the macroinvertebrates,
we completely rub the rocks and thoroughly disturb
the first few inches of stream bottom in a three-foot
by three-foot-square area in front of the net. The
organisms are trapped in the net and carried to the
shore to be documented on the SOS survey form. At
each sampling site, monitors take samples from three
separate three-foot by three-foot-square areas in the
riffle, starting from the farthest downstream location
and moving upstream, or moving side to side across
the stream so as to avoid any overlap. Results from
each of these samples are recorded separately, and
the sample with the highest index number is consid-
ered the best representative value for the site.
During the training session, we carefully identify
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
67
-------
each organism we find by asking questions: How
many tails does it have? Does it have antennae? Each
volunteer receives a bug card to help with identifi-
cation. The bug card is organized into three differ-
ent groups of organisms. Group one organisms, such
as the stonefly and the mayfly, are generally intoler-
ant to pollution. They require good water quality
and high levels of oxygen to do well, and are usually
the first to go when problems occur. Group two
taxa, such as damselfly and dragonfly nymphs, are
more tolerant and are generally found in fair to good
(or better) water quality conditions. Group three
taxa are organisms, such as leeches and worms, that
can often survive low oxygen levels and severely
degraded water conditions. Group three organisms
can be found in any quality of water. Your water
isn't necessarily polluted if you find a leech or worm,
but if you've got nothing else but worms in your
sample your stream is probably in trouble. The
better the stream quality, the more numerous and
sensitive the groups you will find.
To make sure each participant can recognize the
identifying characteristics, we go over the survey
form in detail, highlighting not only how to answer
the question but identifying the intent behind the
question. Our survey is set up so that organisms are
assigned a letter value (A = 1-9, B = 10-99, and C
100+). We take the number of different types of
organisms in each column and multiply it by a
different number. A healthy stream supports a bal-
anced population of organisms from each category,
with an emphasis on organisms in the sensitive
range. When you multiply the more sensitive or-
ganisms by a higher number, you receive a higher
total index number for your survey. The higher the
index number, the better the rating.
Information on these monitoring procedures are
found in the SOS Stream Monitoring Instructions
and SOS Stream Monitoring Guidelines. These
documents also include information on identifying
and adopting stream monitoring stations. For ex-
ample, if you adopt more than one station, we
recommend you choose strategic sites that are up
and down stream from a tributary or discharge pipe.
Also, each station should be monitored at least four,
but no more than six times per year. The minimum
commitment for our program is one year because at
least one year of data is required to get a picture of
stream health.
Safe monitoring is a very important part of our
discussion. It is a good idea to wear boots and gloves,
and wash carefully when you are done. We also
encourage people to be environmentally respon-
sible. This means don't leave any thing you brought,
and do what you can to minimize your impact on
the stream. Because of our spot checks and bug tests,
we don't need to preserve all our samples, so our
monitors can return the critters to the stream.
The last part of the workshop involves an iden-
tification session, a question and answer period, and
stream station sign up. During the identification
session, we talk about support systems and available
resources, such as SOS regional coordinators and
reference materials. Then we play a little game
called pass the bug.
Because of the amount of information covered in
our initial workshops, we try to keep people inter-
active by askinglots of questions. This seems to keep
participants on their toes and thinking, and it helps
to highlight the important points to remember. For
example, when we are about to jump into the stream.
to monitor, we ask what area are we looking to
sample? What is a riffle? Why a riffle? And so on.
In our state programs, all training, supplies and
equipment is provided free of charge and open to all
concerned citizens. Each state-sponsored programis
tailored to complement the resources and support
capabilities available for volunteers in the respective
state. For example, in West Virginia, State Soil
Conservation Committee employees have been spe-
cially trained as regional coordinators for the SOS
program. Regional SSCC offices are equipped with
the full complement of SOS materials and supplies
they need to conduct training sessions, answer
questions for monitors, perform quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) training checks, and re-
spond to problem water quality reports with chemi-
cal testing equipment (supplied by IWLA).
Part of our QA/QC measures is to spot check 15
percent of our monitors. This is done by national
68
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
and regional staff, who schedule appointments to
observe volunteers monitoring. At these sessions,
we observe the whole process from riffle identifica-
tion to finished survey results; then we offer sugges-
tions to improve monitoring technique (if appli-
cable) and make a written evaluation. These evalu-
ations are included in our files and will be submitted
regularly with our data. Also, anytime survey results
are inconsistent (poor results in a known trout
stream) or have problems (not in a riffle) or just have
poor results, I call volunteers and ask them about it.
If the problem seems to be due to monitor error, I
or one of our coordinators make an appointment to
monitor with the volunteer.
In addition, we have follow-up workshops (as
detailed in our QA/QC guidelines) six months after
our initial trainings. These workshops are designed
to accomplish three things: address any questions
monitors may have, no matter how bizarre; refresh
participants on the resources of the program; and
introduce them to other monitors in the area. It also
gives us a chance to inform participants of any
changes in the programs (biological monitoring is an
evolving science).
We evaluate our monitors by organizing small
groups and watching them stream monitor. This
evaluation provides a quick check for potential
problems and remind participants of issues they may
have to discuss with us. Next is a formal test of
macroinvertebrate identification skills. Monitors are
allowed to use any materials they normally have in
the field to identify test organisms from all the
groups in our reference collection. These tests are
scored and reports are used to evaluate the accuracy
of data at each monitoring station.
The last part of our retraining session is an
informal discussion. This gives monitors a chance to
talk about what they found, what they are doing, or
what they would like to do. Also we encourage
everyone to exchange numbers and continue com-
municating with each other, so monitors can better
band together to address problems they find. The
end result is valuable water-quality information and
a network of caring citizens armed with the knowl-
edge and the resources to identify and respond to
stream problems. This group of caring individuals
actively work to protect and restore our precious
rivers and streams.
Tom Murdoch
Adopt A Stream Foundation
THE ADOPT A STREAM EXPERIENCE
In 1990, the Adopt A Stream Foundation (AASF)
began researching education and training materials
related to conducting watershed inventories and
monitoring physical, biological and chemical char-
acteristics of streams. The intended product of this
research is standardized watershed inventory and
monitoring procedures for volunteer use through-
out the Northwest and the nation. Major sponsors
are the Washington State Department of Ecology,
the EPA, and the Bullitt Foundation.
After sifting through many excellent publications
from 39 states, in 1991 the AASF completed a working
draft of A Streamkeepers Field Guide, Watershed Inventory
and Stream Monitoring Methods. This publication takes
the volunteer from the big picture, which includes an
introduction to what a watershed is and how it func-
tions, to conducting a watershed inventory to specific
monitoring procedures at the micro level, including
the tried and true analysis of hydrology, chemistry and
macroinvertebrates. The guide currently is being field
tested by 118 teachers and community groups.
While many of the monitoring procedures in the
guide are familiar to the dedicated volunteer, im-
provements have been made in how to interpret the
information. In addition, the book includes instruc-
tions on how to put inventory and monitoring
information to use, initiating corrective actions and
affecting social and political change. The guide'is
projected to be available by the 1992 Christmas
season and will be distributed by the University of
Washington Press and the AASF.
Along with developing an inventory and moni-
toring procedures manual, the AASF has developed
a training program designed to keep the guide from
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
69
-------
gathering dust on a shelf, and to get it wet and
wrinkled (it rains a lot in the Northwest), along with
its owner out in the field. For volunteers who are
interested in becoming ecological observers, actual
field training to complement written instructions is
essential. On-the-job training not only builds con-
fidence in the volunteer, but increases the confi-
dence level in the quality of the data collected.
The AASFhas the challenge of providing training
to volunteermonitors throughout Washington state,
which is a very diverse place. The state has rain
forests (not all of them have been cut down), rapidly
growing urban centers with SuperFund sites and
traffic jams that rival Los Angeles, beautiful moun-
tains, arid wide open plains, rivers with salmon,
creeks that have caught on fire, abundant agricul-
ture, ocean coast lines and the Puget Sound, as well
as areas of small-town USA.
When becoming a certified Streamkeeper, volun-
teers have to think about a variety of issues, including
availability of time; who else may be drafted into
service; and collecting, storing and presenting data.
Streamkeeper trainingprovided by the AASF is limited
to teachers or representatives of established community
groups whose respective organizations have provided
a written commitment to conduct a watershed inven-
tory and monitor its condition on a monthly basis for
a minimum of two years. In addition, these groups are
required to share their information with the AASF,
who will provide it to the EPA for inclusion into a
national geographic information system.
Streamkeeper candidates must attend an all-day
Adopt A Stream Workshop, and an all-day
Streamkeeper Field Training Workshop. AASF di-
vided the state into 12 regions covering three to four
counties and scheduled workshops at central loca-
tions. The workshops, which are open to large
audiences including Streamkeeper students, pro-
vide basic training on how to adopt a stream. Local
experts from each region are introduced and invited
to assist the AASF staff in taking the audience
through the five steps of adopting a stream;
1. Find out all the information available about
your watershed, including its history (the
AASF usually has a Native American present
this section), geology, hydrology, land uses,
and fish and wildlife.
2. Identify human resources potentially avail-
able to assist you (friends, neighbors, schools,
community groups and businesses) and share
the work load.
3. Decide what you would like.your watershed
to be like next year, in five years and 25 years
down the road.
4. Create a plan by identifying and scheduling
actions necessary to achieve your goals.
5. Become a Streamkeeper and carry out planned
actions, monitor results and adjust goals.
For more information on this process, see Adopt-
ing a Stream, a Northwest Handbook, Steve Yates,
University ofWashington Press, 1989; $9.95 plus $2
postage and handling from the AASF, P.O. Box
5558, Everett, WA 98206.
In addition to learning the basics of adopting a
stream and getting to meet local resource managers,
these workshops provide Streamkeepers with an
opportunity to network with one another and re-
cruit from participants who just came to see what
was going on.
The Streamkeepers then must complete an all-
day field training session that provides training on
inventory and monitoring procedures in the guide.
Streamkeeper field training classes are small, with no
more than 20 students. Three AASF staff, comple-
mented by experts from local resource management
agencies, provide students with direction on gather-
ing watershed information and the steps involved in
preparing a baseline watershed inventory.
Under AASF supervision, Streamkeeper students
practice mapping stream reaches and recording ob-
servations at a good site, an area that is in relatively
good ecological order. The process is repeated at a
bad site, an area that has been disturbed by human-
induced causes. This contrast enables the neophyte
to see the way things ought to be and what they look
like when the ecological system is out of order. The
students also practice all of the monitoring proce-
dures in the guide at both locations. At the end of the
field training session, students present their data and
compare findings at the two sites.
70
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Streamkeepers who successfully complete the
two workshops are then expected to organize mem-
bers of their groups to initiate the research phase of
their inventory and monitoring activities. Their
next assignment is to set up field training schedules
for their groups. We have found that of the 118
Streamkeepers trained between June and August
1991, many have been able to progress from the
initial training to some remarkable projects.
At Edmonds "Woodway High School, an ad-
vanced biology class and its teacher, Ginny Burger,
adopted a small stream that flows into Puget Sound.
Ginny provided her students with training she learned
at the Streamkeeper workshop. Their adopted
stream flows exclusively through backyards in a
suburban neighborhood. Students contacted all prop-
erty owners and requested permission to monitor
the stream. Teams of two or three students then
inventoried and monitored the conditions of the
stream within each backyard. Their observations
were provided to each property owner with recom-
mendations, such as reduce lawn fertilization and
plant native vegetation along streambanks.
After attending a workshop, "Western Washing-
ton University student Brad Vinish organized local
middle and high school students to inventory and
monitor a small stream in Elaine, Washington. The
volunteers discovered that several stream reaches are
underground and that the majority of the local
residents don't recognize the potential value of this
abused natural resource. The Elaine Stream Team is
in the process of completing a baseline inventory of
the stream and setting up monitoring stations to
record its physical, biological and chemical charac-
teristics. They have also approached the Elaine City
Council and initiated actions to have the stream
formally named - to the delight of many and the
displeasure of some, who think their development
potential will be limited if the stream becomes better
habitat for fish.
During the course of their watershed inventory,
Wenatchee Streamkeepers found that every storm
drain in the city led directly to the Wenatchee
River. In addition to monitoring the impacts, these
Streamkeepers have launched a campaign to mark
each storm drain with a sign that reads "dump no
waste, drains to stream." Students from the Wenatchee
High School collect data and do the painting.
The majority of the Streamkeepers will likely
require secondary field training assistance with their
groups. Organizations like the Izaak Walton League
and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation recommend
that secondary trainingbe provided within six months
of the preliminary training. This training should be
in the form of a field test that is similar conceptually
to a check ride required for a pilot to maintain
currency to fly an airplane.
A field test will enable the Streamkeeper to
demonstrate inventory and monitoring procedures
and determine if they are. consistent with standard-
ized practices. This process reinforces the confi-
dence of the individuals who are doing it correctly
and provides an opportunity to correct any deficien-
cies that are noted.
The AASF provides all Streamkeeper graduates
with a roster of other Streamkeepers and encourages
them to exchange information. Streamkeepers are also
encouraged to contact AASF staff to discuss any diffi-
culties they are experiencing. The AASF provides
Streamkeepers with information on any new relevant
inventory or monitoring information. In addition,
Streamkeepers complete status report questionnaires
within three months of their initial training.
To help nurture the Streamkeepers and encour-
age their long-term involvement, a Streamkeeper
Summit is organized once a year to recognize the
achievements of the Streamkeepers and demon-
strate state-of-the-art inventory and monitoring
techniques. Motivational presentations on putting
monitoring information to use are also provided.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
71
-------
INTEGRATED MONITORING SYSTEMS
Presenters: John Kopec, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources; Stuart Lehman, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources; and Virginia Lee, University of
Rhode Island*
John Kopec
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
THE ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRATING
VARIOUS MONITORING PROGRAMS
Regardless of whether citizen volunteers moni-
tor streams, lakes, ponds, estuaries or wetlands, they
are gauging the health or condition of only one
element of a larger ecosystem, the watershed.
Citizen monitoring programs offer excellent op-
portunities for the average citizen, young or old, to
learn about biological principles of aquatic environ-
ments and the ecology of fresh and saltwater ecosys-
tems. Especially important is the chance for volun-
teers to gain a comprehensive knowledge, through
hands-on experience, of how the biological integ-
rity of a stream or lake is dependent upon land-use
practices within the watershed. Although much has
been written about the effects of point and nonpoint
pollution upon our aquatic environment, nothing
has a more dramatic impact than seeing it for oneself,
reflected in the observations of chemical analyses,
bcnthic health or physical impacts.
Currently, most monitoring programs in the
country deal with one particular water resource,
rivers or lakes for instance, and many have tradition-
ally limited their focus to one of three evaluation
*Transaipt Unavailable
procedures: chemical, biological or physical. Lately,
however, a number of programs have begun to
expand, combining evaluation procedures as well as
adding the monitoring of additional resources. Pro-
grams are beginning to see the immense value of
providing their volunteers with a more comprehen-
sive picture of stream or lake conditions through the
expansion of monitoring parameters. As many pro-:
grams monitor additional water resources, volun-
teers become much more "watershed informed."
Since the majority of monitoring programs rely
on simplicity, volunteers often become bored after
several seasons, especially if they are confined to a
particular station where the results may change little,
if at all. The opportunity to add a procedure or
monitoring regimen often spells the difference be-
tween whether a program loses seasoned volunteers
or retains them at a more active level, and in a greater
capacity.
This increase in monitoring opportunity and
sophistication also parallels many volunteers' hun-
ger to learn more about the resource in which they
are involved. A number of programs have experi-
enced a change in volunteer attitude. Many citizens
who joined the monitoring work force for reasons
ranging from fulfilling a need for outdoor education
(teachers, youth group leaders) to looking for a fun
outdoor activity, soon evolve into environmental
activists who want greater responsibility and in-
volvement.
One note of caution, however, must be men-
tioned. Citizen monitoring programs can be very
effective in revealing general information about a
water resource, but often fall short on providing the
level of sophistication necessary to determine spe^-
cifics regarding certain pollutants affecting water-
ways and especially the precise location of nonpoint
72
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
pollution problem areas. Professional investigators
using state-of-the-art techniques and equipment
have difficulty in this area themselves. Given these
limitations, it is even more difficult to link observa-
tions between various monitoring regimens within
a watershed. For example, chemical analyses of a
waterway upstream from a lake may not relate in any
logical way with similar analyses performed in the
lake itself. Likewise, data derived from biological
evaluations, while revealing a good picture of the
aquatic health of a stream or lake, may not coincide
as expected with chemical readings that indicate a
somewhat different picture. These apparent anoma-
lies should be explained to volunteers whose in-
volvement with combined monitoring programs
will likely develop some pertinent questions.
Combining existing monitoring programs can
dramatically increase the number of volunteers for
each separate program. Many volunteers who are
trained and active in monitoring a lake, for instance,
become eager to expand their involvement and gain
new experiences by becoming involved with pro-
grams that deal with the entire lake watershed. If
increasing interest levels are successfully met with
program expansion, the end result is often volun-
teers who are willing to accept a greater responsibil-
ity in citizen monitoring programs. Developing a
cadre of volunteers who are willing to serve in an
administrative fashion training other volunteers,
distributing and collecting equipment, or assisting
with data entry and evaluation can be vital to citizen
monitoring programs. Just as we have witnessed the
phenomenal growth of citizen monitoring in the last
decade, we have also grown well aware that many
programs still operate on a shoestring budget, with
only a few people who oversee a huge army of
volunteers that grow with every season. Most would
agree, given the bleak prospect of appropriate bud-
gets, that volunteers themselves must assist in some
of the administrative tasks.
The likelihood for financial assistance from foun-
dations, corporations or government may be en-
hanced for programs that integrate additional moni-..
toririg regimens, as this approach seems more likely
to give volunteers a broader educational experience
and more comprehensive role in environmental
management and protection.
Stuart Lehman
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
CITIZEN MONITORING IN THE MARYLAND
TARGETED WATERSHED PROJECT
The Targeted "Watershed Project is a multi-
agency, state initiative to improve water quality and
restore living resources in several key tributaries to
the Chesapeake Bay. An important component of
the project is the volunteer monitoring activity
which is part of a comprehensive biological and
water-quality monitoring program. The purpose of
Maryland's larger monitoring program is to guide
planning and measure the progress of habitat resto-
ration and pollution control programs.
The watersheds targeted by this project are the
Piney and AUoway Creek watershed in Carroll County,
Sawmill Creek in Anne Arundel County, Bird River
in Baltimore County, and the German Branch water-
shed in Queen Anne's County. The targeted water-
sheds are all stream basins which are either threatened
by degradation from urbanization or contribute a
disproportionately high level of nutrients to the bay
from agricultural nonpoint sources.
In addition to the volunteers, the project has
recruited participants from over 40 state, federal,
and county agencies to play key roles in the moni-
toring, communication and implementation phases
of the project. Citizen water-quality monitoring is
conducted by approximately 25 volunteers, and data
is now analyzed by state agencies and integrated into
annual water quality reports.
COMBINING CITIZEN MONITORING WITH THE
MARYLAND STATE PROGRAM
Citizen data is collected for seven parameters
including air temperature, water temperature, dis-
solved oxygen (DO), pH, turbidity, and weekly
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
73
-------
rainfall. The sampling procedures, training program
and quality assurance (QA) methods were standard-
ized by the pioneering work of the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay (ACB). ACB has acted as the
overall coordinator of the monitoring program for
the state. Most of the equipment is purchased from
the LaMotte Company in Chestertown, Maryland.
This includes test kits for DO, pH and turbidity, as
well as thermometers and rain gauges.
Volunteer monitoringprovides additional data to
the state's monitoring program as well as stand-
alone trend monitoring data of use to citizens study-
ing and getting involved in restoration actions in
their watersheds.
The overall state monitoring program includes a
biological component; benthic macroinvertebrates
are sampled by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE), and fish collections are made
by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The water quality (chemistry and nutri-
ents) measurements and sample collection are done
jointly by DNR and MDE, using contracting labo-
ratories for the analytical lab work. Flow measure-
ments are made by the U.S. Geological Survey and
occasionally by DNR biologists. Weather data is
collected by the National Weather Service and its
network of volunteer observers around the state.
The streams are also rated on their habitat suitability
during the biological surveys using the method
proposed in the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols pub-
lished by the U.S. EPA (Plafkin et.al., 1989).
Volunteer monitoring is conducted weekly
throughout the course of the year. Samples may
include storms or baseflow measurements because
they are generally taken at the same time of day, on
the same day, each week. This routine collection
over the course of several years will help achieve a
certain degree of randomness regarding stream stage.
This schedule helps assure that data will be collected
during a wide range of flows and makes the data
more useful in determining future trends.
The data also has current uses. Because state
biologists take only monthly samples, volunteer data
allows the agencies to fill in the gaps of the water
quality record for several parameters between rou-
tine samplingvisits. This allows the targetingproject
to have better coverage of episodic problems such as
pollutant spills or algal blooms. For instance, the
level of dissolved oxygen in one of the targeted
streams fell to a level below state criterion during a
period of overlap between state and volunteer moni-
tors. Based on this rinding, state monitoring staff
recommend that some stations be monitored more
frequently to determine if there are any potential
aquatic life impacts.
MEETING NEW CHALLENGES
The Targeted Watershed Project must streamline in
response to statewide budget cuts. The project could
not afford to continue to have a contractor manage the
volunteers. Instead, it is trying to shift some of this
responsibility to the monitors. ACB staff will still be
available for training and assistance with quality con-
trol, and state biologists will be available to assist with
technical problems and data interpretation.
Fortunately, several willing volunteers have agreed
to assist with monitoring management. Among
other things, these new monitoring coordinators in
each of the targeted watersheds will be asked to set
up times and places for meetings to conduct QA
procedures, exchange information and learn about
restoration progress in the watersheds. The coordi-
nators will be asked to try out some new computer
software to analyze their own data for each water-
shed instead of sending it to state agencies.
In the long run, some major benefits should arise
from this change. The new program may help foster
better communication between the monitors and
state water-quality scientists. Managing their own
data will allow more timely comparisons between
water-quality measurements and changes appearing
in the streams. Finally, the hard work of routine
monitoring may become more fun as monitors learn
to work more as a team.
REFERENCE
Plafkin, James L., M.T. Barbour, Kimbcrly D. Porter,
Sharon K. Gross, and Robert M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
Bioassessment and Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers:
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Assessment and Watershed Protection Di-
vision. EPA/444/4-89-001.
74
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
SETTING UP DATA SHARING PROJECTS
WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Presenters: Abby Markowitz, Maryland Save Our Streams;
and Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of America.
Abby Markowitz
Mar/land Save Our Streams
MARYLAND'S SOS EXPERIENCE
Maryland was the first SOS project under the
Izaak Walton League. In 1970, Maryland SOS
became an independent statewide nonprofit organi-
zation committed to the protection and restoration
of Maryland's more than 17,000 miles of flowing
waters. Our overlying strategy is community orga-
nizing and leadership development for the purpose
of building and nurturing educated and active citi-
zen constituencies for neighborhood waterways.
Before I get into a discussion of initiating and
maintaining cooperative and mutually beneficial
efforts with state and local governments, I'd like to
give you a brief history ofMaryland SOS experience
with government partnerships. Since it's inception,
SOS has worked in partnership with both state and
local governments. These partnerships have often
taken the form of government contracts that pro-
vide SOS with the resources to develop and imple-
ment volunteer education, stewardship and moni-
toring projects in specific jurisdictions and water-
sheds.
For many years, SOS was a line item in the
MarylandDepartment ofNaturalResources' (DNR)
budget. In 1987, SOS, DNR, Baltimore city and
county joined together to create the Gwynns Falls
Restoration Campaign. The campaign was an op-
portunity to use SOS to restore the water quality in
an entire watershed with the ultimate goal of bring-
ing the stream to a fishable and swimmable condi-
tion. The project brought together trained volun-
teers, community associations, local businesses and
watershed residents, along with city, county and
state government. Due to the initial success of the
Gwynns Falls project, in 1989 SOS joined in part-
nership with two county governments to imple-
ment other projects based on the Gwynns Falls
model.
The Baltimore County Citizens for Stream Res-
toration Campaign expanded the Gwynns Falls
program to include the entire county, which con-
tains nearly 2,000 miles of streams, creeks and rivers
that flow into the Chesapeake Bay. The Severn
River Project is a joint project with Anne Arundel
County. The Severn is a state-designated scenic
river with a watershed of about 70 square miles that
includes the city of Annapolis.
In addition to county projects, 1989 saw the
formalization of the SOS Adopt-A-Stream (AAS)
program as a joint venture with the DNR in con-
junction with the Governor's One Million
Marylander's for the Bay. AAS is a statewide stew-
ardship program that encourages active citizen in-
volvement in monitoring the state's waterways and
participation in activities designed to enhance ap-
preciation of these waterways. Through AAS, the
Gwynns Falls model was packaged to train individu-
als and groups without a great deal of staff support.
To date, more than 8,000 miles of streams, creeks,
rivers and the bay have been adopted by Maryland
citizens. AAS monitoring projects include biologi-
cal water monitoring, construction site monitoring,
stream surveys and watershed surveys.
Volunteer data collected from these activities are
forwarded to DNR, the Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) and appropriate county
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
75
-------
departments so that these agencies can incorporate
the data into reports, direct their resources to more
intensive study and rectify problems. SOS volun-
teers serve as the eyes and ears of understaffed
government agencies, and all volunteer data forms,
trainingmaterials and field supplies have gone through
technical review by state and county agencies.
Now that you've heard the nutshell version of
our project experience with government partners,
I'd like to use the rest of my time to address three
basic questions: How can government agencies and
volunteers establish cooperative projects to share
data and resources? What's in it for the volunteer
group? What's in it for the government?
Perhaps the first thing to consider is self-interest.
Any successful project must serve the self-interest of
both the volunteers and the targeted government
agency(s). Any answers you come up with that are
true for both the government agency and your
organization are a good place to start. Here are some
examples of mutual self-interest that we have iden-
tified:
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND STEWARDSHIP
Both government agencies and volunteer groups
committed to environmental protection, pollution
prevention and/or resource management are inter-
ested in public education and community steward-
ship. Any group approaching an agency to initiate a
joint effort would be well-served to promote edu-
cation and stewardship as one of its primary goals.
Warm bodies in the water are also important.
Agencies love to be associated with projects that get
people in the field. Before beginning initial discus-
sions with an agency, hold organizational meetings
to gain support and promote your project from
within. Many small groups SOS has worked with
have initiated simple projects like tree planting or
stream cleanups before embarking on a more sophis-
ticated monitoring project. A history of successful
recruitment and ongoing involvement will help
make your case with the government.
GOVERNMENTAL DATA NEEDS
Another factorin establishing a cooperative moni-
toring project is deciding just what kind of volun-
teer monitoring you want to embark on. A little
research will tell you what kind of data your local or
state, government might need. Also, target your
agency. Which agency(s) needs the kind of data you
can provide? Many people, including agency per-
sonnel, have a narrow definition of volunteer moni-
toring that is limited to instream chemical or bio-
logical monitoring. Through Adopt-A-Stream, we
have worked to broaden that definition to include
watershed, stream and construction site surveys.
Through these projects, volunteers collect data that
governments may need immediately.
For example, last year the Severn River Project
sponsored the Great Severn Stream Survey. More
than 200 volunteers walked, boated and canoed
sections of the river and its tributaries. One of the
tasks volunteers completed was to record and mea-
sure pipe outfalls. This information was requested
by Anne Arundel County to comply with their
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
requirements. As follow-up, the county is working
with volunteers to correct problems identified dur-
ing the initial survey.
Sediment and erosion control is perhaps the most
obvious example of immediate gratification for both
volunteers and government personnel. Whoever is
in charge of enforcement for your community
would probably be thrilled to work with volunteers
to monitor construction sites and report potential
violations. Sediment personnel are notoriously un-
derstaffed, yet they are charged with keeping mud
from hundreds or thousands of sites stabilized. In
Baltimore County, we held Mud-Buster workshops
in the fall of 1991 that were facilitated by SOS staff,
community leaders, government personnel and de-
velopers. An ongoing construction site inventory of
a watershed is a wonderful monitoring project.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
Money, money, no one seems to have any.
Agencies love to hear how cost-effective and effi-
cient your program will be, especially if you are
asking them for funding. Find tangible ways to
measure cost efficiency. For example, find out how
76
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
much it would cost for an agency to hire enough
personnel to adequately monitor all construction
sites within their jurisdiction. Then figure out how
much less it will cost for a core of volunteers to do
the initial monitoring and screening. Contact con-
sulting firms to discover how much they would
charge for comparable services. Through this type of
research, we discovered that what volunteers can
accomplish for about $40,000 per year would cost a
consulting firm over $400,000 - without the com-
munity education aspect. When working with fi-
nancially strapped agencies, be creative in terms of
the type of resources those agencies might initially
provide. Maybe they can offer in-kind services,
training facilities and materials. After a program has
a proven record, funding may be easier to obtain.
Also, use your agency partners to help identify
alternative sources of funding.
WHITE HATS ALL AROUND
Everyone likes to wear the white hats and be the
good guys. Government agencies often suffer from
a bad reputation, frequently undeserved. Commu-
nity education should focus on educating citizens to
their.responsibilities with regard to environmental
protection. A cooperative effort will go a long way
toward alleviating the tension that often exists be-
tween the government and the community. A
volunteer monitoring project can often serve a
necessary liaison role between government and
citizens. Also, don't ignore your elected officials.
They like to interact with constituents and can be
great allies in building partnerships with the agencies
they administer.
How can we convince skeptical government
agencies to use volunteer-collected data? The best
way to convince an agency is to involve them in the
process from the very beginning! Whatever kind of
monitoring you decide to undertake, an agency is far
more likely to view the data as credible if they have
been involved in developing and implementing the
project. That way they don't have to take your word
for it that the data is accurate. They will have been
partly responsible for making sure that it is accurate..
and credible. Further, involve the agency in the
decision-making process of what type of monitor-
ing project to establish, which refers back to data
needs.
Government personnel, with the appropriate
expertise, should be invited to serve on any steering
and technical committees involved in overseeing
quality assurance and quality control. Also, govern-
ment personnel should be invited to participate in
the actual monitoring so they see first-hand how the
procedures are carried out.
Don't promise more than you can deliver! If you
are overly ambitious, especially at first, you may be
inviting skepticism. Set reasonable short- and long-
term goals and be flexible enough to alter those goals
if necessary.
Use volunteer leadership to the fullest. If your
organization has paid staff, make certain that you
develop volunteer leaders and that those leaders
develop relationships with potential government
partners. People tend to be less skeptical of those
with whom they have an honest relationship.
How do we meet government standards for data,
feedback, quality control and applications? Perhaps
our best illustration of dealing with these factors on
an ongoing basis is the 100 Points of Stream Moni-
toring in Baltimore County. Prior to implementing
this program, Baltimore County's Department of
Environmental Education and Resource Manage-
ment (DEPRM) was involved in all aspects of
determining data standards, quality control and ap-
plications. Additionally, we sought the expertise of
MDE and DNR in developing volunteer proce-
dures. Government standards were met because the
government had a hand in determining the method-
ology and techniques. Representatives from DEPRM,
MDE and DNR are all members of the 100 Points
Technical Advisory Committee. Part of their charge
is determining what level of data to reasonably
expect from a volunteer program with limited re-
sources and to fashion QA/QC mechanisms ac-
cordingly.
Start slow and set achievable goals in these re-
gards. When the 100 Points first began we envi-
sioned our primary goals as education and steward-
ship. Within the first year, working closely with
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
77
-------
state and local agencies, we realized that we could in
fact produce very specific data that met government
standards and surpassed our expectations. Accord-
ingly, we began to adjust our standards.
If possible, compare your data with that collected
by professionals. One of our criteria for the 100
Points was to deliberately select some sites that the
state was also monitoring. In this way we could
compare volunteer and professional data using basi-
cally the same assessment procedures. "We found that
there was good agreement between these data sets.
Certainly, one reason for this was the hands-on
involvement of our government partners in the
entire process.
I'd like to end by reiterating the SOS philoso-
phy: Truly protecting and restoring our water re-
sources requires the commitment of both citizens
and government in innovative, ongoing and coop-
erative efforts.
Karen Firehock
Izaak Walton League of America
USING VOLUNTEERS FOR STATEWIDE
NETWORKS
The Izaak Walton League of America's (IWLA)
Save Our Streams (SOS) program has trained volun-
teers in biological water-quality monitoring tech-
niques since the early 1970s. The first SOS program
began in Maryland in the 1970s and was the brain-
child of IWLA board member Malcolm King who
worked for the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). King organized the project with
Maryland League chapters and convinced the DNR
to create a staff position to coordinate the project.
Eventually, the Maryland SOS project became so
successful that it separated from the state and became
its own nonprofit organization called Maryland
Save Our Streams.
Meanwhile, the League's national office saw that
the Maryland project was a great idea and decided
that permanent statewide networks were needed to
run in cooperation with state agencies. The IWLA
believed volunteer monitoring programs were criti-
cal to help states gather needed data and to help
volunteers be effective in monitoring water quality
and addressing pollution problems.
In the early 1980s, the League formed a partner-
ship with the Ohio Department of Natural Re-
sources (ODNR) to train volunteers to collect
biological monitoring data on the state's 10 scenic
rivers. Working in cooperation with ODNR, the
League's biological monitoring method was modi-
fied to be more scientifically valid, easier for volun-
teers to use, and to provide data usable in state
monitoring programs. Using this first partnership as
a model, the League created a statewide network in
Virginia in 1988, a statewide network in West
Virginia in 1989 and a statewide network in Ten-
nessee in 1990.
These partnerships are all organized differently
depending on the unique needs of each state. All
programs follow quality control and quality assur-
ance plans approved by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) and provide credible data that
have a variety of uses for states and volunteers. These
states serve as models for the League to use in
advising other states and have also given the League
a chance to learn what works and what does not.
Hopefully, sharing our experiences will help you
avoid some of our pitfalls and begin with a successful
program to share data, resources and energy.
Your first step, before determining monitoring
methods or data-sharing procedures, will be to
convince the state that it needs a volunteer monitor-
ing program. In these recessionary times this may
seem difficult, since many states are now in the
process of cutting or already have dramatically cut
state budgets for monitoring and enforcement.
However, this is really an argument for having a
volunteer monitoring program! Volunteer moni-
toring can vastly expand a state's ability to monitor
and protect a water resource.
For example, the Division of Natural Resources
in West Virginia uses a $30,000 grant fromEPA 319
monies (allocated to states for management ofrionpoint
78
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
source pollution) to help fund the League's SOS
monitoring program in the state. An additional
$25,000 is raised through grants from the League.
The League augments the state's 41 monitoring
stations for its 29,000 miles of rivers and streams by
providing an additional 85 stations, giving the state
a total of 126 stations with more volunteer stations
to be added this spring. As you can see, for $30,000
the state gets a good data collection program with
analysis and collection by the League, broad-scale
public education on water quality, new publications
and restoration projects. This certainly is more than
the state could buy for $30,000 without the help of
the League and hundreds of dedicated volunteers.
Before you make your case to the state or to other
agency personnel, do your homework. Research
how many monitoring stations the state maintains,
what percentage of rivers, lakes or other waters are
monitored and the frequency of monitoring. Re-
view a copy of the state's nonpoint source pollution
assessment and management plans, which all states
were required to complete in 1989, and find out
which rivers or water bodies have been designated
as priorities by the state either because they are now
polluted or threatened, or particularly unique or
pristine and in need of monitoring and protection.
Also find out how many permitted dischargers there
are in the state and how the state oversees their
discharge permits. The state may not have adequate
enforcement personnel and may need help watch-
dogging industry.
For example, Ken Cooke who coordinates Ken-
tucky Water Watch for the DNR, helps teams of
volunteers adopt-a-discharger, an idea I first saw
proposed by Maryland Save Our Streams. Kentucky
Watch sets up the monitoring teams with copies of
the industry discharge permit, chemical water moni-
toring kits and information on how to spot viola-
tions and assist with law enforcement.
Once you are ready to jump into your monitor-
ing project, your first battle may be convincing the
skeptics that volunteers can provide credible data. If
you are part of an environmental organization or
school, your skeptics may be state agency personnel.
If you are a state agency employee, you may be
facing skepticism from within your own organiza-
tion or from other agencies within your county or
state. You first will have to convince these people
that volunteers can provide credible data. If your
state does not already have a volunteer monitoring
program that provides data, you can use examples
from other states.
Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Tennes-
see use volunteer-collected data. Have skeptics con-
tact these states to ask questions; supply skeptics with
documents from projects, such as copies of monitor-
ing methodologies and copies of the EPA-approved
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) docu-
ments. SOS often has a state agency skeptic speak to
another agency person in a state that is accepting our
data. We also have them speak to staff at regional and
U.S. EPA offices, who assure them volunteers can
collect credible data, and we get states to write
letters of support stating that we provide good,
sound scientific data. There are also numerous
publications you can share with the state, such as the
EPA State Managers Guide to Working With Volunteers
or the EPA volunteer monitoring newsletter, The
Volunteer Monitor.
The first step in setting up a data-sharing project
with a state government is to make sure the data
your group has decided to collect chemical,
biological, habitat quality or other data is needed
by the state and is in an acceptable and usable format.
An informal meeting should be held with state
monitoringpersonnel to determine their data needs.
You then can offer to collect data for them and
discuss its format. The goals of your data-sharing
program are also important at this point. For ex-
ample, does the state need data.for enforcement
purposes or to determine if a river needs further
monitoring, long-term trend analyses or red flag
raising? If the state wants to use data for enforce-
ment, its collection probably will have to be rigor-
ously controlled, with many quality control checks.
If data are used only for monitoring long-term
trends or alerting the state to potential problems,
monitoring requirements may not be as stringent.
Once all parties agree to begin data sharing, and
necessary funding has been secured, the next step is
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
79
-------
to develop a QA/QC document. This is a detailed
plan that explains how the project assures that
volunteers are properly trained and can provide
credible data. A good plan provides for periodic
retraining, result checking and review, and com-
parison with state methods. The plan should be
developed in cooperation with state agency person-
nel; it should not promise to do more than is feasible
by the volunteers and it should be sent to the
regional EPA for review and approval.
"Who will collect the data and how will they
organize it are also critical questions to consider. It
may be best for the state to receive volunteer-
collected data and provide technical review. The
IWLA receives data from its three model states,
reviews it, addresses any problems, enters it on a
computer and submits computer disks to appropri-
ate state agencies on a quarterly basis. State agency
personnel then comment on any problems they
notice, conduct additional monitoring or inspection
of any problem stations and investigate pollution
problems. Our staff helps volunteers address prob-
lems as soon as they are discovered, rather than
waiting for state agency personnel to review and
analyze data. However, if a group relies primarily on
volunteers, it is advisable to have the state input and
analyze collected data.
End uses of the data are among the most impor-
tant considerations. Volunteers will drop out of a
program quickly if they feel thek data are not being
used. Volunteers need immediate feedback if there
are problems. They should have access to technical
help either by phone, in person or at retraining
sessions, and most importantly, they should feel
appreciated. For instance, in addition to periodic
QA/QC retraining meetings, the League has a
hotline (800-BUG-IWLA) our monitors can call
with biological monitoring questions. It is impor-
tant to thank your volunteers through awards, re-
ceptions, formal recognition in state reports, articles
in state wildlife magazines and other avenues. Vol-
unteers will want to see their data used through
sections in state reports, updates to the state's nonpoint
source pollution assessment and other documents.
Finally, it is important to build in long-termplans for
your project and ensure periodic review to determine
if the program is on the right track. For example, the
League has changed its survey forms, instructions,
macroinvertebrate identification cards and many other
publications throughout the years, as methods and new
techniques were perfected. We also are adding new
reports, such as an annual monitoring report, written
for use by volunteers, to present to county planning
agencies, media, scientists, schools and: others who
need easy access to data results. It is important not to let
yourprogramgrowtoolarge. For example, due to time
constraints we have capped our Virginia program at
225 biological monitoring stations. We want to ensure
we can do a good job managing our current network
before expanding.
80
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
MAKE IT YOURSELF
Presenters: Anne E. Lyon, Tennessee Valley Authority;
and Carolyn Betz, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
Anne E. Lyon
Tennessee Valley Authority
MONITORING USING HOMEMADE
EQUIPMENT
In 1986, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
created the Teacher/Student Water Quality Moni-
toring Network. The primary goal of the program
was to gather basic water quality data from small
streams and lakes in the Tennessee Valley that TVA
personnel were unable to monitor. When the pro-
gram was initially designed, we focused it primarily
on water chemistry and use of water test kits. Soon
after we began the program, many teachers and
students expressed interest in collecting biological
data, so we added this component to our program
and expanded our network to include biology teachers.
Our first workshops taught teachers and students
to use a wide range of professional sampling equip-
ment including Surber samplers, D-nets, kick nets,
and seines. It quickly became clear, however, that
professional equipment was beyond the reach of
most school budgets. It also became apparent that
we needed printed information on how and where
to properly use the different pieces of equipment.
The result was the development of the first two
booklets in TVA's Water Quality Series Water
Quality Sampling Equipment and Homemade Sampling
Equipment.
These two booklets were designed to work as a
set. Booklet one, Water Quality Sampling Equipment,
contains information on how and where to use
professional sampling equipment, and booklet two,
Homemade Sampling Equipment, contains directions
on how to make a low-cost facsimile of all the
equipment listed in booklet one. Both booklets are
organized the same way. Each contains sections on
water quality sampling equipment, invertebrate and
plankton sampling equipment, artificial substrate
samplers, fish sampling equipment and additional
information. Booklet one also contains information
about field sampling supplies, laboratory supplies
and equipment, and field attire. Booklet two also
includes a section on sampling supplies.
Each item in both books contains an italicized
description of what the equipment is used for. For
example, the Meyer Water Bottle in booklet one is
"for collecting a water sample at a desired depth." In
booklet two, the facsimile-the Deep Water Sam-
pler, has the same italicized description. To deter-
mine which piece of homemade equipment corre-
sponds to the professional type, match these itali-
cized descriptions. The equipment names are not
the same.
Equipment described in booklet one is broken
down into the following categories: description,
where, how, limitations and safety. Each entry is
accompanied by an illustration and a descriptions of
what each piece of equipment looks like and how it
is constructed. For example, the D-net description
reads "consists of a canvas reinforced nylon net on
a D-shaped wire frame attached by a metal clamp to
a three- to four-foot wooden or metal handle." The
"where" section describes what type of habitat is
appropriate for use of the piece of equipment. For
example, D-nets are typically used in "streams or
reservoirs with a strong current." The "how" por-
tion is perhaps the most critical section because it
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
81
-------
describes in detail how to correctly obtain a sample
using that piece of equipment and how to store the
sample. The "safety" section includes guidelines
persons should take when sampling with this piece
of equipment. For example, when you use a D-net
you need to wear gloves to protect your hands from
broken glass and other sharp objects, and sturdy
shoes to keep your balance on potentially slippery
rocks. The "limitations" section was included pri-
marily to describe where use of the equipment
would be inappropriate and .to alert the user of
potential problems.
Booklet one contains sections on field sampling
supplies, laboratory supplies and equipment and
field attire. These sections contain illustrations of
commonly used supplies and a description of what
they are used for. For example, a cooler is "used for
cooling and preserving water samples and live fish."
The field attire section contains useful information
on how to dress for field work and why.
The additional information section in booklet
one is broken down into general, aquatic plants and
animals, limnology, water quality, supplies and equip-
ment. The general portion lists general references
for teachers and citizens on how to investigate water
quality problems. The aquatic plants and animals
portion contains citations for useful reference guides
to aquatic plants, invertebrates and fish. The limnol-
ogy and water quality portion contains common
reference books used by professionals in the field.
The last portion, supplies and equipment, contains
the addresses and phone numbers of supply stores
which carry professional sampling equipment and
supplies.
Booklet two is organized quite differently. Each
entry contains a materials list, directions and illustra-
tions. The materials lists contains all the materials
including tools that will be required to make the
piece of equipment. The directions are divided into
individual steps. An illustration or combination of
illustrations is included with each entry to show
how the piece is built and what it looks like when
it is finished.
The additional information section of booklet
two is rather short and references other sources
which contain homemade sampling equipment in-
structions.
These two booklets were printed in October
1988. In the past three and a half years, TVA has
printed and distributed more than 25,000 copies of
both booklets. We have also given groups outside
the Tennessee Valley the right to reprint our guides
for use in their water quality education programs.
To secure permission to reprint the booklets or
portions of the booklets, TVA requires a letter. The
letter should include: 1) whether you would like to
reprint whole booklet(s) or portions; 2) how the
reprint is going to be used; 3) how many copies will
be printed; and 4) the requester's name, address and
phone number. TVA will respond with a letter of
permission and copies of the booklets suitable for
duplication. Send this letter to: Environmental Edu-
cation Section, Tennessee Valley Authority, For-
estry BuHding, Noras, TN 37828; 615-632-1599. If
you wish to obtain a set (one each) of the two
booklets, write or call: Water Quality Library,
Tennessee Valley Authority, 311 Broad Street,
Chattanooga, TN 37402; 615-751-7338.
Carolyn Rumery Betz
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
written with Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire
CENT-SAYING SAMPLERS,
SECCHIS AND SCOPES
Sampling equipment can be made to suit your
program's needs at a fraction of the cost of commer-
cially available products. The following ideas repre-
sent only a few of the many pieces of equipment that
some of the volunteer programs around the country
have designed, adopted and used for more than 10
years.
MEYER BOTTLE
If your program is interested in collecting water
samples that will not be analyzed for dissolved gasses,
82
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
a modified Meyer bottle may serve the purpose. The
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program de-
veloped one using a wine bottle housed inside a coffee
can that is filled partly with cement. The bottle is
stoppered and lowered to the desired depth. A sharp
tug on the cord releases the rubber stopper allowing
water from that depth to enter the bottle. Once full, the
sampler is hauled to the surface where the water can be
analyzed for parameters such as temperature, nutrients
orplankton. For more information, contactJeffSchloss
at 603- 862-3848.
VERTICAL SAMPLER
In some instances, it is necessary to collect a column
of water to analyze for nutrients or chlorophyll. New
Hampshire again puts forth the design for this using a
weighted garden hose; Vermont uses a similar tool.
The volunteer lowers the weighted end of the hose
into the water and when it reaches proper depth,
crimps the hose closed. The hose is then hauled to the
surface and emptied into a bucket or other storage
container. For more information, contactJeffSchloss.
WISCONSIN SELF-HELP WATER SAMPLER
One of the most challenging components of a lake
monitoring program is being able to collect a water
sample from depth. The Wisconsin Self-Help Water
Sampler was designed by volunteer Paul Anderson to
be used primarily for the collection of dissolved oxygen
or other gasses. The sampler is made from an ordinary
wide-mouth mason jar filled part-way with concrete
mixed with sand; the concrete is then coated with a
waterproof sealer. The jar weighs about two pounds,
12 ounces. The outside of the jar is wrapped with duct
tape for added protection, to make it less slippery when
wet, and to keep the pieces together in case of acciden-
tal breakage.
A wooden block sealed to the top of the jar lid
provides support for the water-in tube, the lowering
rope, and the air-out tube. The water-in and air-out
tubes are made from the outer casings of round BIG
pens; the tube stoppers are made from the plastic plug
in the end of the pens. A small hole is drilled through
the plug, into which a dacron planer board line is
inserted. A knot is tied in the end of the cord which is
then pulled back inside the plug. The inside of the plug
is then fifled with GO OP or other waterproof
sealer.
Low-stretch multifilament polypropylene rope (6/
32 inch diameter) is used to lower the water sampler.
Two wooden reels are made for the sampler: one to
keep the stopper cord and one for the lowering rope.
The lowering rope is marked with an oil-based paint
only at those depths at which a sample is to be taken.
An orange mark shows the nine foot depth, and a red
mark shows the 30 foot depth. It is easier for two
volunteers to operate the sampler to avoid tangling the
various ropes, although it can be operated by one
person with practice.
To use the Wisconsin Self-Help Water Sampler, a
60-ml. sample bottle is placed inside the sampler so that
the water-in tube is inside the sample bottle. The jar lid
is screwed on, and with both tubes stoppered, the jar
is lowered to depth. A sharp tug on the stopper cord
removes the two stoppers, allowing water to enter the
water-in tube and forcing the air that was in the jar out
the air-out tube. -This method of filling results in the
sample bottle being overflowed more than five vol-
umes before the final sample is collected. Air bubbles
rising to the surface indicate to the volunteer that the
stoppers were removed properly. To insure that the
sampler has filled completely, wait for the air bubbles
to stop before retrieving the sampler.
The sampler can be used to collect nutrient or
chlorophyll samples by not inserting the 60 ml sample
bottle inside the mason jar. Once the sample is ob-
tained, the air-out tube can be used much like a straw
to pour the sample from the mason jar into a nutrient
bottle or other storage container. The sampler is best
used for lakes under 45 feet deep, and should be
checked periodically for leakage, since the metal jar lid
can bend and its rubber seal may crack or degrade after
several years of intensive sampling or neglect.
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE WISCONSIN
WATER SAMPLER
The sampler doesn't need a lot of maintenance.
Rinse it with clear water and store where it will dry and
won't get broken. It is best to store it away from direct
sunlight, since sunlight speeds up the aging process for
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
83
-------
polymerslflce those in thecordsandsealants.High tempera-
tures and solvents also can damage plastics, so avoid
conditions that may result in degradation of materials.
Todirninatecontarninationbyalgaeorother growth
in the sampler, fill it with dear water to which a
tablespoon of household bleach has been added. Let
the bleach stand in the sampler for at least ten minutes,
then rinse the sampler with several changes of clear
water (until all trace ofbleach smell has been removed).
TESTING AND RESTORING WATER TIGHTNESS
As with any piece of equipment used to gather
scientific data, check the sampler occasionally to be
sure that it works correctly. If the sampler is not
completely sealed, water enters before it has reached
the proper depth. This is more of a problem (and more
likely to occur) if you are taking samples from deep
water (over 30 feet). To test the seals, lower the sampler
to the deepest level you sample, but don't pull the
stoppers. After about 30 seconds, recover the sampler
and see if there is any water inside. If there isn't,
everything is fine. If there is water in the sampler,
especially ifit is filled to the bottom of the water-in tub e
or more, you will have to check all the seals. If the
sampler leaks around the jar lid, the water will be
mostly in the jar outside the sample bottle. If there is
water in the sample botde, the sampler probably leaks
around the water-in and/or the air-out tube. Also, be
sure the stoppers do not leak, either around the inside
of the tubes or where the cords are attached.
If the leak(s) is around the wood block or the tubes,
you may be able to resealit with a waterproof adhesive.
If the lid leaks where it makes a seal with the jar, even
when the ringis tight, the seal area of the lid is probably
damaged. You might be able to patch the seal area, but
it is probably better to replace the lid. If the stoppers
leak, you can try to reseal the hole where the cord
enters or replace them with new ones from BIG
pens. For more information contact the Wisconsin
Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program, 608-266-8117.
CONSTRUCTING A SECCHI DISK
Secchi disks can be made out of many materials on
hand. Generally they are constructed out of steel (1/8
inch thick), plexiglass (1/4 inch) or marine plywood
(1/4 inch - 1/2 inch). The lighter materials must be
weighted with washers or weights. Steel and wood
disks must be painted on all sides. Plexiglass can be
purchased in white opaque and the surface must be
roughed with fine sandpaper and the disk warmed
before painting. Flat enamel paint works best in most
cases. The disks should be 20 cm (eight inches) in
diameter and have a 3/8 inch hole in the center to
accommodate an eyebolt.
Assemble disks with the eyebolt (5/16 inch diam-
eter). Use flat washers between disk and nut, and
between steel plate and locking washer. Use 5/16 inch
nuts at top of eyebolt, and to bolt steel pkte onto disk.
For more information, contact JefFSchloss.
MAKING A VIEWSCOPE
Using a viewscope may help increase the accuracy
of Secchi disc readings by reducing interference from
glare and wave action. For a viewscope, you will need:
Four inch diameter PVC pipe, black inside
One handle, three to four inches long
Four screws and nuts (to attach handles)
Cut a two- to three-foot section of four-inch-
diameter PVC pipe. If you can't find pipe with a black
interior, paint the inside black. If the pipe is shiny bkck
inside, use sandpaper to rough up the interior. Attach
handle about six inches from one end.
Optional refinement: Programs that monitor in
choppy waters may want to modify their viewscopes
by adding a plexiglass window at one end. This
prevents water from coming up inside the tube and
interfering with visibility. Materials needed are:
A four to five inch-diameter plexiglass disk
PVC coupling
Silicone rubber sealant
Glue the plexiglass disk to the bottom of the tube,
using rubber sealant. Pkce a piece of PVC coupling
over that end of the tube (like a collar) and seal with the
silicone sealant. Drill two small (1/8 inch) holes in the
side of the collar so that air won't be trapped in the open
end of the coupling when you put the viewscope into
the water. For more information, contact JefFSchloss.
84
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean-Water
-------
TALKING TRASH
Presenters: Lisa Younger, Center for Marine Conservation;
Dave Redford, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;*
and Philip Mummert, Tennessee Valley Authority.*
Lisa Younger
Center for Marine Conservation
THE INTERNATIONAL COASTAL
CLEANUP
All of us at one time or another have visited the
beach. Some are even fortunate enough to live
within walking distance of the seashore. The com-
plexion of our beaches may vary greatly from one
area to another, but there is one constant: trash. No
matter what beach we visit, no matter what time of
year, the one thing we can be sure of finding on our
coastlines is garbage.
We all know that garbage looks bad on our
beaches and in our waterways, and it spoils the view
we love to enjoy. But of even greater concern is the
hazard this trash, particularly plastic trash, poses to
wildlife. Thousands of marine mammals, sea turtles,
seabirds and fish die every year from entanglement
in debris such as rope, six-pack rings ormonofilament
fishing line, or from ingesting items like plastic bags
and sheeting. Marine debris can also jeopardize
vessel navigation by tangling propellers, causing
damage and endangering human safety.
The sources of this trash are as varied as the trash
itself, making-it difficult to identify any specific
group or individual. But the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC) has developed a program that
not only gets this trash off the beach, but also
^Transcript Unavailable
identifies the sources responsible for putting it there.
The first CMC-coordinated beach cleanup was a
statewide cleanup of Texas beaches in 1986. Orga-
nizers of this effort wisely realized that unless we find
out exactly what types of debris were out there and
begin to pinpoint sources of this debris, we will be
doing beach cleanups for the rest of our lives, as well
as our children's lives. Because of this foresight,
when 2,800 volunteers turned out to participate in
the cleanup, they not only collected trash, but also
information on the types and amounts of trash they
found. They used Beach Cleanup Data Cards de-
signed by CMC that listed 41 different debris items
and left space for volunteers to record other details,
such as entangled wildlife they found or debris with
identifying markings.
Volunteers at that first Texas cleanup recorded
171,496 individual debris items. This information
was entered into the first Marine Debris Database,
analyzed and compiled into the first beach cleanup
report, giving us a profile of the debris littering
Texas beaches. This report showed us that a signifi-
cant portion of Texas beach debris was generated by
shipping and cargo vessels, and provided the first of
many directions for CMC to move to get to the
sources of marine debris.
But the report did more than just inform us about
Texas' marine debris problem; it gave a very sober-
ing report of the extent of the marine debris problem
throughout the United States. The report was used
in Congressional testimony to support U.S. ratifica-
tion of Annex V of the MARPOL Treaty, which
put a halt to the dumping of plastic trash from ships
at sea. The 1986 cleanup report was also used to
support passage of the Marine Plastic Pollution
Research and Control Act of 1987, which imple-
mented Annex V in U.S. waters.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
85
-------
In 1988, CMC expanded beach cleanups to
include all the coastal states in the nation. The
resulting National Beach Cleanup was the largest,
single-day cleanup ever, encompassing some 25
U.S. states and territories. Approximately 47,000
volunteers collected 1,953,800 pounds of trash from
3,518 miles ofbeach. Analysis of the data parallelled
findings from the previous cleanups in Texas; About
65 percent of the trash collected was plastic, sup-
porting earlier findings that plastics are the major
component of our nation's marine debris.
Participation at beach cleanups has continued to
grow at an amazing rate, from 65,000 volunteers in
1989 to 108,000 in 1990, to an estimated 130,000 in
1991. As it became more and more evident that the
marine debris problem is global in scope, and that
we alone could not solve it, the cleanup began to
outgrow its U.S. borders. In 1989, Canada and
Mexico joined the United States in the first North
American coastal cleanup. The results of the Canada
and Mexico cleanups again pointed to plastics as the
number one problem in the marine environment.
Hopes were high as the 1990 cleanup date ap-
proached. With MARPOL's no dumping regula-
tions in effect for one full year, cleanup organizers
anticipated a decrease in the amount of debris
collected. Unfortunately, the data told almost the
identical story as in past cleanups. The percentage of
plastics remained within two percent of the 1988
figures, with no significant decreases. This raises
serious questions about the effectiveness of the
MARPOL legislation, questions that are now being
explored to find solutions to the marine debris
problem.
What makes this event so attractive to so many
people around the world? After all, picking up trash
is not an activity that most of us would choose
voluntarily. Comments from volunteers indicate
that the most compelling reason for participating in
the cleanup year after year is knowing that the
information they collect is useful. The data collected
by this army of volunteers has given us, for the first
time, an accurate picture of the specifics of the
marine debris problem. We now know that plastics
make up the largest percentage of trash on our
beaches. We also know that, while plastics are
consistently high on all beaches worldwide, the
sources of debris may vary greatly from one geo-
graphic area to another. For example, the Gulf of
Mexico can attribute a significant portion of its
beach debris to ocean-based sources, such as com-
mercial fishing vessels and offshore activities, while
Japan seems to have its biggest problem with land-
based garbage carried to coastal areas through storm
drains or left on the shore by beachgoers.
Because beach cleanup data points so clearly to
the specific sources of trash, a variety of organiza-
tions are using the information to halt the flow of
marine debris. For example, North Carolina State
University uses the cleanup reports as baseline infor-
mation to determine the economic impacts of ma-
rine debris. A steering committee in California used
that state's cleanup data to develop the California
Marine Debris Action, which has been accepted by
the California legislature for implementation.
The detailed information supplied by cleanup
volunteers often identifies actual organizations as
the sources of marine debris. During the 1990
cleanup, volunteers identified 150 companies as
sources of marine debris, by the labelling on trash
they collected. CMC contacts each one of these
companies individually, informing them of what
debris was found, where and when. Response from
these organizations has been positive and often has
resulted in companies launching their own educa-
tional campaign about marine debris directed at
their employees and/or patrons.
Detailed information on sources can also carry
some sobering messages about the extent of the
marine debris problem. For instance, plastic sheet-
ing found by volunteers in Hawaii turned out to be
from a passenger line that had not been in service for
over 21 years! We are still collecting decades worth
of trash and have a long way to go.
Another important aspect of the cleanup effort is
information collected during these cleanups seems
to indicate that legislation designed to solve the
problem is having little or no effect. Are people
ignoring the law? Do they even know about the
law? Or do they realize that this may be an unen-
86
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
forceable regulation, given the manpower and re-
sources available? Or is there just so much trash in
our oceans that we are still collecting debris from
years ago? These questions and many more are
currently being explored by CMC and other orga-
nizations, including federal lawmakers, to deter-
mine what must still be done to solve this enormous
problem.
Cleanups have helped increase public awareness
of the need to recycle. Many cleanups recycle glass
and aluminum beach debris, while several have
begun to recycle plastics. For example, during
Delaware's 1990 cleanup, plastic beach debris was
collected, separated and taken to central locations in
each county by the Delaware Automobile and
Truck Dealers Association. The 5,000 pounds of
plastic waste collected was then taken by DuPont for
reprocessing by ARW Polywood. The plastics col-
lected were returned to the state in the form of park
benches to serve as a reminder of the importance of
recycling. A similar cooperative effort between
DuPont and Conoco was implemented in 10 coastal
communities in Texas.
Keep in mind, however, that using volunteers in
an effort the size of the International Coastal Cleanup
does not readily lend itself to gathering scientifically
specific information. But large-scale data collection
efforts help give an overview of the specifics of a
particular area, while instilling long-term thinking
in the volunteer army. Cleanup volunteers greatly
appreciate feedback regarding the accomplishments
their efforts have made possible. In this bureaucratic
time of forms for this and applications for that, it is
easy for volunteers to view data collection as just
another piece of useless paperwork. Indeed, CMC
receives comments every year from first-time cleanup
participants who are outraged when asked to spend
their time filling out forms, when they feel it could
be put to better use picking up more trash.
But once they receive the results of their data
collection, volunteers realize the value of this added
effort. In the case of the International Coastal Cleanup,
a bi-annual newsletter, the Coastal Connection, is sent
to all volunteers who completed the name and
address portion of their data card.
And then there are the volunteers who want to do
more. These are the groups and individuals willing
to go out every day and do cleanups if needed. To
utilize these people, who are often willing to put an
enormous amount of effort into monitoring activi-
ties, CMC has taken the beach cleanup process one
step further. In cooperation with the EPA, CMC is
now testing a pilot statistical sampling project de-
signed to scientifically monitor accumulation and
movement of marine debris on a specific section of
beach over an extended period of time. Once-a-
month surveys are conducted by trained volunteer
groups who record very specific information on the
debris found in a specific section of beach area.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
87
-------
Workshop Session III: Implementing and Sustaining Projects
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
Presenters: Miehael Hens, San Frandsco BayKeeper; Mar-
garet Podlich, Center for Marine Conservation; and John
Tiedemann, New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium.
Michael Here
San Francisco BayKeeper
Theg?ganticdrydockcontainingthetankerloomed
high above the small, white boat drifting slowly
along its side. Clouds of sandblast dust swirled away
from the ship's hull and settled gently onto the
surface of San Francisco Bay next to the shipyard.
A crew member on the small boat dipped a five-
gallon container over the side and skimmed a water
sample from the gritty, grey surface layer of the bay.
Theskipper oftheBayKeeper boat quickly shot several
photos. He then noted the date, time, place and
circumstances, completing the chain-of-custody form
which would legally connect this sample to its origins
as it travelled from the BayKeeper to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and finally
to the lab which would analyze it.
In this case, the analysis indicated that the sample
contained 65,000 ppb of copper, more than 20,000
times higher than permitted in San Francisco Bay
water hundreds of thousands times above levels
demonstrated to be toxic to fish and shellfish. This
sample was also found to contain illegally high levels
of chromium, lead and nickel, all of which have
been demonstrated to be carcinogens.
Based on this information, the enforcement agency
ultimately required the shipyard to install protective
curtains to reduce airborne sandblast dust and paint,
and physical barriers to prevent toxic sandblast waste
from running into the bay. The cost of these modi-
fications, several hundred thousand dollars, may be
high, but the protection of San Francisco Bay and its
resources seems well worth it to those of us commit-
ted to enforcement monitoring.
However, this is not typical of what is happening
to polluters around the country. In most areas, no
one is minding our bays, rivers, harbors and coast-
lines. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires dis-
chargers to have National Pollution Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permits that limit the con-
centration of specific substances they can discharge
into the nation's waters. The CWA also says that
enforcement will be carried out by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency or by state agencies to
which regulatory authority has been delegated.
But in most areas of the country, budget and
personnel constraints mean that agencies have no
on-the-water enforcement presence and are unable
to conduct regular water sampling. Instead, compli-
ance with NPDES permit conditions is sought
through self-monitoring programs. (When was the
last time you wrote yourself a speeding ticket?)
A decade ago, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB had
a water monitoring vessel working full time, regularly
sampling bay water quality at the outfalls of the nearly
200 municipal and industrial dischargers. Today, this
agency has no program for monitoring receiving wa-
ter, not even spot checks, and sometimes it is forced to
request the BayKeeper boat as a platform for sampling.
Similarly, the U.S. Coast Guard used to conduct
primary mission pollution patrols twice daily around
the bay. Today there are none.
Enter the "keeper" programs. (In addition to the
San Francisco BayKeeper, there are Hudson and
Delaware River Keepers, Long Island and Puget
Sound Keepers, and the New York- New Jersey
Harbor and Casco Bay Keepers.) This is the grassroots
response to an obvious enforcement vacuum. All are
88
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
dedicated to protecting their local water bodies -
to finding and stopping sources of pollution. But
each is organized somewhat differently, reflecting
the uniqueness of the individuals and organizations
involved, the variety and severity of local environ-
mental problems, the degree of agency cooperation,
the availability of funding and other factors.
All of the keeper programs conduct some type of
environmental monitoring. These range from sys-
tematic sampling to determine long-term trends in
entire water bodies (temperature, turbidity, pH,
salinity, dissolved oxygen) to stake-outs designed to
collect samples from known or suspected sources of
pollution and to analyze them for heavy metals,
coliformbacteria, pesticides and/or petroleum prod-
ucts data designed to be used to get convictions
under the CWA or other regulations.
In different programs, samples are analyzed in
keepers' own labs or farmed out to commercial,
regulatory agency, academic or nonprofit organiza-
tion labs, such as the Citizens' Environmental Labo-
ratory operated by the National Toxic Fund in
Boston. The data from such monitoring efforts have
been used as key evidence in successful CWA
citizen suits against industries and municipalities.
They have produced significant fines and settle-
ments, which have been used to acquire threatened
habitats or to create mitigation for damaged envi-
ronments (Hudson River and Long Island Sound).
In other cases, data collected by BayKeeper volun-
teers have led agencies to implement new regulatory
programs against previously unregulated polluters
or to begin to reform their penalty-setting proce-
dures (San Francisco Bay).
You don't have to be a water quality chemist to
catch and stop polluters. Some of the data that have
led agencies to initiate enforcement have been still
or video pictures. Commercial fisherman hamming
it up in front of our video camera (which they
thought was being operated by a tourist from Kan-
sas) while they pumped their oily bilges at Fisherman's
Wharf are currently facing Coast Guard fines. Pho-
tos and a declaration from a BayKeeper kayaker have
led to an EPA criminal investigation which already
has resulted in a $210,000 fine being levied against
another San Francisco Bay area shipyard for im-
proper storage and handling of hazardous materials.
While we recognize the importance of routine
monitoring as a basis for describing trends in water
quality, one of the principal objectives of the keeper
programs is enforcement. It simply is not being done
adequately by the agencies that have the mandate.
Budget and personnel cuts have made their job
nearly impossible. For example, the current field
staff of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the agency delegated CWA
enforcement authority by EPA for the 400-square-
mile bay (with 700-plus miles of shoreline), is two
people, double the size of two years ago!
The agencies are cautiously supportive of our
work. They view us as an asset; we can collect
samples and detect violations for them. But we are
a threat as well; we can and do publicize the
problems they are unable or unwilling to tackle. We
have a large volunteer base boats, planes, a
helicopter and hundreds of volunteers dedicated to
protecting the bay by stopping pollution. And we
can set our priorities independent of political pres-
sures or industries happy to pay even large fines if
they can continue to pollute.
From the perspective of the seven existing keeper
programs, we are part of a movement. We believe
citizens want our waters to be swimmable and
fishable as required under the Clean Water Act, and
that they are angry both at polluters' selfish behavior
and at regulators' failures. We get inquiries about
how to start keeper programs from around the
country (and the world) that indicate a sense of
commitment to hands-on solutions to our critical
problems of polluted rivers, bays and coastal areas.
All of us have a vested interest in the quality of our
bays, rivers and coastal areas. The important re-
sources contained in these waters are our heritage,
and we should be clear that we are only borrowing
their use from our children and their future. The
abusers who we seek to stop need to know that all
of our citizens care, that we will document their
pollution and sue them when they won't stop
that we're mad as hell and we're not going to stand
it anymore!
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
89
-------
Margaret Podlich
Center for Marine Conservation
John Tiedemann
New jersey Marine Sciences Consortium
DEVELOPING THE CITIZEN POLLUTION
PATROL PROJECT
In 1987, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act (MPPRCA) provided for United
States ratification of MAPvPOL Annex V, the Inter-
national Regulations for the Prevention of Pollu-
tion by Garbage from Ships. These regulations
apply to all U.S. ships, except certain government-
owned or operated ships, including commercial
fishing vessels and privately owned recreational
boats, wherever they operate. In addition, all for-
eign vessels operating in U.S. waters out to and
including the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles)
must comply with these regulations.
Under the regulations, it is illegal for any vessel to
dump plastic trash anywhere in the ocean or navi-
gable waters of the United States. In addition to
prohibiting the discharge of plastics in coastal and
ocean waters, MARPOL makes it illegal to dump all
other types of trash in inland waters and ocean
waters out to three miles from shore. Further off-
shore, various other disposal restrictions apply.
The MPPRCA requires vessels that are 26 feet or
more in length to display placards that notify passen-
gers and crew of marine debris discharge regulations
and penalties for violations. The regulations require
oceangoing vessels of 40 feet or more to have
written waste management plans on-board.
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for enforc-
ing MARPOL Annex V and the MPPRCA regula-
tions. To help reduce the marine debris problem,
Section 2204 of the MPPRCA requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Coast Guard to encourage the
formation of volunteer groups, designated as Citi-
zen Pollution Patrols, to assist in the monitoring,
reporting, cleanup and prevention of ocean and
shoreline pollution.
In 1991, the Center for Marine Conservation
(CMC) received a grant from EPA to design and test
a Citizen Pollution Patrol project. Working in
conjunction with the New Jersey Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Service and Coastal Environmental Ser-
vices, two projects were conducted, one in the Port
of Annapolis region of Maryland and one in the Port
of Manasquan, Greater Barnegat Bay area of New
Jersey. The projects were designed to:
Increase awareness of the marine debris problem
in the maritime community;
Educate the boatingpopulation in the project
areas about MARPOL Annex V;
Bring members of key marine user groups
into compliance with MARPOL Annex V;
Test a pilot program where citizens report
violations.
OVERVIEW OF MARINE DEBRIS LAWS
Since the Coast Guard has issued the final interim
rules for implementation of MARPOL Annex V
and the MPPRCA, guidance concerning vessel
enforcement policy, vessel discharge violation in-
vestigation and reporting requirements for the dis-
charge provisions of Annex V has been developed
by Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
In the field, each regional Coast Guard Captain of
the Port or Marine Safety Office determines the
optimum approach to encourage compliance.
The Coast Guard began enforcing regulations on
garbage disposal at sea in May 1989. At present, the
Coast Guard is not doing any at-sea boardings
exclusively for the enforcement of Annex V. Search
and rescue operations remain their highest priority.
Compliance with the regulations is mainly being
ascertained during other operations, including
boardings and safety inspections. Violations by ships
at sea are being identified during Coast Guard
boardings unrelated to MARPOL, or through in-
terviews of ship personnel or investigation of pas-
senger reports. While ships are in U.S. navigable
waters, they may be inspected by the Coast Guard.
90
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean "Water
-------
On routine inspection, patrols check to see that
ships have not discharged plastics or other garbage in
violation of the MPPRCA or Annex V.
A variety of other legislation and regulatory
agency initiatives address debris in the marine envi-
ronment. For example, in Maryland part of the state
litter law applies to state waterways, and in New
Jersey provisions of the state fish and game statutes
prohibit the introduction of any material, including
debris of any kind, into fresh or tidal waters of the
state.
In addition, many municipalities have also adopted
ordinances and regulations in an attempt to control
littering within their communities. While approaches
vary, they all prohibit the disposal of waste materials
defined as litter within the boundaries of that mu-
nicipality, including marinas and dockage facilities,
the waterfront or water bodies within the commu-
nity. Many municipalities have also adopted recy-
cling ordinances as elements of their solid waste
management plans. However, at present these pro-
grams are not in existence in all coastal communi-
ties.
THE CITIZEN POLLUTION PATROL
In order to enable citizens to document and
report suspected violations of marine debris laws, a
mechanism to facilitate an effective response to
citizen reports had to be developed. Meetings with
interested local, state and federal regulatory and
enforcement agencies were held to enlist their par-
ticipation in the Citizen Pollution Patrol Program.
The possibility of establishing a procedural protocol
for reporting violations of MARPOL Annex V and
the MPPRCA regulations to local and state agencies
was discussed.
All of the local and county agencies contacted
indicated that local jurisdiction along the waterfront
generally is considered to end at the shoreline, and
that marine debris-related incidents would likely be
referred to the marine law enforcement unit of the
state and the Coast Guard, if appropriate. In addi-
tion, although the project interested many of the
agencies, most were unwilling to commit to active
participation in the Citizen Pollution Patrol Pro-
gram because of questions related to jurisdiction,
staffing and budgetary constraints.
During the discussions with the Coast Guard it
was noted that a number of factors make enforce-
ment of Annex V difficult, including the great
number of ships affected by the regulations, a huge
enforcement area, the difficulty in determining the
source of plastic and other debris once it is dumped
overboard, and concern over how high of a priority
plastic and garbage control should be, when com-
pared to search-and-rescue missions and control of
illegal drug traffic by Coast Guard personnel. One
measure that would help overcome these difficulties
would be to dedicate more resources to effectively
enforce MARPOL; however, this has not occurred.
In both New Jersey and Maryland the local Coast
Guard stations indicated that they could not take on
enforcement activities related to reports of marine
debris, especially reports received from citizens, due
to their other responsibilities. In Maryland, the
Coast Guard requested that the smaller violations be
reported to another enforcement agency like the
Maryland Natural Resources Police. In contrast, the
New Jersey Marine Police suggested that violations
should be reported to the Coast Guard. Thus, the
development of similar projects in different coastal
regions reflects quite a dichotomy.
As a result of these efforts, the Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office in Philadelphia and the Mary-
land Natural Resources Police did agree to partici-
pate in the project and a final strategy to facilitate
citizen reports of violations of MARPOL Annex V
and the MPPRCA was developed. Citizen Pollu-
tion Patrol Report Forms were distributed to inter-
ested boaters and anglers. These forms were de-
signed to provide information needed by the coop-
erating enforcement agencies. Arrangements were
made to forward Citizen Pollution Patrol reports to
the Coast Guard MSO Philadelphia Office (New
Jersey project) or the Maryland Natural Resources
Police (Annapolis project). These agencies would
then track the owner of the reported vessel via the
vessel registration number and forward a packet of
educational materials to the vessel owner or deter-
mine if enforcement action would be taken.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
91
-------
RESULTS OF THE CITIZEN POLLUTION PATROL
Few citizen reports of MARPOL violations were
received as a result of the Citizen Pollution Patrol.
However, it should be noted that the project re-
sulted in thousands of boaters learning about the
opportunity for citizen reports of MARPOL Annex
V violations. In addition, the Coast Guard MSO
Philadelphia, Coast Guard Group Sandy Hook, and
Maryland Natural Resources Police have indicated
that they would consider participating with the
Citizen Pollution Patrol in the future.
Although enforcement of Annex V may be diffi-
cult, educating the public about the problems of
marine debris and the requirements of Annex V
offers an effective means to combat the problem at
the source by influencing compliance decisions.
Voluntary compliance through education has been
shown to be an effective means of achieving the
policy objectives of MARPOL during the Citizen
Pollution Patrol Program.
Through the Maryland and New Jersey Citizen
Pollution Patrol projects, tens of thousands of boat-
ers and marina operators were exposed to informa-
tion about the problems and solutions to marine
debris. MARPOL Annex V and the MPPRCA
regulations were explained to environmental, fish-
ing and boating organizations through seminars,
workshops, media presentation, attendance at trade
shows and local forums in the project areas. Boaters
and fishermen were also assisted in complying with
the placarding and waste management plan require-
ments of MARPOL Annex V.
IMPLEMENTING A VOLUNTEER-BASED
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM
To design an effective program in which citizens
can document specific violations of an environmen-
tal law or regulatory program, regardless of the
particular environmental issue, it is essential that
project personnel become completely knowledge-
able about the provisions of the applicable laws and
regulations. This is a time-consuming process, but
well worth the effort. Once versed in the law and
regulations of concern, it is vital to meet with the
agencies responsible for implementing them in or-
der to obtain a working knowledge of how permits
are granted and enforcement cases built. Pay par-
ticular attention to what pieces of data are essential
for enforcement cases.
Next, determine the ability of volunteers to
provide useful information that fosters enforcement
or enhances existing monitoring efforts. Know your
limitations as well as assets. Have a clear objective for
collecting data and a well-planned procedure for
initiating action once that information is at hand.
If volunteers are going to record observational
data or sample and test results, it is essential to create
standardized procedures for data collection. This
includes development of standardized reportingforms
and formats. As in the case of the Citizen Pollution
Patrol project, seek agency participation in develop-
ing reporting procedures and promote a commit-
ment from the enforcement agencies to use citizen
input provided through the project.
92
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
COMPUTER DATA MANAGEMENT
Presenters: Ray Norris, Tennessee Save Our Streams,
Izaak Walton League of America; Marty Judd, Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay; and Chetan Desai, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, *
Ray Norris
Tennessee Save Our Streams
WELCOME TO IZAAK
IZAAK is a comprehensive software program for
recording, storing, analyzing and reporting data
stemming from the Izaak Walton League's Save Our
Streams survey procedures. IZAAK was created in
1992 by Henry Farmer, a Tennessee SOS volunteer
stream monitor, for use with volunteer monitoring
survey procedures and forms. Written in Clipper
language, it can be installed and run on any IBM/AT
compatible PC with two megabytes of hard disk
space available and MS-DOS Version 3.3 or higher
installed. Data entered into IZAAK is stored in
dBase files which can be imported into other dBase
systems with compatible file structures and character
fields.
There are no templates of complex key stroke
combinations required and no detailed procedures
to be remembered to use IZAAK. Conventional
commands are used, where possible, and allowable
operations and procedures for executing them are
generally displayed on each screen, practically elimi-
nating any need for special help routines.
IZAAK is a fully operational data entry and
information retrieval system. There remain a few
places, however, where minor cosmetic adjust-
ments are needed to improve the appearance of
some screens and the format of some reports. New
users may detect some bugs. With that disclaimer of
perfection, let me turn the computer on and walk
you through IZAAK.
IZAAK
Save Our Streams Data Management System
Created by Wordsworth Software, Nashville, TN for
The Izaak Walton League of America
1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B
Arlington, VA 22209-2318
Press any key to continue...
IZAAK's main menu appears automatically after
a 20-second dispky of the title screen or if you hit
any key. You may choose to work on People,
Groups, Locations or Samples files by using the
arrow keys to highlight your choice or by typing in
the initial letter of the file you wish to activate.
ENTER will select the highlighted file.
Since there are look-up routines which can be used
in both data entry and data viewing, it is a good idea to
enter People information first so that you can look up
group leaders from the People file in creating the
Groups file. Creating the Location files next makes it
possible for you to use automatic look-up procedures
for both locations and groups when creating or view-
ing Samples data. This sequence eliminates the need for
separate lists of member, group andlocation identifica-
tion numbers. So, typing P and ENTER on the main
menu below will bring up data on the first member in
an alphabetic listing.
^Transcript Unavailable
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
93
-------
U»*l*» Location* Croup* Pooplo Raports Utilitiaa Quit
Adeyinapaet watar quality aaaplai
KEVlDt MOOIUHZP INTOMATIOK
is fieiaen tait
H «r n r Titiat
MM I ARMZ7TA Pl»t IWMI
PHYSICIAX
HAHCY
erf* lutleni uAYxts»ota BAPTIST HOSPITAL
AMr aat KT. 3, BCX 441
City tUYMESBCftO
]* Walton L*M
Owualro Hollow eoaaun
tlaa I - <
CKU*Ct, 4F4> - OtLX
Statat TM 21pf 3*419
uo aabari M Tvanatt M
Uy. Husband Stava Ouback. Childran Than
in I Adanta.
EXO> kayi to aova through Clio, OR - ADD. -
TX, - SEARCH, " EDIT eoaa«nta or and the
initial letter of the surname of the person you are
seeking. You will note that you are also given the
option of searching by identification number. The
arrow on the line below the column headings on the
search screen indicates that more information can be
obtained on each member by using the right arrow.
Once the name of the proper person has been
highlighted, pressingENTER will select that file. If
there are no data entered for the person being
sought, you can press and to activate
the membership, data-entry screen.
RfVlIU KOOXUKIP IKTOKXATXOM
18 I10100JJ U«t MJMt AWCZTTA
N *r ri r tltlai PHYSICIAN
ervtniiatient twniEaBcao BAPTIST HOSPITAL
A*lr**«l MT. 1. BOX 441
Saarca by*
eityi UAYtfUBOfta
KM* Id Kuabar
liaa* Walton Laaa^ta MBbari M Tvanatt M
Fi»t naMt KAXCY
I 31415
Dunalr* Hollav Couunlty. Kuaband Stava Qub*clt. Chlldran Tharon & Adanta.
Actlva in n«*a aehMlinv aavaMnt.
» i I - «HOKO - ADO. -
CXANGC. *T*> - OXLTTX. - SEARCH. * EDIT ceuant* or
LASTHAHZ PIRSTWAHE
ARKCTTA
BALL
BARRZCAR
BLAMKEHSHIP
BOOHE
BROHH
CLEKMER
COUCH
COUCH
DALTOK
DARHELL
MAKCY
KARY
GARY
BOB
DANIEL
BOB
JEHMX
JOHH
TERESA
KIKE
LARRY
ID
1010033
loiooie
010019
01004
01001
01000
01004
01001
01002
01001*
010001
Dunaira Hollow Community. Husband Stava Qubac . Childran
Tharon * Adanta. Activa in hoa* achooling aovaaant.
nta.
1 - to aova through fil* OR to Ralact
co axit with no aalaction OR antar lattara/nuabara to HMD HATCH
Similar procedures are followed to identify the
leader when setting up a Groups record. If you do
not enter the identification number of the group
leader, you will be asked if you wish to skip leader
designation. Ifyou answer NO, you will be put into
a search routine among members. You will note in
completing the Groups data form that will save any entry you make in the memo field.
This is the standard instruction for saving all memo
fields in IZAAK.
ADD RECORDS TO CROUP ZHFO FILE
Croup fl010045 Croup KaMI DUMXZRE KOttOH COKKUHITY
Croup L*«d«r ID /1010053 HIM: NAHCY ARMCTTA
Monitor 4lcr««lc> Hurrlcana cr««k, and other BtrMU In MiyntiDoro >r«a.
you My now «nt«r croup Not«a. When £lnlih«d, pr«» to MV« *ntry,
or <£5O to «xit without ving entry.
Locating a sample monitoring site already in the
files follows the same procedures used in locating
People and Groups, including automatic search for
the stream on which the site is located. Before
entering a new location, however, you will need to
determine from a topographic map the latitude and
longitude of the site in degrees, minutes and sec-
onds. You will need also to obtain the catalog unit
number for that watershed from a "Waterbody Sys-
tem Hydrologic Unit Map. Pviver segments and
mile information for major tributaries can be ob-
tained from WBS Reach Files, but it is unavailable
for many branches monitored by SOS volunteers.
Segments can be designated in IZAAK by three
numerals or up to two letters and a third-place
94
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
numeral. Very specific location information in the
memo field is helpful.
REVIEW LOCATION INFORMATION Last Counted on: / /
Stream: 48 CREEK
Latitude: 35* 20m
B«low us Rt. 64 Bridge,
CAT UHIT-SEG-HI
county: MAYM£
«0* -K- Longitude: 017* 39« 45* -W-
50 yards upstreaa from Geisler's Branch.
CHANCE, STATUS, - SEARCH, CHANGE ORDER or EXIT
To add sample data for a given location, you
highlight Samples and press ENTER. When Add is
highlighted, press ENTER again.
Samples Location* Group* People Reports utilities Quit
On* moment i
> Data Entry Scr**n*
Add sanple* to file
Following instructions at the bottom of screen
one, use the search procedure for location
and for group if that information exists in Locations
and Groups files. Enter information about other
stream conditions, noticing that the cursor will
advance automatically if all spaces for an item are
filled or if ENTER is pressed. The exception is for
flow rate where ENTER selects the highlighted
rate and is used to advance the cursor.
You will note that IZAAK permits the entry of
three possible types of test data: "mci" will set up a
six-screen data entry routine for benthic
macroinvertebrate data; "chemical test" will set up
one data entry screen for the Hach Fish Farmer Test
Kit parameters used in Tennessee; "other" will open
a memo field for recording miscellaneous data such
as fecal coliform and fecal strep, stream environment
evaluations and sniff tests for petroleum pollution. If
more than one type of test is to be reported for a
given date and location, screen one stream condi-
tion data will have to be entered for each test. If you
have made any error in entering data on screen one
(or subsequent screens), indicate N when asked
"Are you finished with this screen? You will then be
given an opportunity to change your data entries.
-> SCREEK fl! STREAM COKDITIOHS <-
LOCATION:
COUNTY:
CROUP1
HEATHER CONDITIONS:
STREAK WIDTH (MAX):
PARTICIPANTS:
rt. STREAK DEPTH (MAX): ft.
FLOW RATE! high low medium
HATER DEPTH: Inch** HATER TEMPERATURE: *F
SAMPLE NUMBER: DATE! TIKE:
TYPE OF TEST: mci count chemical test other
Ent«r * LOCATION NUMBER or pro* for LOOKUP, <«> to ADD LOCATION or
<£SO to exit sample* entry
Screen two has different screens for the different
types of tests. The chemical test screen follows.
-> SCREEK 12: CHEMICAL TEST <-
g/1
TEST
Dissolved Oxygen:
Water Temperature: c
pH: standard Unit*
Total Hardnes*: »g/l
Alkalinity: gr/gl
Chlorides: mg/1
carbon Dioxide: mg/l
Ammonium-Nitrogen
Ilitrit«-Mitrog«n i mg/1
fatal Pho*ph*tB»: mg/1
RESULT
9.0
18.33
7.5
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
BACKUP
9.0
IB. 33
7.5
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
The mci screen two provides an opportunity to
enter A, B or C (or no entry) for each type ofbenthic
macroinvertebrate obtained in the sample collected.
When all specimens have been recorded,
will cause the program to calculate the Water Qual-
ity Index. Note carefully the default values for each
survey item on screens three, four and five. EN-
TER will select highlighted responses and
will step the cursor from one item to another.
-> SCREEN 13'. KACROIKVERTEBRATE COUNT <-
SENSITIVE SOKEHHAT-SENSmVE
caddisfly larva*
hellgraamita
mayfly nymphs
gilled snails
rime beetle adult
tonefly nymph*
yater penny larvae
beetle larvae
elaaa
crane fly larvae
A crayfish
A dauelfly nymphs
dragonfly ny>ph*
euda
oubugs
A tisbfly larvae
Iderfly larvae
tharlx
TOLERANT
aquatic worm*
blac!c£ly larvae
A leeches
log* larvae
pouch (and othar snails
6 letter* 3 letter* l letter*
timea 3 - time* 2 - time* 1 -
IB index value < index value 1 index value
Total Index Value - 25 - EXCELLENT
[ ViniBhed with the Kacrolnvertebrate count? Y/n Y
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
95
-------
.» iau» hi wnx otuurr wo STREAM DESCRIPTION <-
ni» KMtx OUAUTY xNoiaitoRsi RURZERS to run NOVEXEUTI
acattarod individuals Mnir dama
aclltarod BC&oolB
caulan
SWACC tutu
nwnUh
ClMT
**»l*r*4 Bfc»«n
black
troy
otfcar
tntorfalla
rotton ogg
Buaky
oil
STRXAM SEO STARILXTYI
no spota
| Ar« r»« tlniBii«d Mlto UHB oter^nT t/n Y |potB
STUAX KO OE70SXTI
orango/rod
yollow
block
t»* ttmw ktn t« pMltlen highlight. UMI, pr««» fouczN *4i nncntzx STUAM DzsatzrrxoH <-
« Munc covxazo BY ruum. MCXS
AXO LOGS (no nrcaE) SOIL) in coed r«ir voor
SirtUB iMftk (BlMVl » > 70% 30% - 70% < 301
T*p «f b«ft* C»lop« * fleodplaln) > 70% 30% - 70% < 301
STUAN SJUIX VZCZTATIOM COKIOSITXOHl 30% BbTUb* 10% grUB 70% tTMB
STUAN oUUHC KXClIOMt > IQ% B«va«
30% - »t% K
to ccMroatTtDH or mi IALOAT UOCATC
01 111 IBU4) I Knc«r p*rc«r.t*=« of t*d covart tlSt .v«ry.m4,r«
II »*Ml (1/1*" - I/I ' in «pot«
1SI «itv«l I!/*' - 3* BtaiMB) iwewn co*t»d % Md oevi
10% MMliB (3* - 10" BUM*) BattK. on SUMB b>>d
01 .MolfefB (» 10- BteiMB) *ulry
*CTM k«yc to poaltlon blghlloht. tnon pro*« to Mloet up tl
, or omo «tso to !« tho list. Dotoult lo no ontry.
Entries can be made in the screen six memo fields
by highlighting the appropriate field and pressing
the ENTER key. IZAAK will save the contents of
each memo when is pressed. Before
exiting from the data-entry routine for a given site
on a given date, IZAAK will ask if you are finished
with that sample. If you indicate that you are not,
you will be cycled back through all screens to make
any changes you wish.
-> SCUDf f5t LAND USE AND DISCHARGE PIPES <-
Lond mu In tutoruiodi blgh (H), Mini (K) or Blight (S) iopoct?
Housing DovolopBonto roroBt oil I OBB Drilling
urbui UBBB (Porting loto) S lagging xnlury Undtlll
othor cropland conotruotion
PioldB Klnlng
» UvoBtock Paoturo RBCUBO Duap
Aro thoro any diBohoralng plpoa? y/M
How Mny7 0
Aro you finlahad with this
-> SCP.ESH It: L1TTEH AMD THBEATS TO WATER QUALITY <-
» parcant and typ* of littor around otraaa H««I.B.IB
5% eana t bottlaa
Individual fully duapo. HaiardouB waoto diapoaal alto propoaad by roglonal
corporation.
I Aro you einlahad with thia aaBplo? y/n y I
soloet a eatagory to EOZT or praaa to oxlt
After leaving the sample entry routine, you may
choose to "view" sample entries already made. To
do so, highlight "view" and press ENTER. IZAAK
will bring call up the entry for the first stream in a
numerical, then alphabetic listing.
V1CM SAMPLES
Location flOlOOft ULOtf US «4 SXXDGE 4S CMEEX HAYME
Croupt 101004S OUKNIRE MOLLOU COMfUMm
Datoi 10/17/ffl Tioot lltoo saaplo fl PBrtloipantBt 7 ttator Twapt 43.0*r
Doptbl 1S.O* Hoathor Cndl 0 DEGREES
BBBplo TypBI NACROlMVmiBRATE COUNT Roaultt EXCELLENT! » 3S
MAX stroaa Hldtat 35.0ft. Dapth:3.oft. now ratot 1OH
% bank eovarod by plonta, rookB and logs (no oxpoood Boll) IB
EtroBi bank (olooa): > 70% (GOOD) Top of bank (alopo t floodpl)t > 70% (GOOD)
Strou bank vogatotloni 30% ahrubB 10% graBBBs 70% trooa
stroaai bank orooiom < 30% - 0% (SLIGHT)
loo I I - <«OHX> to BOVO through filo, OR DELETE
:n> - SEARCH - chango vim . vlow MEMO floldo and the initial letter of the stream on
which you want information. Using the arrow keys,
you can look through all the sample results entered
for that particular site, beginning from the earliest
through the most recent. If you detect an error
while viewing sample information, you can call up
an individual data entry screen by highlighting it and
pressing ENTER. The command will open
that screen so that changes can be made.
96
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
VIEW SAMPLES
tOd
Cro
Oat
Dep
Sam
MAX St
% bank
stream
Stream
Stream
STREAM
41 CREEK
BACK CREEK
BEAVER CREEK
BEAVER CREEK
BXC SWAN CREEK
BIG SHAM CREEK
BIG SHAH CREEK
BLUE HATER CREEK
BRIAR PORK
BRUSH CREEK
BRUSH CREEK
LOCXAME
BELOW US «4 BRIDGE
BELOW CARDOK HOLLOW BRIDGE
BEAVER CREEK AT PHILLIPSWOOD
BEAVER CREEK AT RT 37
FAR UPSTREAM
JUST UPSTREAM OF DUMP RAVIHE
KM 27.6
BEAM STATION 4-H
BRUSH CREEK (CHEATKAH CO.) 1
LOWER: HEAR SEWAGE TREATMENT
Belov us 64 bridge, SO yards upstream from Celsler's Branch.
t as.o'r
* (GOOD)
I Database Lookup:
Use t 1 - to move through file OR to select
|
-------
tools we use: the watershed coordinator system and
the data management software we call "CitMonMAN"
for Citizen Monitoring Data Management.
Since 1985 the Virginia program has expanded
from 16 sites on the James River to 75 sites on the
Elizabeth, James, York, Piankatank, Rappahannock
and Shenandoah Rivers, Nomini Creek off the
Potomac, as well as the Bayside and seaside creeks of
the Eastern Shore and six riparian state parks around
the state. Scheduled expansion for 1992 includes 10
new sites on the Eastern Shore, 10 sites on the
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, and 10 nutrient
sampling sites near the main stem.
Currently, funding for the Virginia program is
provided by the Virginia State "Water Control Board
and the Coastal Zone Management Program of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, administered by the Virginia Council on the
Environment.
All monitors record information on data sheets,
which include monitor number, site number and
name, air and water temperature, secchi depth and
water depth, hydrometer reading and temperature
in the hydrometer jar to calculate salinity, pH, and
the average of two dissolved oxygen tests. The form
also covers more subjective data about water sur-
face, weather, water color and relevant comments.
Some monitors also test for ammonia and nutrients;
there is also room on the form to record wildlife
observations.
With 75 monitors sending in 52 data sheets a year,
we collect 3,900 records that need to be separated by
river, collated by date and checked for accuracy
before they are ready for data entry.
To decentralize management of volunteers and
better handle data, we developed the watershed
coordinator system and data management software.
We divided the group into 10 smaller groups of
about 10 monitors each headed by a watershed
coordinator. Each watershed coordinator acts as a
trouble shooter and relays messages to the coordina-
tor. We gave each watershed coordinator a copy of
CitMonMAN. They collect data sheets from moni-
tors and enter them into their own computers,
which are copied on disk and mailed to the Rich-
mond office where we can easily import them every
month. With CitMonMAN, we can store the data
in a standardized format. We anticipate that state
managers will use this citizen-generated data in
assessing the status of surface waters because we
generate data reports in a format suitable for inclu-
sion into the State Water Control Board's 305 (b)
reports to Congress. As far as our monitors are
concerned, we have the ability to give them timely
feedback in the form of tabular reports and graphs.
Specifically, CitMonMAN has three databases:
site information, monitor information and monitor-
ing data. Site information must be entered first, then
monitor information and last, monitoring data.
From the main menu of CitMonMAN, use the
arrow keys to move across the menu and highlight
different functions. The descriptive line underneath
tells you what each function does. First enter infor-
mation about a new site. Choose Entry, Site(s) and
the site information form appears.
SITE INFORMATION
Each site is assigned a number between 1 and 999
and a name. Each monitor is assigned a number
between 1 and 999, usually corresponding to his or
her site. Each monitor is encouraged to have a
backup to monitor when the primary monitor is
Site Information Form
Press [F2] when complete.
Press [Esc] to abort data entry.
Site Number:
Site Name:
River:
Primary Monitor 1^
Backup Monitor N
Date Begin:
Date End:
Parameters:
HUG Code:
Water Body Code
Latitude:
Longitude:
Sites # 2
Site Information Form |
umber:
umber:
(mm/dd/yy)
(mm/dd/yy)
(Basic or Enhanced)
(##:##:##)
(##:##:##)
98
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
unavailable. We just append the number with an A
(for example, monitor 999A). At the Date Begin
prompt, you enter the first date of monitoring. At
Date End, you enter the date the monitor left the
program. (Hopefully this slot remains empty.)
Under Parameters, the B is for basic tests, such as
dissolved oxygen, pH, air and water temperature,
clarity and salinity. E is for enhanced tests, such as
nutrients. For the HUC code, you enter the eight-
digit hydrologic unit code. The water body code
requires a two-digit one letter code. Latitude and
longitude are self evident. Once data has been input,
press enter and then press F2 to save the information.
You will then be back to the main menu.
Next you need to enter monitor information. To
do so, you must choose Entry, Monitor(s), and the
monitor information form appears. The form is self
explanatory, requiring information such as name,
address and monitor number. When you have com-
pleted the monitor information section, you can
enter monitoring data.
Once the sheets have been sorted by river, col-
lated by date, and checked for accuracy, you are
ready to enter data. To do so, you must choose
Entry, Monitoring Data, and the monitoring data
form appears.
MONITORING DATA
The,computer draws from the site and monitor
databases and fills in the site number, monitor name
and site name. It takes you to site number and won't
let you enter any site numbers that haven't been
entered in site information. The time of day is listed
in military time, and the monitor and site names
must be entered previously under monitorand site
information.
The system has an expected response for specific
parameters. For instance, with air and water tem-
peratures, values between -6 and 46 are expected. If
you don't enter the decimal place, you get an error
message that indicates incomplete field. For secchi
and water depth, values between zero and 10 are
expected. For hydrometer readings, it won't accept
a value greater than four, and pH is expected
between zero and 11. For the first and second
Monitoring Data Form
3ress [F2] when complete.
Press [Esc] to abort data entry.
Monitoring Data Form
Monitor Number:
Site Number:
Collection Date:
Time of Day:
Monitor Name:
Site Name:
Air Temperature: C (Centigrade)
Secchi Depth: m (Meters)
Water Depth: m (Meters)
Water Temperature (Bucket): C (Centigrade)
Hydrometer Reading
Water Temperature (Hydrometer):
pH:
Dissolved Oxygen: Test 1 : Test 2:
Avg: mg/l (ppm) Difference: (mg/l) (ppm)
Water Surface:
Weather: f Nutrients "j
Rainfall: ' I
Other: Ammonia: mg/l Range:
Range: TN/TP sample #: I
Comments:
Signature Present ?: Signature Date:
dissolved oxygen test, the program expects a value
between zero and 20; if you don't enter the decimal
place you get the error message (incomplete field).
When you average the two tests, if your values are
further than six-tenths apart, you get an error mes-
sage at the end of the data entry session listing the
entries in question.
At the more subjective sections, such as water
surface, weather and water color, you enter numbers
that correspond to various responses. For instance, if
you enter 2 for water surface, the descriptive word
"ripple" is inserted. If you enter 3 at weather, the
descriptive word "overcast" is inserted. If you enter
"N" at water color, it signifies normal conditions.
Under the comment section, monitors write
brief statements to provide additional information,
such as, "saw lots of SAV, celery weed, widgeon
grass." Once completed, you press enter, then F2 to
save the data and return to the main menu.
EDIT
If you need to change data, you use the edit
function. Let's say you just entered a sheet, saved it
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
99
-------
and then realized that you put in the wrong tem-
perature. Choose Edit, Monitoring Data, Selected
(You would get a list of all your sites here.) Choose
the site number and indicate beginning and ending
dates. Ifyou have alot of records and don't know the
exact date you can put in a range here and use the
page up and page down keys to find the record you
need. Choose Q, the form is pulled up and you can
use the enter key to move to the value you need to
change. The edit mode is the only mode in which
you can change data once it has been entered. Press
F2 to save the change, choose Quit and you return
to the main menu.
BROWSE
Once you have entered data, you can browse
through it without disturbing it by using the browse
function. Browse, Monitoring Data, Site (indicate
site number) tells you exactly how many records
you have entered. Ifyou have lots of records, you
can use the page up and page down keys to move
through the data. You can use the enter key to move
down through the form, but it won't let you make
changes. Press F2 to exit and you're back at the main
menu.
GRAPHS AND TABLE REPORTS
Let's say you want to send a graph report of
dissolved oxygen and water temperature values to a
monitor. Choose Reports, Individual, Data, Moni-
toringData, Graphs, Exploratory. You enter the site
number, thebeginningand ending dates, and choose
the variables (DO and water temperature) by mov-
ing to them with the arrow keys and entering. You'll
see the number of variables chosen underneath.
Then move to GPvAPH and enter. The computer
will flash "working" and then present a graph. Press
enter and you can send it to the printer, create other
graphs, or quit.
Ifyou want to print the same information in a
tabular form, choose Reports, Individual, Data,
Monitoring Data, Tables, Basic, Selected, site num-
ber, beginning and ending date, Q. The computer
will flash "working" and then the table will appear.
Use the page down key to move. You can send the
table to the printer, continue with other tables or
graphs, or quit.
QUALITY CONTROL DATA ENTRY
You can enter data from a quality control session the
same way you enter monitoring data. Press Entry,
QC data and the QC Data Form appears. The only
differences in QC data entry are the session number
and replicate. Press Esc to get out of QC data form.
QC REPORTS
You can then create a graph or table report of QC
data. Press Reports, Individual, Data, QC data,
Graph, and the session number. Choose one vari-
able and it is graphed. Send it to the printer,
continue or press Q to quit.
INVENTORY CONTROL
You can keep track of your inventory using the
Equipment Transaction Form. Press Entry, Equip-
ment and the form appears. If you received a ship-
ment, you type "R" for received at Transaction
Type. If you are sending equipment to monitors,
you would type "D" for disbursements at the trans-
action prompt. Once the amounts are completed,
press F2 to save the data and you're back at the
previous menu. Then you can create an inventory
report. Press Reports, Individual, Equipment, In-
ventory, Screen and the Equipment Inventory Re-
port gives you your totals.
MONITOR/SITE REPORT
You can also print out a full monitor/site report.
Choose Reports, Individual; if you choose Brief the
report shows by River: Monitor #, Site #, Monitor
Name, Site Name, and Monitor Type. Ifyou choose
Full the report shows the full address. You can send
it to the printer, continue with other reports, or
Quit.
100
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
DATA APPLICATIONS AND PRESENTATION
Presenters: Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire,
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program; and
Jere Mossier, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality.
Jeffrey Schloss
University of New Hampshire
DATA PRESENTATION AND APPLICATIONS
IN CITIZEN MONITORING
Presenting the results from your volunteer moni-
toring program to various audiences could be the
key to your long-term success. Some may find
themselves casually discussing the results of the
year's sampling over a pot-luck dinner with moni-
tors. Others may have to put on a multi-media blitz
in hopes of protecting a resource or securing contin-
ued funding for their program. In either case, there
are many presentation options and tools available for
use.
Before monitoring even begins you should have
planned for your data analysis and reporting based
on program goals and objectives. Collecting the data
first and worrying about the analysis later may prove
disasterous. Plan for sufficient time to review data
collected and process it into a summary presenta-
tion. Data users and your participants require proper
feedback on a timely basis.
PROGRAM REPORTS
A report for seasonal or yearly data can take on
many forms. For our program we try to make every
report as complete as possible: An acknowledgement
sections lists all volunteers and thanks those who
provided assistance and funding. This is followed by
a brief non-technical summary of the results and data
analysis. Many of our participants use this section in
their newsletters or in local press releases. The next
section lists specific comments and recommenda-
tions for further monitoring. This is followed by an
introduction which explains the reasons for moni-
toring, a short description of program goals and a
program update. The next section provides an in-
depth explanation of the measurements and the
results. Graphs, figures and tables are included through-
out to assist with explanations. Added to the end of
the report are appendices that list data, a description
of the field and analytical methods used and a
glossary of important terms and concepts covered in
the report. This assures that whoever might need to
use the interpretations and data at a later time has all
the necessary information to put these results into
the proper perspective.
Budget, time or other constraints might limit
your program reporting. In this case you might
produce a companion interpretive and explanatory
guide on a one-time basis that is updated as testing
or processing methods change. The yearly reports
can then refer to this guide for more detailed
explanations of the program and a listing of the
methods used. Always include some interpretative
summary of the data in the individual reports. After
devoting their time and interest to monitoring, your
program participants need to feel that their efforts
have made a difference in understanding or protect-
ing the resource of concern. It is your job through
reporting and presentation, to get this message
across.
PRESENTING THE INFORMATION
As professionals in environmental fields, we often
tend to rely on specialized jargon. This makes
communication within our field easier but often
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
101
-------
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1991 MERRIMACK RIVER E.COLI DATA
E. COLI COLONIES per 100ml
.
i i i 1 1
*
-"-"-"-
MoRSOO
H 24 JUL ^
1
^
^
^
^
%
%
^
*
^
^
%
Ij,
Ij,
%
^
*
^
^
1
j
^
^
$
* TOO NUMEROUS TO COUNT
(OVER 800 COLONIES)
NH WQ STANDARD
CLASS B
NH WQ BATHING
^, M,I R
MeR610 MeR520 MeR530 MeR640 MeR560 Me
RIVER SAMPLE SITES
21 AUG H 11 SEP
!
^
'%
^
^ J
%
^
'^
!
HIGH
4067100ml
MEDIUM
88/100ml
LOW
R660 MeR670
MODIFIED
FROM DATES 1991
RIVERWATCH NETWORK
adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the
public. When presenting information from a lake
study don't describe a lake as mesotrophic without
covering the basics of the trophic classification
scheme. Preface percent oxygen saturation data,
common to river and coastal monitoring programs,
with a brief background on temperature/oxygen
relationships and acceptable levels for successful
growth and reproduction of aquatic organisms im-
portant to the region. Put nutrient, chlorophyll
(algae biomass), bacteria, and contaminant levels
measured in perspective: What are acceptable con-
centrations? How do these levels compare to what
is typical for the region? What are the standards set
by local or state monitoring agencies? What consti-
tutes a significant difference given the sampling
methods, monitoring schedule and analytical tech-
niques used? What are the limitations of these
interpretations? The methods and details you use to
deliver this information will often be determined by
resource or time constraints. However, the choice
of the appropriate method should involve careful
consideration of the audience's expectations as well
as an understanding of their knowledge base and
interests.
FIGURES AND GRAPHICS
The worst type of feedback you can give to your
participants, supporters and decision-makers is a
lone data table. While listing data is required sup-
porting material for a report, an appropriate graphi-
cal presentation of the information will always result
in leaving a lasting impression of program results.
For locational data, a map figure of the sampling
locations with numbers or symbols that represent
certain ranges of the sample results is a more useful
102
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
LAKE SUNAPEE
PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITY
INTEGRATED SAMPLE JUNE 7, 1991
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%"-
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE
SOUTH DEEP
CENTER DEEP
NORTH DEEP
JOBS COVE
BLUEQREEN
DIATOMS
GREEN EH DESMIDS
FLAGELLATES dH GOLDEN
way to display the data. Many river and stream
monitoring groups use this method (particularly for
their bacteria results) but lake and coastal groups that
sample many stations can also apply this technique.
The bar graph is more commonly used, particularly
for comparisons between dates or sites. A bar graph
is a simple graph in which the height of a bar
represents the measured value. Individual bars may
represent a sampling site or the same site on different
dates. While you need to be careful not to produce
too cluttered a figure, the more interpretive infor-
mation provided directly on the figure, the easier
the explanation of the program results will be.
Many lake groups have made a small modification
to the bar graph to produce a hanging bar graph of
water clarity (secchi disk) results in which the base
of the bar is at the top of the graph, representing the
water's surface and the bar extends down to the
water clarity depth. In some cases the bars are thin
lines and there is a line or disk drawn at the bottom
to represent the secchi disk.
Sometimes relative comparisons need to be made
between sites. A stream monitoring program might
want to compare the types of stream critters found,
a lake program might have collected submergent
vegetation data, a watershed watch group might
have surveyed the area and determined the various
sources of sediment pollution. To display these data
a pie diagram or stacked bar graph is often used. Pie
diagrams are more commonly used where each slice
represents the relative amount of occurrence. In
some cases the size of one pie relative to another is
indicative of the total concentration or population
measured.
There are many other types of graphs that may be
useful: area graphs can display the accumulation of
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
103
-------
data in an informative way; point and line, or scatter
graphs may disclose trends over time; three-dimen-
sional graphics tend to be more complicated to view
but may be used successfully to illustrate some
results. The choice of graphics is not as important as
making sure the graph is easily understandable and
complete with legend, keys and additional informa-
tion that enhances the interpretation of the results.
"With the advent of Geographical Information Sys-
tems (GIS), computer systems that integrate mapping
capability with extensive database and modelingpower,
many new presentation options are becoming avail-
able. A pilot watershed study of the Squam Lakes,
coordinated by the New Hampshire Office of State
Planning using volunteer derived data from our pro-
gram and other agencies, allowed for the production of
maps (called coverages) that indicated current areas of
water-quality concern, important in-lake wildlife re-
sources habitat and the subwatershed areas that abutted
these critical areas. As the power of a GIS system is
related to the data it has to work with and given that
volunteer monitoringprograms represent a cost-effec-
tive way to collect these data, I expect to see new
partnerships formed between the agencies and re-
searchers that are acquiring this technology and citizen
groups.
CLASSIFICATION, INDICES AND STATISTICS
Comparative researchbetween different systems has
yielded various numerical conversions and classifica-
tion schemes that try to relate water quality or habitat
condition to a limited set of measurements. Lake
groups sometimes use a Trophic State Index that
converts a water clarity, nutrient or algae (chlorophyll)
measurement to a scaled number (usually 1 to 110).
This makes comparisons and interpretations of lake
productivity seem easier but care needs to be given in
theinterpretation of these results. This scheme assumes
water clarity is dependent primarily on algae levels.
There are some cases, however, where clarity is more
dependent on sediment or dissolved color and the
standard relationship breaks down. In addition, there
are other lakes thatarehighly productive in submergent
and emergent vegetation but have little algal growth.
Thuswhile indices mightbe useful, knowledge ofyour
particular systemand regional conditions is paramount.
Also, make sure you choose an appropriate classifica-
tion scheme, one set up for seasonal averages might not
be appropriate for a single measurement. When in
doubt, contact your local or regional environmental
agency or university.
Stream monitors have led the way with the use of
diversity indices and indicator organisms schemes.
Current methods are rekted in one way or another to
the EPA P^pid Bioassessment Protocols or specific
regional research. It is generally much easier to relate
information ofpresence or absence of macroinvertebrates
than to rattle offnumbers representing nutrient, pesti-
cide or bacteria levels. In presenting these data, stacked
bar graphs of the types of organisms or a line graph of
the index or ratio change from station to station are
appropriate tools to enhance the message.
As a final note, I would like to emphasize that the
systems, software and hardware to produce presenta-
tions and reports might be more available than you
think. While your local, regional and state agencies
quickly come to mind, don't forget about schools,
colleges universities and local businesses. For instance,
a neighborhood group on Flint Pond in New Hamp-
shire conducted a survey to map thelake and determine
the accumulation of bottom material. With no previ-
ous experience and using one of the member's personal
computer and CAD/CAM software, the final result
was a professional quality map of the lake and an
accurate estimation of bottom material accumulated.
These do-it-your-selfers brought the information to
their town and the state environmental agency, and this
year the lake will be under further study due to accept-
ance into the federally funded Clean Lakes Program.
Jere Mossier
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
IDAHO'S VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
Idaho's Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program
(CVMP) currently involves nine lakes, with two more
to be added in 1992. The CVMP lakes include: Pend
104
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Oreille, Hayden, Priest, Spirit, CocolaUa, Hauser,
Rose, Upper Twin and Lower Twin Lakes. Coeur
d'Alene and Fernan Lakes are the lakes to be added.
Eight of these lakes were also studied in a Lake
Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) Project over the
last two years. The Lake Water Quality Assessment
Project was conducted by the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) on 17 lakes in Idaho
during 1990-1991. The fmalLWQA report will be
available in June 1992.
The objectives of the LWQA Study were to:
1. Determine trophic status;
2. Assess trends where possible;
3. Q. A. our Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Pro-
gram;
4. Determine beneficial use support status;
5. Determine nutrients of concern;
6. Identify sources of pollution, and;
7. Recommend appropriate management actions.
The water quality and biological data and informa-
tion from both the CVMP and the LWQA programs
have been integrated to develop more accurate and
reliable methods to assess water quality and trophic
status in lakes. The integrated findings of these two
projects are discussed below.
The general water quality and trophic status of each
lake was determined by using secchi depth, chlorophyll
a, the prevalent submergent and floating-leaf macro-
phyte species, the maximum depth of submergent
plant growth, the maximum hypolimnetic total phos-
phorus and total ammonia, and the minimum
hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen and dissolved oxygen/
temperature profiles. Eachlake is classified as eutrophic,
mesotrophic or oligotrophic based on the coEective
numerical values and best scientific judgement related
to the status of the kke.
Submergent macrophyte communities provide
an excellent means of studying and monitoring
changes in the trophic status oflakes. In the summer
of 1991, we decided to incorporate an effective and
efficient way to determine the water quality and
overall condition of the 17 Idaho lakes by determin-
ing the number of prevalent species in submergent
macrophyte communities. The number of preva-
lent submergent and floating-leaf macrophyte spe-
cies is defined as those species found in at least 25
percent of the lake. The diversity of prevalent
species generally demonstrated a twofold increase
from eutrophic to mesotrophic to oligotrophic lakes.
That is, oligotrophic lakes hive approximately four
times the number of prevalent species compared to
eutrophic lakes. Mesotrophic lakes have twice the
number of prevalent species found in eutrophic and
half the number of prevalent species found in olig-
otrophic lakes.
The number of dominant submergent macro-
phyte species varies in different lakes. This is mainly
due to the ubiquitous nature of some submergent
macrophyte species and the masking effect of inter-
acting factors affecting submergent macrophyte dis-
tribution and abundance. These interacting factors
include: water depth and clarity as related to light
availability, metal toxicity and nutrient levels, lake
bottom substrate type, wave action, especially in the
shallow littoral areas, and dissolved oxygen and
temperature extremes and averages.
The dissolved oxygen/temperature profile, along
with chlorophyll, were determined to provide a
broader database to assess lake conditions and achieve
the study objectives. Secchi depth and lake trophic
status demonstrate a strong positive relationship and
consequently provide a useful basis to evaluate the
water quality conditions of a lake. The number of
prevalent species in relation to secchi depth and
trophic lake status appear to be an extremely reliable
and cost effective means to assess lake trophic status.
Secchi depth and the maximum depth of submergent
aquatic plant growth are positively correlated (r=0.83)
as would be expected. This provides further support
to the premise that submergent macrophyte com-
munities should be used as biological indicators in
assessing lake trophic status.
The trophic status of freshwater lakes is best
determined by usingboth water quality and biologi-
cal indices as measurements of lake productivity.
Secchi depth, chlorophyll and total phosphorus are
traditionally used as the primary parameters in evalu-
ating lake trophic status. These measurements were
used along with various analysis of the submergent
and floating-leaf macrophyte lake communities, as
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
105
-------
Table 3. A list of sampling parameters and sampling frequency of 24 Idaho Lakes
proposed for FY 92 & FY 93 Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) and(Citizen/
Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP). * ./..'Li 'li'lLtl^,'^L^2^,, $<'.*
Sampling Parameter
Sampling
Frequency
Sampling Program
Chlorophyll "a"
Secchi Depth
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Total Hardness
Alkalinity
pH Profiles
Sp. Conductivity Profiles
D.OJTemperature Profiles
Subrnergent Macrophytes
4 times/year composite trophogenic or 2 @ secchi depth
4 times/year one for small lakes, 2-3 for larger lakes
4 times/year one each in the hypolimnion & epilimnion
4 times/year 1 -3 in the epilimnion and/or littoral zone
4 times/year one in the epilimnion
4 times/year one in the epilimnion
4 times/year lake surface to lake bottom
4 times/year lake surface to lake bottom
4 times/year lake surface to lake bottom
1 time/year to maximum water depth of plant growth
This Table lists the sampling program for 1992 only. The sampling program
for 1993 will be modified as needed based on preliminary data analysis.
well as maximum hypolimnetic ammonia and maxi-
mum hypolimnetic total phosphorus. Minimum
hypolimnetic oxygen and dissolved oxygen/tem-
perature profiles for each lake at the peak of the
growing season (August) were used extensively in
determining the lake trophic status.
The rationale for using submergent macrophytes
and water quality measurements to determine trophic
status is as follows: Submergent and floating-leaf
macrophytes form associations of communities in
lakes which are indicative of the water quality. As
mentioned earlier, prevalent species of submergent
and floating-leaf macrbphytes were defined in this
study as those species which occurred in approxi-
mately 25 percent of the areas sampled in a lake. The
word prevalent is used rather than dominant or
significant and implies that collectively, these spe-
cies represent a specific water quality status or
trophic status. Submergent macrophyte communi-
ties have environmentally dependent successional
patterns with changing water quality conditions.
Consequently, one can speculate that the commu-
nity composition of the macrophyte community
will change as the toxic and/or nutrient water
quality conditions change. Since submergent and
floating-leaf macrophytes are found in the lake
throughout the year, their study and analysis pro-
vides a basis to evaluate lake eutrophication and
detect water pollution.
Water clarity (indicated as secchi depth) can be a
function of many factors, both biological and environ-
mental. Algal blooms, lignins and tannins, wave action
and both point and nonpoint discharges will affect the
amount of suspended solids, toxins and nutrients in the
lake. Seasonal turnovers in the spring and fall further
recycle bottom sediments and nutrients throughout
the lake. The angle and intensity of sunlight further
affects the lake water clarity. Nevertheless, secchi
depth is still considered an efficient and effective means
to determine water clarity. Secchi depth is positively
correlated to the maximum depth at which rooted
aquatic plants can grow in a lake, since light penetration
in a kke is critical in determining the distribution of
submergent macrophytes.
106
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Secchi depth and lake trophic status are interre-
lated; secchi depth increases from the most eutrophic
lakes (Winchester =1.0 meter) to the most olig-
otrophic lake (Priest Lake =11.0 meters).
Conversely, chlorophyll productivity was found to
be the highest of all CVMP/LWQAlakes studied (21.1
ug/L) in hyper-eutrophic Winchester Lake, while
oligotrophic Priest Lake was the lowest at 1.0 ug/L.
The four oligotrophic lakes, including Priest, Hayden,
Spirit and Upper Priest, showed very low chlorophyll
production. Other lakes in the study, such as Mann and
Waha lakes, showed low chlorophyll production.
However, this was due to the extreme drawdown and
fluctuation in the water level. This is a very significant
factor distorting the true phytoplankton production
throughout the year. The drawdown also has a major,
limiting-impact on the submergent aquatic plant com-
munities in these lakes.
One of the problems of using chlorophyll "a"
values as an index of trophic status is the variability
and pulsing of blooms that occurs irregularly, espe-
cially with the blue-green algae groups. Submergent
and floating-leaf macrophyte communities are reli-
able long-term indicators of productivity in lakes.
These macrophyte communities fluctuate less in
species composition on a seasonal and year-to-year
basis than phytoplankton populations.
Generally speaking, the species diversity of
submergent macrophytes is significantly higher for
oligotrophic and mesotrophic lakes than in late
eutrophic lakes. Hyper-eutrophic lakes (Winches-
ter) and lakes that experience frequent drawdown
and fluctuating water levels (Mann, Waha, and
Soldier Meadow) may have few or no submergent
macrophytes. Furthermore, the use of prevalent
species, rather than species diversity is a more reli-
able indicator of lake trophic status.
The maximum depth at which submergent aquatic
plants grow is positively related to the water clarity
and trophic lake status. Hence, submergent macro-
phytes grow deeper in oligotrophic lakes than
eutrophic lakes.
Maximum hypolimnetic phosphorus in hyper-
eutrophic lakes is much higher, compared to phos-
phorus found in oligotrophic and mesotrophic lakes.
The conditions in the deep hypolimnion near rich
organic lake bottoms are enriched by decomposi-
tion of extensive blue-green algae blooms and other
organic matter. This contributes significantly to the
internal recycling of phosphorus in the lake.
Maximum hypolimnetic ammonia does not ap-
pear to be as good an indicator of lake trophic status
as phosphorus. However, high ammonia levels in
the hypolimnion near the lake bottom are very
evident in lakes with anaerobic or anoxic hypolimnions
such as Winchester and Granite Lakes. Hypolimnetic
ammonia levels were not significant in the four
oligotrophic lakes.
The minimum hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen is
significantly higher in all four oligotrophic lakes
relative to the .mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes
studied. The only exeptions were Upper Twin and
Mann Lakes, which did not thermally stratify due to
their shallowness and exposure to strong winds.
Consequently, these two lakes cannot be compared
to the four thermally stratified, deep oligotrophic
lakes. The presence or absence of ample dissolved
oxygen in the deep hypolimnion in late summer is
a critical limnological and useful measurement as
related to lake trophic status.
Dissolved oxygen/temperature profiles for the
17 lakes studied in the Idaho Lake Water Quality
Assessment (LWQA) Project and the Citizens'
Voluteer Lake Monitoring Program (CVMP) pro-
vided some of the most reliable and useful data and
information in assessing the trophic status and water
quality of lakes.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
107
-------
MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS FOR
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Presenters: Loren Kellogg, Izadk Walton League of America's
Save Our Streams Program; and Wayne Davis, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region Five.
Loren Kellogg
Izaak Walton League of America
COLLECTING QUALITY DATA
The Izaak Walton League of America's Save Our
Streams (SOS) Program is a grassroots river protec-
tion and restoration program, that has been active for
22 years in over 37 different states. SOS provides
volunteers with a simple but effective way to moni-
tor their watershed using a biological approach.
There are thousands of active participants across the
United States who use SOS to provide personal
stewardship to their rivers.
Currently Save Our Streams has state-sponsored
programs in Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee.
Each of these programs have quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) guidelines which define
our data-quality objectives, training procedures,
monitoring protocols, monitoring support systems
and performance audits, as well as macroinvertebrate
identification tests for evaluating data reliability.
As an initial step in any monitoring program, a
clear and defined purpose should be established for
data use. This should be done through close com-
munication with the people who will potentially use
your data. Data should fill a specific need (gap) or
intent (hypothesis testing, study objectives). By
working closely with data users, clearly identifying
your data-quality objectives and designing your
program to produce data ofknown quality that meet
these objectives, you increase the likelihood that
your data will get used.
When planning a program, remember that as
data-quality objectivesbecome more stringent, more
money and resources will be required to meet those
objectives, and in general your program will be-
come more restrictive.
The reason most frequently identified for not
using volunteer data is lack of confidence in data
quality (US EPA, 1990a). A QA/QC program
requires careful documentation and implementa-
tion of every aspect of monitoring procedures. This
program has two functions: first, to continually
monitor the reliability of the data (accuracy, com-
pleteness, representativeness) and second, to make
sure the data meets the program requirements (US
EPA, 1990b). This requires a continuous program of
monitoring your monitoring, and evaluating and
quantifying the error involved in the data-gathering
process. With a thorough and demonstrable QA/
QC program, you maximize use of your data.
The biological monitoring component of the
national Save Our Streams program uses a kick-
seine net to trap stream macroinvertebrates which
are then identified to the family or order level. This
technique is based on the finding that different
groups of stream macroinvertebrates have different
tolerances to pollution and can serve as useful
indicators of water quality. Our surveying tech-
nique includes a number of questions about stream
condition and habitat suitability which together
have been shown to be a reliable and inexpensive
way to indicate stream health.
The SOS training program can be divided into
four main parts: initial training sessions, support
networks, field spot checks and follow-up work-
shops. Our initial training workshops last about four
hours. We start with a lecture accompanied by
108
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
slides, in which we introduce the biological moni-
toring concept, basic macroinvertebrate identifica-
tion, identification of monitoring sites for testing
impacts and the stream survey design. The next
section of the training is spent out in the stream.
Participants are instructed how to identify a riffle
and shown exactly how to carry out the SOS
sampling technique.
To take a sample, volunteers place the net in a
riffle area (facing upstream) and secure the bottom of
the net with rocks in front of the net. Volunteers
then rub the rocks thoroughly in a three-foot by
three-fobt-square area. When the first two inches of
substrate have been completely disturbed, the sample
is removed from the stream in a forward sweeping
motion (so the organisms don't fall off) and carried
to the stream bank.
Organisms are placed in magnifier boxes and
given to workshop participants for identification.
Workshop participants are instructed in identifica-
tion techniques such as counting number of legs,
identifying gills, antenna, segmentation, size and
behavior characteristics including preferred habitat
and movement. Each participant observes and iden-
tifies every organism found. Materials, such as the
stream insects and crustaceans card which depicts
and explains stream organisms, are provided to aid in
identification. In addition, resource lists of
macroinvertebrate identification aids, numbers of
regional and local SOS coordinators and resource
materials are available.
The group is taught to rate stream quality using
the Save Our Streams Survey Chart. The survey uses
species richness and a point system which assigns
higher points to more pollution sensitive organisms
(stoneflies and mayflies) and lower point values for
pollution tolerant organisms (black fly larvae and
aquatic worms) to rate stream health. A final index
rating for the stream of excellent, good, fair or poor
is determined using instructions on the survey sheet.
Because of the thorough rubbing of all rock
surfaces and the meticulous disturbance of all bot-
tom substrate within the sample area, we get organ-
isms representative of all major microhabitats within
the riffle area. This is evidenced by the presence of
leaf packs, sticks and all the major groups of organ-
isms (shredders, scrapers and filterers) in most of our
samples. Also, all of the macroinvertebrates caught
are used in the sample (eliminating sample bias), and
all are identified to order level as required in EPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers: Benthic Maaoinvertebrates and Fish.
In our initial training workshops, a standard bug
library is used to teach participants how to identify
all groups of organisms that are found regularly in a
riffle area and used on our survey form. In addition,
we have follow up workshops (as detailed in our
QA/QC guidelines) six months after our initial
trainings. These workshops are designed to accom-
plish three things: First, to address any questions
monitors may have. It is an opportunity to refresh
participants on the resources of the program, and
introduce them to other monitors in the area. It also
gives us a chance to inform participants of any
changes in the programs (biological monitoring is an
evolving science).
Second, we evaluate our monitors by organizing
small groups and watching them stream monitor.
This evaluation is more subjective than our spot
checks; it is intended to provide a quick check for
potential problems. Next is a formal test of
macroinvertebrate identification skills. Monitors are
allowed to use any materials they normally have in
the field to identify test organisms from all the
groups in our reference collection. These tests are
scored and reports are used to evaluate the accuracy
of data at each monitoring station.
Part of our QA/QC is to spot check 15 percent
of our monitors. This is done by national and
regional staff. It works by calling up a monitor (or
group) and making a date to monitor. At this session
we simply observe the whole process from riffle
identification to the finished survey results, then we
offer suggestions to improve monitoring technique
(if applicable) and make a written evaluation. These
evaluations are included in our files and submitted
regularly with our data.
Each of our state-sponsored programs is tailored
to complement the resources and support capabili-
ties available for volunteers in the respective state.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
109
-------
Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee all have in-
state support networks of people, information and
materials in place to help monitors get the most
accurate picture of water quality possible. In addi-
tion, monitors can contact the League's national
office for assistance.
Survey accuracy is determined by reviewing a
number of questions on the survey form which assist
SOS staff in determining if results are correct. For
example, if trout are known to be in the stream, yet
results indicate poor water quality, the survey results
are questioned. If the riffle is classified as "80 percent
mud," an improper location was selected and results
are not considered accurate for this technique. (We
do have an approved muddy bottom sampling tech-
nique.) Also, answers to questions like "sample
number" demonstrate that a monitor knows to take
the most diverse of the three samples.
If survey results are inconsistent (poor results in a
known trout stream), have problems (not in a riffle)
or just have poor results, SOS staff contact the
monitor for specific information. If the problem
seems to be due to monitor error, SOS staff schedule
a time to monitor with the volunteer to make sure
proper procedures are being followed. When in-
consistencies are justifiable or problems are indi-
cated, the appropriate regulatory agencies are noti-
fied.
Once data is checked, the survey is entered
exactly as it was submitted (including all comments)
onto a Dbase III+ program called Bugs. Data is
distributed to state agencies on disks for their evalu-
ations. Also, reports are generated, and results are
interpreted based on physical and biological assess-
ments, land-use evaluations, comments and com-
parisons with known yearly fluctuations of
macroinvertebrate recruitment cycles from similar
hydrologic areas (reference sites).
Volunteer biomonitoring data can play a crucial
role in the assessment of surface waters. Open
communication about monitoring QA/QC with
the federal, state and local persons who accept
volunteer data will improve data acceptabEity. Pro-
grams with an emphasis on well-defined monitoring
procedures that correspond to standardbiomonitoring
methods will result in improved data confidence and
increased use of volunteer data.
REFERENCES
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and
R.M. Hughs. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use In
Streams And Rivers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington D.C. 20460 EPA/440/4-39-001
USEPA. 1990b. Volunteer Monitoring: A Guide for State
Managers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA/440/4-90-010
USEPA. 1990a. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory
Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
Waters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington D.C. 20460 EPA/
600/4-90-030
Wayne S. Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Five
USING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
For more than 100 years freshwater benthic
macroinvertebrate (benthos) communities have been
associated with a variety of environmental condi-
tions and are excellent indicators of the quality of a
water resource. Benthic macroinvertebrates are rela-
tively sedentary organisms that inhabit or depend
upon the sedimentary environment for their various
life functions. Therefore, they are sensitive to both
long-term and short-term changes in habitat, sedi-
ment and water quality. Whereas chemical and
toxicity testing generally use a grab-sample ap-
proach and are specific to assessing effects based on
the chemicals analyzed or toxicity, benthos can be
used to detect impacts from a variety of causes,
including siltation, nutrient enrichment, low dis-
solved oxygen and overall habitat degradation.
Determining the quality of a surface-water re-
source is best accomplished in conjunction with an
integrated approach which also utilizes habitat qual-
ity, water and sediment chemistry, water and sedi-
ment toxicity. This paper outlines the necessary
scientific methods (quality assurance needs) to en-
sure that biological monitoring using benthic
110
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
macroinvertebrates meet minimum standards for
acceptance by federal, state, interstate and local
governments, as well as other intended users.
DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
The primary way surface waters have been as-
sessed for pollution is by comparing water-sample
results with chemical criteria and/or standards. Water
quality standards are adopted in state law and com-
prise: a designated beneficial use of the waterway,
numerical and narrative criteria established to pro-
tect that use, and an antidegradation statement. A
major beneficial use of a waterway is for protection
of aquatic life and is usually based on the quality of
habitat that should be present. Minimum habitat
quality exists below which the benthos community
will perform poorly regardless of the chemical con-
taminants present or not.
EPA initiated efforts towards development and
implementation of biological criteria based upon
benthic macroinvertebrate, fish and habitat assess-
ments. These biological criteria, which have been
predominantly based on macroinvertebrates, are
designed to determine whether a specific waterbody
or segment is meeting its designated beneficial use
for aquatic life (water quality standards).
OVERVIEW OF BASIC PROTOCOLS
The benthic macroinvertebrate community struc-
ture and function assessment involves the following
key steps and subsequent decisions which are ad-
dressed in USEPA (1990), Klemm et al. (1990),
USDA (1989) and/or Plafkin et al. (1989):
1. Establishment of data-quality objectives and
a quality assurance program plan coopera-
tively developed with local and/or state gov-
ernments;
2. Collection of benthic macroinvertebrates in
the field and whether: (a) artificial or natural
substrates are used, (b) quantitative or qualita-
tive sample methods are used, and (c) single
habitat (riffle) or multiple habitats are sampled;
3. Preservation and/or fixation of the benthos
(field and laboratory) or return of the benthos
in the field;
4. Sorting the organisms from debris (field or
laboratory), selection of mesh size for sorting,
and whether special aides are used (rose-
bengal stain or a sugar solution);
5. Identification to the lowest taxon necessary
(varies depending upon the study objectives)
which should be applied consistently through-
out the study;
6. Establishment and maintenance of a voucher
collection of benthos from the study area(s)
to be available for program education and to
ensure proper identification has occurred;
7. Multi-metric or composite index quantifica-
tion (taxa richness, number of individuals,
indicator organism count, structural indices
and ratios, functional characteristics of taxa);
8. Assessment of the relationship with other
environmental measurements including nu-
meric habitat quality assessment (correla-
tions, habitat requirements) and expecta-
tions;
9. Comparison of results with a local or regional
reference site (similarity indices, nonpara-
metric analyses);
10. Complete documentation of the study meth-
ods, results, database management and dis-
cussion of the relevance of the data.
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
A habitat assessment and other physico-chemical
observations are critical to evaluating the meaning
of the data collected. The habitat assessment will
help determine the extent of the results due to
habitat quality, rather than just due to chemical/
physical disturbances. Habitat assessments are some-
times divided into three categories: primary, sec-
ondary and tertiary. The primary parameters most
directly influence the results found and include
characterizing the substrate, flow or velocity, stream
cover and depth. Secondary parameters measure
larger habitat features such as channel alteration, and
tertiary parameters evaluate riparian and bank struc-
ture. Plafkin et al. (1989), Rankin (1989), and
USDA (1989) discuss basic numeric habitat assess-
ments.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
111
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE NEEDS
To ensure as much accuracy and precision in the
data as possible, a detailed quality assurance program
plan should be established and followed. Careful and
consistent field and laboratory protocols are neces-
sary. It is also necessary to sample during optimal
conditions, which can minimize the effects of natu-
ral variations in the data. Specific QA procedures
that should be established early in benthic
macroinvertebrate community studies include the
following:
Rationale for sample location selection and
time of sampling;
Sample collection methods, sorting and stor-
age procedures;
Taxonomicproficiencyevaluationsusingcheck
samples (from Cincinnati-ERL or other
sources), in addition to voucher collections
from each study area and a list of the taxo-
nomic references used;
Multi-metric data analysis techniques used to
objectively assess the data, including the struc-
tural and functional measures.
Each Regional U.S. EPA Quality Assurance Office
can provide the details of QA procedure require-
ments. Detailed discussion of quality assurance mea-
sures can be found in Klemm et.al (1990), USEPA
(1990), USDA (1989) and Ohio EPA (1989).
RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS (RBPs)
U.S. EPA developed a framework and protocols
for conducting cost-effective benthic surveys of
wadable streams and rivers. There are three levels of
protocols for benthos based upon conducting single-
habitat (riffle) dip-net sampling and the level of
effort to be expended in the field for collection and
identification. RBP One is for screening studies and
uses a similar level of effort as some volunteer
programs which identify benthos to order or family.
RBP Two is slightly more intensive and relies upon
family-level identification which could be com-
pleted in the field, and utilizes numeric data analysis
techniques. RBP Three is even more intensive and
requires laboratory identification of the benthos
usually to genus/species for more rigorous data analy-
sis. The results for RBP Two and Three are expressed
in a composite index using the following two func-
tional and six structural metrics: (1) Taxa richness, (2)
Modified Hilsenhoffbiotic index, (3) Ratio of scrapers
and filtering collectors (functional), (4) Ratio of EPT
and Chironomidae abundances, (5) Percent contribu-
tion of dominant taxon, (6) EPT index, (7) Commu-
nity similarity index, and (8) Ratio of shredders to total
number of organisms (functional).
The scores are based on a percentage of the metric
values found at a reference site, rather than compari-
son of the results based on optimal values for each
metric. The RBPs are flexible and can be modified
for different geographical locations. The success of
the RBPs is in the use of the composite index for
rapid assessments that allows for three levels of
taxonomic work (order, family or genus/species
levels). Order and family taxonomy do not require
laboratory taxonomy and may be done in the field.
The RBPs normally use single habitat (riffle) sam-
pling and a 100-organism count in the field. How-
ever, they can be adapted for most program uses; for
example, by employing multi-habitat sampling and/
or various count limitations.
DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS
One of the most inconsistent and perplexing
aspects of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate
community assessment is the numeric representa-
tion and analysis of the data collected. Structural
community measures such as richness values (num-
ber of taxa), diversity and biotic indices, and enu-
merations (counts of individual organisms) have
been used almost exclusively. Indicator organisms
have been used to establish many of the biotic
indices but also have the potential to differentiate
among types of impacts. Recently, functional com-
munity measures based on feeding groups such as
shredder, collector, scraper and predator have gained
wider application and acceptance due to their sen-
sitivity in detecting system perturbation on food
resources. It is strongly recommended that a multi-
metric technique be used (Plafkin et al. 1989), Ohio
EPA (1990) so any single measurement or observa-
tion will not substantially influence the results.
112
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
REFERENCES
Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, J.M. Lazorchak. 1990.
Macroinvertebrate Field and laboratory methods for evaluating
the biological integrity of surface -waters. USEPA, ORD,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/4-90/030. 256 p.
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins (cds). 1984. An intro-
duction to the aquatic insects of North America. 2nd edition.
Kendall/Hunt Publ., Dubuquc, LA. 441 pp.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. The use'of
biocriteria in the Ohio EPA surface water monitoring and
assessment program. Division of Water Quality Planning and
Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological
criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. Standard-
ized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for
assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Division of
Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment
Section, Columbus, Ohio 43212.
Plaflcin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and
R.M. Hughs. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in
streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. USEPA,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA/440/4-39-001.
Rankin, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation
Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Application. Division
of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assess-
ment Section, Columbus, Ohio 43212.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Fisheries Habitat
Surveys Handbook (R-4 FSH 2609.23), Forest Service Inter-
mountain Region, Ogden, UT.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological
criteria: national program guidance for surface waters. USEPA,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C., EPA-440/5-90-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Volunteer
Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/4-90-010.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
113
-------
STUDY DESIGN
Presenters: Anne E. Lyon, Tennessee Valley Authority;
Jack Byrne and Geoff Dates, River Watch Network.
Anne E. Lyon
Tennessee Valley Authority
STUDENTS STUDY WATER QUALITY
When the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
created the Teacher/Student Water Quality Moni-
toring Network in 1986, the primary goal of the
program was to gather basic water quality data from
small streams and lakes that TVA personnel were
unable to monitor. But the program also spawned
several other objectives, including getting water
quality management concepts into the valley's sec-
ondary school curricula and providing enhance-
ment opportunities for both teachers and students.
Unlike other water monitoring programs through-
out the United States, the focus of this program is to
train teachers and students to conduct real water-
quality studies. Instead of having the participants
collect standard information and supply it to TVA,
they are taught to develop a study question, select
the appropriate measurements to answer the ques-
tion and interpret the data. TVA receives a research
paper on the study which is then published in a
yearbook and shared with other researchers.
This program is funded with federal appropriated
funds for surface water monitoring and sponsored
by TVA's Water Resources Division. TVA's Water
Quality and Environmental Education staffs work
with the Center for Environmental, Energy and
Science Education at the University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga to conduct the program. The network
is comprised of 24 science teachers from grades nine
through 12 who teach within TVA's seven-state
service area. Teachers selected are given the oppor-
tunity to actively participate for up to three years.
Each year eight new teachers are selected to replace
participants who have completed the program. New
teachers are selected on the basis of applications
which detail their educational background, experi-
ence in water quality and environmental research,
and their proposed area of study. The teachers who
complete three active years in the program are
encouraged to continue their work and supply TVA
with the results in exchange for a budget for chemi-
cals and supplies.
Each fall, 24 active teachers participate in a two
and one-half day workshop, where they learn about
chemical, physical and biological parameters of water
quality. Each teacher is invited to bring two students
to participate in an intensive workshop, which
covers information on ecosystems, watersheds, wa-
ter chemistry, hydrology, aquatic biology, water
quality management, study design and field safety.
We make sure that every lecture during the work-
shop is a mixture of both knowledge and practical
applications. We also instruct participants on how
to read topographic maps, use keys to identify
aquatic invertebrates, and conduct water chemistry
analyses in the field.
Each teacher is given a TVA-customized LaMotte
Chemical Kit that enables them to measure param-
eters such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH, hard-
ness, alkalinity and chlorides. We teach them how to
use stream sampling equipment and collect data
using the Izaak Walton League's Save Our Streams
Data Sheet. We also teach them how to design a
study.
By the end of the workshop, each teacher/
student team has a draft design of the study they will
114
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
conduct at their field site the following spring. We
even teach them, how to write a journal article using
the data they collect and how to develop a poster
session. To provide follow-up support, TVA's "Water
Quality and Aquatic Biology staffs are available to
evaluate the study designs, make suggestions and
help interpret the findings. Results of the field
studies are written in journal article format and
reviewed by TVA and University of Tennessee
professionals. The articles are published in a Teacher/
Student Water Quality Monitoring Network Year-
book.
TVA conducted field tests on materials and stan-
dardized our fall workshop series, which enables us
to provide teachers in the program with a complete
guide they can take back to their classrooms. The
guidebook was prepared over a three-year period
using evaluations conducted at the conclusion of
each workshop. Based on our experiences, we
determined a basic understanding of the water cycle
and how water moved was necessary. From here, we
make the connection between land use and water
quality. How does water become polluted and with
what? And how do we determine if water has
become contaminated? To do this requires a basic
understanding of water chemistrywater quality
variables.
We teach water quality variables by showing the
relationships between these variables and associating
them with the chemical tests participants perform
with their kits. We stress that chemical measures are
only one way to look at water quality, but that a
comprehensive water monitoring program looks at
the big picture. For that reason, TVA conducts
routine chemical tests: fecal coliform analyses; aquatic
life inventories such as algae, fish and invertebrates;
bioassays using sensitive organisms such as fathead
minnows and juvenile mussels; and fish health as-
sessments. Water quality is determined by looking at
the results of all of these measures together.
Understanding and being able to use the chemical
test kit is essential, and participants receive instruc-
tion in the lab and field on how to conduct four basic
tests: dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity, calcium and
total hardness, and chloride. If time permits, other
tests such as nitrates, ammonium, iron, manganese,
and phosphates are taught.
We also teach participants how to use a dichoto-
mous key to identify the specimens they collect.
They learn to recognize certain invertebrates by
sight using features such as the presence of two or
three tails to distinguish stoneflies from mayflies.
They also learn to use a variety of homemade
sampling equipment and are given instructions on
how to make a set. In the field, they learn how to use
a kick net and the Izaak Walton League's Data Form
to measure stream quality.
Participants are taught to determine streamflow
using an apple or orange, two marker sticks, a
yardstick, a 50-yard measuring tape, a watch with a
second hand, a calculator and a formula. We stress
that all data sets need certain pieces of information.
In fact, if they can only collect three measures, we
suggest temperature, dissolved oxygen and streamflow.
We teach them how to use both standing and
moving seine techniques to capture fish. TVA bi-
ologists identify the fish, and by the end of the
workshop most participants can identify a few com-
mon species. The numbers and types offish in a
stream is another important indicator of water qual-
ity. Participants learn that even if they can't identify
the fish, they can count the number of fish and
compare this with previous collections. Most states
require permits to collect fish and/or invertebrates,
so we provide information on how to obtain these
permits.
In order to conduct a quality study, we recom-
mend they start small and work up to larger projects.
We emphasize that they should ask a question they
can answer. When they have come up with a
question, TVA professionals work with participants
to determine what types of information they will
need to answer the question, and how many sites
and how often samples should be collected. This
becomes the basis for their study design.
The final portion of the workshop stresses inter-
preting the data and putting-it in a form useful to
others. Participants are given data sets to evaluate
and information on how to determine what is a
normal value using their test kits. But data is useless
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
115
-------
unless it can be communicated to others, so we teach
them how to write up their results in a manner that
will be useful to other professionals in journal
writing style. We also teach them how to construct
useful tables and charts, and suggest developing
poster sessions.
To get educators to teach water quality concepts
to students once they return to the classroom, we
provide an activity guide including background
notes, materials lists, procedures, discussion sugges-
tions, references and information on how to obtain
the materials necessary to conduct the activity.
Teachers are comfortable teaching activities they
participated in during the workshop, and the guide
makes it easier to duplicate in the classroom. We also
took special care to make the activities fit into
existing classroom schedules.
The result of these efforts, the Fall Workshop
Teacher's Guide, contains all the information cov-
ered at the workshop. It includes our workshop
agenda, a list of reference materials, lecture notes
and overhead masters. Complete activities with
answers and explanations, handouts, data sheets, and
student activity sheets are also included. Teachers
attending our workshops receive a copy of this
guide. It is also available for other groups interested
in starting a similar program, in their area.
In the past six years, more than 60 teachers and
150 students have participated directly in the pro-
gram. One teacher got his community so excited
about his classes' work with the network that they
built him a new high school laboratory. Since he was
a chemistry and biology teacher in a rural school
with no laboratory, this lab enabled him to develop
a challenging new science program at his school.
One eastern Tennessee teacher and his class did a
study on a local stream and decided to start a cleanup
campaign. They received permission from local
landowners along the creek and completely cleared
all the litter from its banks. Another teacher/student
team studied agricultural runoff on their river and
alerted a farmer about the effects his livestock were
having. They convinced the farmer to build a fence
to keep his cows from grazing along the streambank.
Still another team got involved with an abandoned
mine site. Through their study, they were able to
show the effects acid mine drainage was having on
the stream and use this information to convince state
officials to remediate the site. They are currently
monitoring the positive effects remediation has had
on the stream.
But the real value of the program has been to
TVA. These teacher/student teams have provided
valuable baseline data on streams TVA is currently
unable to monitor. They have alerted the agency to
situations which may have gone undetected for
years. More importantly, the program has gotten
teachers, students and the communities excited
about water quality. Involvement is the key, and
that's what the Teacher/Student Water Quality
Monitoring Network is all about. After all, our
future and the future of generations to come, will be
directly affected by the quality of our water re-
sources.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Anne Lyon, Tennessee Valley Authority, Envi-
ronmental Education Section, Foresty Building,
Norris, Tennessee 37828-2002; (615) 632-1639 or
Neil Carriker, Water Quality Department, 2S 270C
Haney Building, 311 Broad Street, Chattanooga,
Tennessee 37401-2801; (615) 751-7330.
Jack Byrne and Geoff Dates
River Watch Network
DESIGNING A WATER
QUALITY STUDY
Before we get into how to do a study design, we
need to put it in the context of organizing a river
monitoring and protection program. River Watch
Network provides organizational, technical and train-
ing assistance to groups and schools that wish to
monitor and protect their rivers. We typically work
with a number of organizations and agencies to
develop and carry out these programs. River studies
116
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
undertaken by citizen groups and schools we work
with include:
A River Characterization Study, which es-
tablishes baseline information on the river's
physical, chemical and biological characteris-
tics. Visual information, field measurements,
water samples and aquatic-life samples are
collected from sites throughout the water-
shed. These sites are selected to yield infor-
mation on how the river changes as it flows
from the headwaters to the mouth. This can
help you understand the condition of the
river ecosystem, identify problems and un-
derstand how these conditions are influenced
by both natural and human-caused factors.
An Impact Assessment Survey, which mea-
sures human impacts on the river, such as
pollution discharges, dams and channel alter-
ations. For example, visual information, field
measurements, water samples and aquatic-
life samples are collected at sites immediately
above and below a discharge pipe.
A Water Quality Standards Survey, which
determines whether the river meets state
and/or federal water quality standards. Riv-
ers are classified according to government
assessments of the uses and values which must
be achieved. "Water quality criteria lists the
levels of various water quality indicators that
must be attained to support these river uses
and values associated with each classification.
For example, Class B waters typically must
support water contact recreation such as swim-
ming. In New Hampshire, levels of E. Coli
bacteria in 100 mL of a water sample should
not exceed 406 to support swimming.
Which of these studies should you do? That
depends on what you want to know about your river
and your human and financial resources. The river
characterization study involves collecting different
types of information at many sites throughout the
watershed. For example, you would want to collect
as much information on as many physical, chemical
and biological indicators as you can at sites that.
represent different river conditions: different stream
orders, elevations, land uses and vegetative types.
The impact assessment study involves collecting
more focused information (depending on the im-
pact being assessed) from sites above and below the
source. This may require more sophisticated equip-
ment and methods to detect a change in the river.
The water quality standards study involves collect-
ing and analyzing information, and comparing it
with the maximum or minimum numbers for vari-
ous water quality indicators contained in the water
quality standards.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?
To figure this out, you need to know the issues
facing your stream and some basic resource informa-
tion. What are the uses and values? What and where
are the pollution sources? Where are the rimes?
What land uses might affect the river and where do
they occur? Where are the dams, channelized reaches,
water withdrawals and other potential impacts?
Once you gather this information, you're ready to
pose the study question. The type of study you do
depends on the question you ask.
WHAT GOES INTO A STUDY DESIGN
A study design document is your record of how
your study was done. It should be clearly written and
organized so someone unfamiliar with your project
can understand it. It should describe your data
quality goals, which will depend on how and who
you expect to use the data. If your group is doing a
river characterization study for its own information
or to flag problem areas, highly accurate data may
not be important. On the other hand, if you wish
state agency personnel to use your data to determine
whether a discharger is violating the terms of its
permit, you will need rigorous quality control pro-
cedures. Most studies fall somewhere in between
these two extremes. Decide how and who you want
to use your data before you decide what, how and
where to look for it.
WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
Your study design should describe the water
quality indicators you plan to use and your rationale
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
117
-------
for using them. Since a river is an extremely com-
plex physical, chemical and biological system, you
can't possibly study every facet. Use water quality
indicators that tell the most about the river for the
least amount of effort and expense. Some com-
monly used indicators include physical (tempera-
ture, depth, flow), chemical (dissolved oxygen, pH,
alkalinity) and biological (macroinvertebrates, fish).
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Your study design should explain your rationale
for choosing your sample sites and locate them on a
map with directions on how to find each site. The
idea is that all samplers should have no trouble
locating the sample site to assure that the same sites
are sampled each time.
FIELD PROCEDURES
Your study design should describe, in general
terms, what procedures will be used to collect the
information. It should also reference a specific set of
procedures that will be provided to your samplers.
We typically produce a packet for the samplers
which explains what we hope to accomplish with
the study, an equipment checklist, step-by-step
procedures for collecting the samples, doing field
measurements or recording observations, field sheets
and directions on how to find the sampling stations.
Attach this packet to your study design.
LAB PROCEDURES
Your study design should describe and reference
the methods and procedures that will be used to
analyze water or aquatic life samples. "We usually
produce a laboratory manual in a three-ring binder
which contains an equipment checklist, the meth-
ods to be followed and the lab sheets for recording
analysis results. In some cases, we follow a procedure
spelled out in an existing source, such as Standard
Methods. In other cases, we produce a paper which
contains the step-by-step instructions, such as our
Guide to Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling. In either
case, laboratory personnel and volunteers need a
single-source document that contains the proce-
dures to be followed.
DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
You need a system for recording information as
it is collected. Once you compile the data, you can
organize and analyze it. Your data analysis forms the
basis of the recommendations you make to the
appropriate parties. Good data management and
analysis makes it easier to present your findings to
the audiences you wish to reach.
FIELD AND LAB SHEETS
Since data gathering starts in the field, you need field
sheets to record information for each site on each date
that sampling occurs. Field sheets should provide the
date and time of collection, who collected the data, the
site number and location, which bottle number was
used to collect a particular water sample, and any notes
or observations made by the samplers. They are also
used to record measurements made on the spot, such
as bank vegetation, stream velocity, water temperature
and pH. For benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites,
field sheets are used to record in detail the physical
characteristics of the site and stream, such as stream
bottom composition, amount of canopy cover and
other factors that influence macroinvertebrate com-
munities.
SPREADSHEETS, DATABASES AND MAPPING
SOFTWARE
Once the data is recorded, you need to assemble
it. Computer software for doing this falls into two
basic categories: spreadsheets and databases. We use
both at River Watch Network. For most applica-
tions a spreadsheet is adequate. Database software is
more difficult to master, and charting features are
often unavailable or rudimentary compared to spread-
sheet software. Database software maybe preferable,
however, if your database is very large.
One of the best ways to display your data is on a
map of the river and its tributaries. This shows the
relationship between land uses and water quality,
and other river data very clearly.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL
The degree of quality assurance and quality con-
trol (QA/QC) you need in your program depends
118
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
on how you will use the data. If you want to use it
in court, you will need extensive control and docu-
mentation. If you are using it to diagnose potential
problems with follow-up sampling by more precise
methods, your QA/QC techniques and documen-
tation need not be as advanced. In either case, strive
for the most accurate and precise data possible and
know how far off your results are from the best
accuracy and precision possible.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
What are some of the techniques for QA/QC?
First, be sure that your sample containers are the
proper size and material and that they are properly
prepared. For example, testing for phosphorus with
the ascorbic acid method requires at least 100 mil-
liliters in a polyethylene or glass container that is
washed with phosphate-free soap, rinsed with acid
and then with deionized water. You also need to
know how long you can hold the sample before it
must be analyzed.
If you are going to use your data in court, you'll
need to record the chain of custody of the sample
bottles. This requires a log sheet that registers the
possession of the samples from the time they are
collected to the time they are analyzed in the
laboratory.
CALIBRATION OF INSTRUMENTS
Every time you take a sample you need to verify
that your instruments are working properly and
measuring accurately. They should be calibrated
according to the manufacturer's directions and tested
with known standards. All calibrations should be
recorded on lab sheets.
BLANKS, SPIKES, DILUTIONS, SPLIT SAMPLING,
DUPLICATES AND ARCHIVES
There are many ways of assuring that you are
properly carrying out analytical procedures. You
should regularly test a sample with a blank or a zero
value. This will tell you that your equipment and
technique are not biasing the results in a positive
direction.
Spiking means that you test a sample first, let's say
for phosphate, and then add a known concentration
of phosphorus to the sample and test again. The
result should be the first value plus the spiked
amount. Dilution is the same idea except you are
reducing the value by adding a volume of deionized
water.
Split sampling means that you are giving half of
some of your samples to another laboratory to test
for the same parameters as you are. Duplicate sam-
pling is where two samples are collected at the same
time and place, and tested at two different labs.
Archiving refers to benthic macroinvertebrate
samples. You save representatives of each of the
identifications you have made in labelled vials filled
with ethanol, which are later confirmed by an
expert.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
119
-------
ORGANIZING A NATIONAL VOLUNTEER
MONITORING SOCIETY
Jerry Schoen
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
FORMING A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
One of the recommendations of participants of
the Second National Workshop on Citizen Volun-
teers in Environmental Monitoring (Living Re-
sources discussion group) was to form a national
association of citizen environmental monitoring
groups. This recommendation was reiterated by
John Kopec of the Ohio Scenic River Stream
Quality Monitoring Program in the fall 1990 issue
of The Volunteer Monitor and by the editorial board
of the Monitor in the fall 1991 issue. Consequently,
a discussion session was held at the third national
conference to explore and possibly adopt this idea.
Approximately 45 people attended this evening
meeting. Participants were asked to offer reasons for
and against such a move. The following ideas were
advanced.
REASONS FOR CREATING A NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION:
1. It would help keep the existing network
alive.
2. It would be a strong voice with which to deal
with agencies who are currently reluctant to
use volunteer-collected data.
3. It provides an effective national lobby for
citizen monitoring.
4. It might help in obtaining funding, particu-
larly from agencies, foundations and corpo-
rations that are national in scope.
5. It would raise awareness of volunteer moni-
toring.
6. It would be a source of assistance for small
groups, in particular.
7. It would facilitate communication between
groups.
8. It would help establish standardization of
procedures, where appropriate.
9. It would provide organizational structure in
regions that are experiencing difficulty form-
ing regional associations.
REASONS AGAINST FORMING A NATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION:
1. It might create a self-serving bureaucracy.
2. It may be a time and resource drain to people
who are already hard-pressed to care for their
own programs.
3. Formalization tends to suppress spontaneity
and grass-roots effectiveness.
4. Any standards imposed would come from the
top-down, possibly destroying the benefits of
locally oriented monitoring programs.
5. National standards aren't always desirable,
due to ecological, political or other variations
between regions.
After some discussion of pros and cons, a motion
was passed, without dissent, to move forward with
the formation of a national association.
SEVERAL PRELIMINARY GOALS WERE ESTAB-
LISHED FOR THE ORGANIZATION:
1. To foster communication among groups.
2. To ensure the continued health of The Volun-
teer Monitor newsletter.
3. To provide an advisory board of experts avail-
able to answer questions on various topics.
4. To support research into various aspects of
volunteer monitoring. In particular, to ex-
120
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
plore what degree of standardization of pro-
tocols is desirable and to encourage unifor-
mity to that level.
5. To provide technical assistance to monitor-
ing groups.
6. To provide training programs.
7. To encourage and assist the development of
new programs.
8. To reach out to minorities and other ele-
ments of society which are not well repre-
sented in the volunteer monitoring move-
ment.
9. To diversify financial support and reduce
reliance on EPA.
10. To broaden the scope of environmental
monitoring to include other types of moni-
toring.
11. To lobby for support of citizen monitoring.
It was agreed that further discussion was
necessary to determine the precise nature and
scope of lobbying which would be most
appropriate.
12. To provide advice on liability and other legal
matters to monitoring groups.
It was agreed that these goals need to be analyzed
in greater detail, amended as necessary and priori-
tized before significant further action would be
taken by organizers of the association.
Attention then turned to deciding how to pro-
ceed from this point. Four initial needs were iden-
tified, and a steering committee was formed to
address these needs. The steering committee recon-
vened on the following day and divided into four
working committees to begin work on specific
tasks:
1. A goals committee will further define and
clarify the goals of the association.
2. A survey committee will develop a question-
naire to be widely distributed to volunteer
program participants, asking for input on the
desired makeup, purpose and activities of the
association.
3. A communications committee will contact
other national associations to discuss coordi-
nation of efforts.
4. A proposal committee will seek funds to
conduct a feasibility study and develop a
strategic plan for establishing the association.
Assuming all goes well, further funding will
be sought to get the organization up and
running.
Inquiries about the association may be addressed
to Jerry Schoen at the Massachusetts Water Watch
Partnership, Blaisdell House, University of
Massaschusetts, Amherst, Mass. 01003; 413/545-
5532. Comments may be addressed to Schoen or to
The Volunteer Monitor, 1318 Masonic Avenue, San
Francisco, Calif. 94117.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
121
-------
Day 3:
OPENING REMARKS
Roberta Savage
President of America's dean Water Foundation
America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF)
was established in January 1989 as a nonprofit,
public service organization dedicated to protecting
and enhancing the quality of our nation's water-
ways. Through a national campaign commemorat-
ing the 20th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act by
focusing on The Year of Clean Water, the Founda-
tion intends to rekindle public interest and promote
personal stewardship of our precious water re-
sources.
The Foundation's program has five main objec-
tives: citizen involvement, youth education, profes-
sional exchange of technology, documentation of
water quality status and trends since 1972, and
public participation in the Clean Water Act's 20th
Anniversary Commemorative Celebration.
The Foundation is unique in its reliance on a
broad coalition of experts from all levels of govern-
ment, public interest groups, private citizens, pro-
fessional organizations and industry to accomplish
its objectives. America's Clean Water Foundation's
Steering Committee has an estimated public out-
reach of more than five million people.
The response to ACWF's programs has been
overwhelmingly positive. With President Bush,
Congress, individual states, cities, counties, associa-
tions, corporations and national groups adopting
and proclaiming 1992 as their Year of Clean Water,
the scope and credibility of these programs are
further enhanced.
America's Clean Water Foundation's outreach
extends throughout the globe. For example, the
Foundation recently sponsored the World Water
Summit in Atlanta, Georgia. This important event,
hosted by former president Jimmy Carter and Board
of Governors' Co-chairmen Senator Edmund Muskie
and Senator Howard Baker, expanded the opportu-
nity to affect the debate on clean water between
international governments and world leaders.
The Foundation focuses on environmental change
through citizen education and public involvement
initiatives. To promote the protection of our water
resources through student education and personal
stewardship, ACWF has sponsored several pilot
school programs including: computer assisted pro-
gram for the learning disabled, environmental cur-
ricula for minority and rural schools, and educa-
tional videos. The Foundation has produced these
tools through various partnerships and coalitions.
Many of these educational products target our nation's
youth as future leaders and initiators of environ-
mental change.
In addition, hands-on citizen involvement activi-
ties sponsored by ACWF, including in-stream water
quality monitoring, the Earth Day Clean Water
Run and Exposition, stream cleanups and the Na-
tional Envirothon have increased environmental
awareness and encouraged positive community ac-
tion. One of the most exciting educational activities
is our environmental mystery musical that pre-
miered on March 17 of this year. The play centers
around a watershed and involves the members of the
watershed; there is a salmon, a beaver, a duck and
many others. They begin to notice a decline in the
quality of their stream and hire a detective to find the
cause. The play, entitled The Murky Water Caper: A
Real Fish Story, is designed for older children (middle
or high school students) to perform for elementary
children. To date, the reception has been outstand-
ing. If you would like to receive more information
122
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
on the play or any of our other activities, contact
ACWF, 750 First Street, ME, #910, Washington,
DC 20002; 202-898-0902.
It is the goal of the Foundation to involve every
American citizen in the process of achieving and
maintaining clean, pure water. The Year of Clean
Water provides our nation with an excellent oppor-
tunity for Americans of all ages to become person-
ally involved in the business of keeping our water
clean. We appreciate the support of our Board of
Governors, Steering Committee, Celebrity Advi-
sory Council and the members of America's Clean
Water Foundation, and we look forward, with your
continued help and support, to achieving our goals
for The Year of Clean Water.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
123
-------
Workshop Sessions IV: Outreach and Action
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
MONITORING
Presenters: Donna Sefton, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region Seven; and John Kopec, Ohio
Department of Natural Resources.
Donna Sefton
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOLUNTEERS AND NONPOINT SOURCE
MONITORING
Nonpoint source pollution (NFS) comes from
diffuse sources, rather than distinct pipes or point
sources discharging effluent from sewage treatment
plants or industries. NFS pollution results from our
activities on the land and is caused when rainfall or
melting snow moves over and through the ground,
picks up pollutants along the way and eventually
reaches a waterbody. NFS pollution may also result
from atmospheric deposition.
Nonpoint source pollution is responsible for the
vast majority of impaired or threatened lake acres,
stream miles and coastal waters in the United States.
The leading NFS pollutants are siltation, nutrients,
pathogens and pesticides. The leading sources of
NFS pollution are agriculture, urban runoff, for-
estry, livestock grazing, mining, hydromodification
and atmospheric deposition.
Best management practices are implemented in a
watershed to control nonpoint source pollution.
The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act Amend-
ments require EPA to develop guidance on manage-
ment measures that can be used in NFS prevention
or control.
SECTION 319 NFS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Section 319 of the 1987 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act established the Nonpoint Source
Management Program. The program required states
to prepare a Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
which determined the effects of nonpoint source
pollution on waters of the state, and then develop a
a program for implementing methods to control
NFS pollution to priority waterbodies in the state.
At least in EPA Region Seven, the nonpoint source
assessment is updated every two years with the
biennial state water quality report required by Sec-
tion 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act.
Since 1990, EPA has provided funding to states
(with approved NFS assessment reports and man-
agement pograms) for implementing information,
education, technical assistance and regulatory pro-
grams as well as watershed demonstration projects
consistent with their management programs. Na-
tional guidance requires that each watershed project
include monitoring and information/education/tech-
nology transfer activities.
ROLE OF CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS
Some of the ways citizen volunteers help collect
data related to nonpoint source polution include:
1. Inventoring waterbody, habitat and water-
shed conditions, and screening for problems;
2. Collecting baseline data where little or
no prior data exist, documenting the impacts
of nonpoint source pollution on water
resources, justifying the need for a water-
shed management project and promoting
action;
3. Providing credible pre- and post-implemen-
tation monitoring data; and
4. Collecting long-term monitoring data to
examine trends in water quality.
124
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
INVENTQRING/SCREENING
For example, the Missouri Stream Team Program
uses volunteers to inventory waterbody, habitat and
watershed conditions. The Stream Team Inventory is
a two-stage process that documents stream conditions
and screens for problems. A stream team inventory
manual provides background information and guid-
ance for assessing the condition of the stream. The
second stage is the inventory form. It provides a short
description and pictures of what healthy or abused
streams look like. Seven different components are used
to assess stream quality: watershed, riparian zone,
stream bank, stream channels, fish and wildlife habitat,
scenic beauty and water quality.
The Stream Team Inventory Form also has a prob-
lem identification checklist to rate the degree to which
certain problems apply to the stream being invento-
ried. These include: riparian zone condition, livestock
access, proximity offeedlotstowaterresource.streambank
condition, turbidity of water, presence of debris and
garbage, and pollution sources, including storm sew-
ers, field tiles and construction erosion.
COLLECTING BASELINE DATA
Citizen monitoring data may be the only baseline
data available for a waterbody. Each state has hundreds
of lake waterbodies and thousands of miles of streams.
Because of limited monitoring resources, only about a
third of United States river miles and half of lake acres
have been assessed by the states. Trained citizen volun-
teers using quality-control methods add to our baseline
of water quality information and screen for problems in
otherwise unmonitored waters.
For example, in Illinois' biennial State "Water Qual-
ity Report required by Section 305 (b) of the Clean
Water Act, more than half of the 400 lake waterbody
assessments are based on data obtained from citizens
under the Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program.
In North Carolina, even though the state maintains
an extensive ambient stream water-quality monitoring
network which includes about 200 sites sampled either
quarterly or monthly, only three sites are located in
Buncomba County, near Asheville. The county Vol-
unteer Water Information Network increased this
level of information to 45 sites sampled monthly, or
about a 45-fold increase in the amount of county-level
stream data.
One of the major goals of the Rivers of Colorado
Water Watch Network is to obtain accurate and
consistent baseline water-quality data on the rivers of
Colorado.
DOCUMENTING NFS IMPACTS TO PROMOTE ACTION
Data collected under the Illinois Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program is used to document the effects of
NPS pollution on lake quality and justify the need for
watershed management projects. In addition to Secchi
disk transparency readings, water color, sediment,
algae, aquatic weeds and meteorologic conditions are
observed. For example, at Dunlap Lake, Illinois, re-
duced transparency was associated with rainfall. The
influence of the watershed on lake quality and the need
for a watershed project was documented through the
volunteer monitoring program. This was also true for
Briarwood Central Lake, an urban lake in the Chicago
area, where data collected by citizens promoted local
action to correct identified problems. The data was
then used to evaluate success of the measures imple-
mented.
At Shipshewana Lake, Indiana, volunteers were
used as a cost-effective approach to collecting high
resolution site-specific tributary and lake water column
data for model calibration and verification. Lay volun-
teers were trained in the operation ofbasiclimnological
instrumentation, sample collection, data recording and
sample shipping. Monitoring consisted of bi-monthly
water quality sampling at 11 stations in the lake and
tributaries, and storm event samples collected at 11
stations throughout the watershed.
COLLECTING DATA
Student volunteers are collecting pre- and post-
implementation data for the Section 319 funded Wolf
Creek riparian restoration project in Plumas County,
California. Over a 10-year period, the students will
regularly monitor revegetation success, habitat, aquatic
invertebrate/fishpopulations and physiochemical data.
Apple Canyon Lake in Illinois provides another
example ofpre- and post-implementation data to show
project success. From 1982 to 1985, before implemen-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
125
-------
tation of watershed best management practices, the
average transparency was 60 inches; from 1987 to
1989, after implementation, the average transparency
was 110 inches.
The previous data from Apple Canyon Lake and
Briarwood Central Lakes collected under Illinois' vol-
unteer program shows how citizen data can be used to
determine long-term trends in water quality. The
Illinois program has 11 years of data on 150 lakes.
Vermont, Minnesota and New Hampshire lake moni-
toring programs each have over 12 years of data.
NATIONAL NFS MONITORING GUIDANCE
EPA has prepared guidance for use in national NFS
monitoring projects. Although this type of detail is not
required for all NFS projects, the basic concepts in the
guidancemaybeusefulindesigningyourNFS scheme.
The national NFS monitoring objectives are to
detect changes in water quality, biology and/or habitat
over time and to rekte the changes to activities in the
watershed. The changes may be in such parameters as
mean pollutant concentration or biological/habitat
measures, which can be monitored by volunteers.
Three major approaches are recommended in moni-
toring design. The most preferable approach is to
monitor paired watersheds (two similar watersheds in
close proximity; one with and one without implemen-
tation). A modification of this is to use a eco-region
approach and compare the site to reference sites for that
eco-region. Another approach is to have an upstream,
background site in which the best management prac-
tices (BMPs) to be evaluated are not being imple-
mented in the watershed, and a downstream site which
drains the area in which watershed BMPs are being
implemented. The third approach is to have a single
downstream, site monitored before and after imple-
mentation. There should be at least three years of pre-
implementation data and three years of post-imple-
mentation data.
The suggested monitoring frequency is weekly
grabs for chemical parameters, one to three times per
season for fish, once per season for macroinvertebrates,
and one to two times per season for habitat. To obtain
information best suited to document statistical differ-
ences in pre- andpost-implementation data, the golden
rules are consistency and constancy.
Monitoring parameters are the pollutants addressed
by the NFS implementation project (nutrients, sus-
pended solids, oxygen, temperature) as well as co-
variates (explanatory variables, such as precipitation
andstreamflow).Monitoringparametersmaybechemical,
habitat or biological.
Chemical monitoring may involve such parameters
as Secchi disk transparency, pH, temperature and
dissolved oxygen, which may be analyzed in the field
by volunteers. Other parameters, which may be col-
lected by volunteers, but should be analyzed by an
EPA-certified kb using EPA-approved procedures
include turbidity, total suspended solids, nutrients,
metals and pesticides.
Habitat monitoring may include riparian/bank con-
dition, substrate, channel morphology, cover/habitat
and streamflow. Biological monitoring may include
macroinvertebrates, fish, aquatic vegetation, plank-
ton/periphyton and egg survival.
VALUE OF CITIZEN MONITORING
IN NFS PROGRAMS
The value of citizen monitoring in dealing with
NFS pollution transcends water-quality data collec-
tion. Since NFS pollution results from people's activi-
ties on the land, the solution to the problem also lies in
education to promote awareness and local action to
solve problems. The way to control NFS pollution
nationwide is for all citizens to do their part. The real
power of citizen involvement in NFS monitoring is to
get citizens to take action to make a difference.
John Kopec
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
VOLUNTEER MONITORING IMPACTS ON
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
The Section 319 provision of the 1987 Clean
Water Act Amendments set national and state strat-
egies for addressing nonpoint source pollution and
126
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
provided an excellent opportunity for using citizen
volunteer water monitoring programs.
Throughout the nation, there are countless streams,
lakes and other water resources for which little or no
physical, chemical or biological data exists. As the
legions of citizen volunteers grow through the
addition of new programs and expansion of existing
ones, valuable information will be generated for
many of these neglected waters. This is important,
since most water resources suffer from some aspect
of nonpoint source pollution, and historical water-
quality data is critical for the success of a nonpoint
program.
One very important component of a nonpoint
plan is public education. Many best management
practices dealing with agricultural issues, for ex-
ample, are voluntary in nature and depend upon a
sound program of information and education to be
implemented. In most cases, financial incentives and
regulatory measures are either wholly lacking or
often inadequate. Acceptance by the non-regulated
community of measures that need to be taken to
reduce nonpoint source pollution must be based
upon a comprehensive understanding of basic bio-
logical and chemical principles that underlie water-
shed ecology. For instance, before they make a
commitment to help establish, protect or restore
their riparian forests, streamside property owners
often need to discover how these buffer zones play
an integral role in maintaining water temperatures
and providing a food source for aquatic organisms.
"Working with local agricultural agencies, such as
the Soil Conservation Service, Soil and Water Con-
servation Districts and Cooperative Extension, the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources helped
conduct several streamside and watershed work-
shops during 1991. Local farmers, government offi-
cials and citizens were invited to learn about the fish
and other aquatic organisms that lived in the streams.
It was evident from talking to those in attendance
that the relationship between land-use practices and
the overall health of the aquatic resource was more
readily understood. Several participants also ex-
pressed an interest in joining Ohio's ongoing pro-
grams of stream and lake monitoring.
The Storm and Surface Water Utility ofBellevue,
Washington, has incorporated citizen involvement
through a stream team concept which gives resi-
dents the opportunity to gauge for themselves the
health of their local waterways. Using receiving
waters as a focal point for nonpoint pollution edu-
cation, Bellevue has been successful in cultivating an
active and informed constituency of citizens who
participate in protecting and enhancing their city's
water resources.
For citizen monitoring programs to be effective
educational tools to combat nonpoint source pollu-
tion, they must involve a cross-section of society.
There is hardly an individual, young or old, whose
daily actions do not have some influence on the
quality of his or her environment. Nonpoint sources
that include household sinks, toilets, backyard gar-
dens, driveways, downtown sewers, construction
sites and agricultural fields constitute a problem to
which everyone contributes and for which every-
one is responsible. To address this, citizen monitor-
ing programs should target not only schools and
youth groups, but garden clubs, civic organizations,
sports groups, individual families and any other
willing participants.
Citizen monitoring programs should be expanded,
if possible, to include biological along with chemical
monitoring regimens, with an emphasis on estab-
lishing monitoring stations throughout the water-
shed, from headwater streams to impoundments.
Rather than pinpointing areas of concern, such as
establishing stations above and below a suspect
municipal outfall or industrial discharge, the total
watershed comes into focus as the area of concern.
By deploying citizen volunteer monitors to a wide
variety of stations throughout the watershed, pro-
gram participants gain a better understanding of the
enormity of the problem and the cumulative nature
of nonpoint source pollution. This approach also
helps determine the best management practices to
solve the problem.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
127
-------
WATERSHED WALKING
Presenters: Meg Ken, University of Rhode Island; Joseph
Bachant, Missouri Department of Natural Resources; and
Amanda JJndley Stone, Audubon Sodety of New Hamp-
shire.
Meg Kerr
University of Rhode Island
RIVER RESCUE PROGRAMS
Volunteer monitoringprograms around me country
promote watershed walking and mapping tech-
niques. Watershed walking is inexpensive, can be
used on any type of watershed and appeals to a wide
range of volunteers. It can provide a wealth of useful
information on the current condition of the aquatic
ecosystem, and can identify potential threats to the
system's water quality.
This workshop will cover the basic aspects of a
watershed mappingproject. I will end my section by
describing the Rhode Island River Rescue mapping
and pipe detective programs. River Rescue volun-
teers work on four urban rivers that flow into the
upper end of Narragansett Bay. The rivers and their
watersheds have been used for industrial purposes
for more than 100 years. The rivers have been
dammed, re-routed, dredged and even paved over,
and retain few of their original features. Mapping
techniques have been developed that are specific to
these highly urbanized rivers.
REVIEW OF VISUAL ASSESSMENTS
Visual assessments can be performed on any type
of waterbody. Waterways of all kinds are affected by
point and nonpoint sources of pollution, and visual
surveys are useful as a first step in identifying these
sources. Visual surveys provide information that
allows program managers to identify the current
condition and value of an aquatic resource and can
be used to set objectives for improving the resource.
Repeated surveys can also be used to track changes
in a watershed over time.
The following steps are usually recommended for
volunteers interested in doing a watershed survey:
1. Select an area to survey. The size of the area
selected will vary depending on the type of
waterbody examined and the goals of the
survey. Some volunteers are interested in
watching changes in a section of shoreline or
beach. They should select a small section so
they can measure the beach profile and docu-
ment in great detail the site characteristics.
Other volunteers may be interested in under-
standing the potential sources of pollution to
a lake or river. They would choose a larger
area to survey and would collect less detailed
information.
2. Review maps of the segment selected for the
survey. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to-
pographical maps, available at most hiking
and camping stores, are useful for identifying
watershed boundaries. Highway maps pro-
vide information on access to the waterbody.
Local planning agencies will have plot maps
useful for identifying landowners within a
watershed. The maps often have other de-
tailed features of the waterbody that can be
useful on the watershed survey. Local sewer
commissions will have maps showing their
collection system. Reviewing these maps
will show mappers development areas that
are not served by the sewers. This is impor-
tant since failing septic tanks can be a serious
128
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
source of nonpoint source pollution to many
waterbodies.
3. Draw a map (or maps) of the area you plan to
survey. On the map, draw in permanent fea-
tures such as road crossings and tributary streams.
Set the scale of your map to reflect the purposes
of the survey and the amount of information
that will be displayed. If you are mapping the
land use of the area, urban sections willprobably
need to be shown in more detail than rural areas.
It is useful to cross reference your maps to a
USGS topographical map or other standard
map of the watershed. This will help data users,
such as local water quality planners, understand
where you have collected your data.
4. Make several copies of your maps to take with
you into the field. Have a rough field copy that
you clean up when you get home; don't mark
on your original maps when you are in the field.
5. It is often best to do a reconnaissance survey
before you go out for your final mapping
effort. During the reconnaissance, drive around
the area. Make note of areas where you can
access the river. If you are planning to walk
along the river, ask permission from land-
owners adjacent to the river. If you will be
doing some of your survey by boat, figure out
put-in and take-out points.
6. Before heading out in the field on the day of
the survey, sit down and write a few notes.
Include: the weather on the day of the sur-
vey; weather conditions for the two days
prior to the survey; the date and time of the
survey; the names of people participating in
the survey; and a short summary of how you
plan to perform the day's survey (this will be
your plan of action for the day).
7. Bring in the field with you: boots, snag and
thorn-proof clothing; clipboard with water-
proof cover; maps, pencils and ruler; camera
and film; gloves; and a buddy. Always work
with someone.
8. Drive, walk or boat around your segment.
Make detailed notations of the characteristics
of the waterbody.
The specific characteristics of interest vary from
program to program. For example, EPA Region 10
has developed a streamwalk program designed spe-
cifically for streams and small rivers. Volunteers are
asked to provide information on the physical char-
acteristics of the stream, measuring the width and
depth of the stream, the width of the stream corri-
dor, and the stream gradient. They make notations
of the type of streamside vegetation and stream
cover, the condition of the stream bank, and the
percentage of the stream surface area covered by
pools and riffles. They look for specific problems in
the stream such as bank erosion or modification,
sand and silt in the stream, stream bed purturbations,
algae and aquatic weeds in the water and junk in the
stream. An effort is made to identify the likely cause
of the problems.
In contrast to the EPA method, Seattle's Adopt-
A-Beach program has developed a baseline moni-
toring project for beach sites that includes a site
evaluation where volunteers make detailed notes,
observing animals and plants at the site, the color of
the water and the general condition of the site.
Additional projects encourage volunteers to mea-
sure and plot the profile of the beach and make
detailed characterizations of beach transects.
RIVER RESCUE VOLUNTEERS MAP URBAN RIVERS
Rhode Island's River Rescue program is particu-
larly interested in gathering information on urban
rivers. Volunteer river mappers are asked to measure
and observe pipes leading to the rivers and culverts
discharging to the rivers. They note the types of
buildings along the rivers, whether the area is indus-
trial or residential, and the density of the develop-
ment. Volunteers describe the location of large
debris, such as cars, refrigerators and shopping carts.
They observe the color, smell and general appear-
ance of the water, looking in particular for the
presence of oil on the water.
River Rescue mappers also try to do some detec-
tive work on the numerous pipes that lead to the
rivers. Some sections of river .have pipes leading to
the river every 10 feet, and no one knows the exact
status of discharges from these pipes. Some pipes are
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
129
-------
wasting waste discharges permitted under the state
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
and some are abandoned outfalls, left over from
industries that are no longer at the site. Some pipes
are combined sewer overflows, while others are
existing or abandoned storm drains.
Volunteers are asked to inventory the pipes along
a. section of river. They measure the pipes and note
the color of any water discharged from or sitting in
the pipe. They observe the condition of the river
bank below the pipe to see whether it is eroded.
They are asked to re-visit the river section during
different times of the day and on different days of the
week. They visit the pipes during dry and wet
weather. On each visit, they notice whether the_
pipes are flowing. If they are flowing, they docu-
ment the characteristic of the discharge, including
its color, odor and apparent temperature. (Is it
steaming?) They also re-examine the bank below
the discharge, looking for new signs of erosion.
Pipe inventory information is used to assess sources
of pollution to the rivers. The Rhode Island Depart-
ment of Environmental Management will use the
informationin their ongoingnonpoint source evalu-
ations and assessments. Any continuous discharges
found by the River Rescue volunteers will be
investigated and removed or permitted.
Joseph P. Bachant
Missouri Department of Conservation
A VIEW FROM THE WATERSHED
MISSOURI'S RIVER PROGRAM
Missouri has more than 56,000 miles of streams.
The quality of these resources has steadily declined
over the past century due to land clearing,
channelization, pollution, impoundments, diver-
sions and other abuses. Over 5,000 miles of streams
have been channelized and an additional 2,920 miles
are affected by the flood pools of mainstream reser-
voirs.
Missouri's citizens first became alarmed at the
declining condition of their river resources in the
late 1960s and early 1970s when it seemed that every
remaining free-flowing stream had at least one
proposed major dam project. The 1970s and early
1980s were a period when all efforts were focused
on stopping or altering massive federal water projects.
While these efforts were largely successful, a tunnel-
visioned mentality resulted from focusing on the
immediate sites involved in the projects under ques-
tion. This mindset prevented many people from
seeing rivers as large complex systems.
During the last decade, however, natural re-
source scientists and managers began to see the need
to examine all the river basin parts to better under-
stand the whole. Required impact analyses of a wide
range of activities demanded a keener insight to
cause and effect relationships on a watershed level.
This new science is rapidly evolving on many fronts
and provides the professional with the challenge of
keeping up with literature in several disciplines.
Unfortunately, many concerned citizens have not
had the opportunity to gain these new insights.
In 1986, the Missouri Department of Conserva-
tion created a new comprehensive river conserva-
tion program called Streams for the Future. Basic
aspects of this program include training department
and allied agency personnel in the scientific/techni-
cal functions of riverine ecosystems, including their
watersheds. The department's approach to river
problems is holistic in nature and geared to applying
solutions from the top of the watershed down. For
example, Missouri has sustained massive losses of top
soil. Restoration of viable river systems is not fea-
sible until the uplands within affected watersheds
have corrective land-use practices installed.
Another fundamental cornerstone of the pro-
gram is to raise public awareness of river/watershed
problems, especially those affecting areas of public
concern, such as recreation, water quality, fish and
wildlife. An important subset of the public aware-
ness effort is to create a new constituency for river
conservation with a broader vision than the mental-
ity of a decade or more ago. One approach to
seeking, informing and involving this new constitu-
130
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean "Water
-------
ency is through our Missouri Stream Team pro-
gram. Our goal is to find potential leaders, and
educate and empower them to become better re-
source advocates.
One of the first tools created for educating our
leaders is a subjective environmental assessment
called the Stream Team Inventory. This simple
survey instrument examines seven basic parameters
of stream health: watershed, riparian corridors,
streambanks, stream channel, fish and wildlife, sce-
nic features and water quality. Introductory training
is available, but the assessment was designed to be
self-explanatory and get people to begin thinking
holistically.
Advanced inventory training planned for the near
future will dwell in detail on each of these seven
parameters. The goal, however, will always be to
examine each parameter within the context of its
influence or interaction on each of the other param-
eters.
Based on our experience, initial training for a
watershed assessment will be very basic. Most per-
sons are familiar with their address on a political
boundary basis (city, state), fewer on a ecological
basis (great plains, prairie); hardly any person can
geographically place themselves on a watershed
basis. In addition to map reading and similar basic
skills, most people will have to learn to read the
landscape. For example, major land-use activities
such as clear cutting or subdivision construction
may draw attention, but the cumulative effect of
sheet soil erosion within a watershed can be even
more damaging and easily overlooked. Crash courses
in soils, vegetation and landforms such as karst will
also be needed. Once these skills are mastered,
sampling strategies can be devised to help observers
rate watershed conditions. Then and only then do
we believe that valid watershed condition judge-
ments can be generated by the concerned public.
The department's goal is to cultivate a true
partnership with these new constituents. In addition
to generating a common ground of concern for our
state's flowing water resources, this partnership
must also prosper on a common wealth of knowl-
edge. Training and education are the clues. Profes-
sional knowledge must be effectively transferred to
the private sector if a new era of informed resource
concern and advocacy is to arise.
As an ex-govemor from the state, of Oregon
recently said in a meeting similar to this, "Political
action is the product of public opinion, and public
opinion is the product of informed individual ac-
tion."
Learning to understand broader landscapes such
as watersheds yields a holistic view to the nature of
river and water-quality problems. This insight then
suggests stewardship and advocacy opportunities
open to each individual. When this is, achieved,
perhaps the day of positive political action on major
land-use issues will be at hand.
Amanda LJndley Stone
Audubon Society of New Hampshire
WATERSHED DELINEATION AND MAPPING
Before starting a watershed walking program, it is
essential that the fundamentals of watershed bound-
ary delineation and mapping are understood. In
addition, an understanding of how watersheds func-
tion and are impacted by different land uses is critical
for more efficient management of the quality and
quantity of our water supplies.
Defined simply, a watershed is the geographic
area that is drained by a single river and its tributar-
ies. It includes all the land that surrounds a water-
course and contributes water to it that is, all the
precipitation in that area drains towards a single
watercourse. The river system in any one watershed
could be as large as a major river or as small as a local
brook. (While it is recognised that there are both
surface and grouhdwater watersheds, this paper
focuses on surface-water watersheds).
The watershed functions as an integral part of the
hydrological system and must be considered in this
context. To understand how watersheds function, it
is important to have a basic understanding of the
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
131
-------
hydrological cycle (the continuous and indefinite
cycle of water between the sea, air and land), an
ability to interpret topographic maps, and an under-
Standing of the impacts of different land uses on the
quality and quantity of the river flow draining the
watershed.
A drainage network is a system of stream channels
linked together like the branches of a tree. Each
watershed on the landscape is characterized by a
drainage network. Development of the landscape
frequently altersnaturaldrainagenetworksby changing
the land surface, such as creating artificial channels,
building dams or creating urban areas. Such alter-
ations can have serious environmental consequences,
including increased flooding, decreased water qual-
ity and reduced water supplies during times of low
flow. To prepare better management and planning
strategies, valuable information can be derived by
documenting the different land uses within a par-
ticular watershed and the potential for impacts on
water quality and quantity.
When new development is planned, knowledge
of existing land use, steep slopes, runoff collection
areas, unstable and poorly drained soils, areas prone
to flooding and seepage, water supply areas and
important wetlands can help determine the limita-
tions for development. This knowledge can also
help planners make decisions regarding which parts
of a watershed are best suited for development with
minimum impact to the natural resource base.
Clearing and developing land often has a pro-
nounced influence on drainage networks and wa-
tersheds. This affects both water quality and water
quantity. Agricultural activities can impact drainage
basins and stream networks through the creation of
drainage ditches and tile drains. In addition, excess
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous, the compo-
nents of fertilizers) from waters running off agricul-
tural lands can cause rapid plant and algal growth,
and oxygen deficiencies in rivers, lakes and reser-
voirs. Urbanization also leads to considerable changes
in drainage networks. Natural channels may be
replaced by ditches or underground channels (in the
form of storm drains and sanitary sewers). Paving
over large areas with asphalt and concrete greatly
increases the rate at which storm waters run off the
land, thus increasing the likelihood of flooding.
Urban areas are also the source of a number of
pollutants which adversely affect water quality.
Perhaps one of the most important effects that
humans have had on water quality is the contribu-
tion to levels of suspended sediments in streams as a
result of erosion. For example, deforestation, agri-
cultural practices (such as plowing and grazing),
road and building construction, and the introduc-
tion of spoil materials into rivers by the mining
industry have all led to substantial increases in stream
turbidity. Pollutants that are bound to sediment
particles are consequently transported into the river
system. These are a few of the activities that can
impact on quality and quantity of water in water-
sheds.
Watershed delineation is a procedure where the
boundary of the watershed is drawn on a topo-
graphic map, such as a USGS topographic quad-
rangle. At each point along a watercourse, the land
slopes up on each side to some high point and then
down into another watershed. High points are
generally hill tops, ridge lines or saddles. If all these
high points around the watercourse were to be
joined, this line would form the watershed bound-
ary. This boundary serves as the basis for a watershed
map.
Any point on a watercourse can be used to define
a watershed. For example, the entire drainage area of
a major river can be considered a watershed, but the
drainage areas of each of its tributaries are also
watersheds. Each tributary in turn has tributaries,
and each of these tributaries has a watershed. This
process of subdivision can continue until very small
watersheds are defined which might only drain a few
acres.
When delineating the boundary of a watershed,
there are several fundamental questions that need to
be answered: What happens to a drop of rain when
it falls on the ground? In which direction will it
flow? Which route will it take? Which river system
wiE it join?
A critical first step in delineating watershed bound-
aries is to visualize the landscape as represented by a
132
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
topographic map. This requires an ability to interpret
the contours, and an understanding of how the con-
tours on a topographic map rekte to water flow. When
determining the direction of water flow, the general
rule is that the flow direction is downslope and perpen-
dicular to the contours; and that the V-shaped contours
indicating a drainage line always point upstream. With
that in mind, it is not difficult to make out drainage
patterns and the direction of flow on the landscape,
even when there is no stream indicated on the map.
Before going out into the field to walk a water-
shed, it is essential to compile a map of the watershed
using published sources of information. This both
simplifies and enhances field mapping. To prepare a
watershed map, the following resources are helpful:
1. A USGS topographic quadrangle for the area
to be mapped: This is essential for delineating
the watershed boundary and the drainage
network.
2. Aerial photographs: Large-scale black and
white aerial photographs provide baseline
information on the different types of land use
and where these land uses are located within
the watershed. Any one watershed can be
characterized by a number of different types
ofland use. For example, watershed A may be
80 percent forested, with the remaining 20
percent comprising rural residential areas;
watershed B may be 35 percent forested, 50
percent agricultural, and 15 percent rural
" residential; while watershed C may be domi-
nated by a high density urban environment
with only 10 percent open land. Each of these
watersheds will function differently.
3. Historical and local records: Many reports
held by municipal, state and federal agencies
can provide valuable data concerning a par-
ticular watershed area. Such information can
include water quality reports, known sources
of contamination in the watershed, public
water supply information, dam construction
and other studies that have been conducted
in the local area.
Information documented on a watershed map
should include at least the following:
Steeply sloping areas (slopes greater than 25
percent);
Drainage networks;
Lakes, ponds and wetlands;
Known water supply areas (surface or ground-
water);
Different types ofland use (residential, com-
mercial, industrial, forested, agricultural or
open land);
Areas of erosion or gullying;
Major roads or highways;
Floodplain areas;
Any other relevant information.
Once a map of the watershed has been prepared
from all available published sources of information,
field mapping can begin. The initial watershed map
may be modified, corrected or added to as more data
is collected in the field. Field checking exercises
require a good eye for detail and noting all factors
that could be affecting the watershed. In addition,
the mapped watershed boundary should be con-
firmed in the field.
Watershed maps can be used to assess the level of
impact ofland uses on water resources within the
watershed (including wetlands, watercourses and
lakes) to determine the areas where erosion is occur-
ring and to prepare for better planning and manage-
ment practices within the watershed.
Rivers, lakes and wetlands all form critical com-
ponents of our water resources. At the same time,
these areas are vulnerable to adverse impacts arising
from construction, urban development, agriculture,
mining and silvicultural practices. There is often a
need to collate scattered sources of information and
conduct a comprehensive inventory of watershed
areas to foster a better understanding of the factors
influencing watersheds and optimize the quality and
quantity of our water supplies.
Current knd-use planning practices seldom take
into account watershed impacts. In particular, piece-
meal development has significant cumulative ef-
fects. There is a clearly a need to adopt a watershed
approach to land-use planning. Each point on the
landscape is part of a watershed, and every time the
landscape is impacted, a watershed is affected.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
133
-------
It is important to note that watershed mapping is
the first step in the process. There needs to be
follow-up with regard to monitoring, better plan-
ning and management strategies. Volunteer groups
are ideally situated to take part in watershed map-
ping programs, to participate in restoration efforts
and citizen clean-up programs, and to assist in
monitoring those areas for future adverse impacts.
However, before starting on such programs, it is
essential that volunteer groups have been through
an initial training program in the fundamentals of
how watersheds function and the value of water-
sheds in landscape planning, as well as how different
land uses can impact watersheds, how to read the
landscape, interpret topographic maps and delineate
watershed boundaries.
REFERENCES
Ammann, A.P. and A.J. Lindlcy Stone, 1991: Method for
the Comparative Evaluation of Nontidal Wetlands in New
Hampshire. Published by the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. NHDES-WRD-J991-3
Marsh, W.M., 1983: Landscape Planning - Environmental
Applications. Addison-Wcslcy.
Shaw, E.M., 1983: Hydrology in Practice. Van Nostrand
Reinhold (UK).
134
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Presenters: Mania Moore Homsey, Adopt-A-Stream;
and Tom Murdoch, Adopt-A-Stream Foundation.
Marcia Moore Homsey
Adopt-A-Stream
STARTING PROJECTS WITH SCHOOLS AND
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS
Working with school children has been one of
the most rewarding aspects of the Adopt-A-Stream
program I began in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Programs can be set up in cooperation with
county conservation plans, County Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, Four H clubs, or any other
civic group. To begin, invest in a roll of slide film
and go after those shots of pollution that you will
easily find. Examples might be photos of litter in
parking lots, urban erosion (very easily found), oil
and grease floating on the water's surface and factory
discharge pipes. Simply contact a school principal or
teacher about presenting your slides to students
about pollution, what to look for and how they can
help.
I take a 40-minute program into the classroom,
sitting right among the younger students rather than
in front of them. I often sit on the floor with the
kindergarten children as I show them, by example,
how water pollution occurs. My discussion begins
with an explanation of how very small and vulner-
able the amount of water on earth is and how already
there are foreign countries without safe water sup-
plies and even water shortages in certain areas of our
country. I give them a good perspective of this by
referring to an analogy made by Jacques Cousteau:
If the world were reduced to the size of an egg, a
drop of water on the egg would represent the supply
of water on earth available to humans and wildlife.
It is precious, isn't it?
I take a clear fruit jar of water into the classroom
and tell the students that before the settlers tamed
the wilderness and the industrial revolution came
about, the American Indians could drink directly
from this country's waterways. The Indians were
very kind to Mother Earth for they realized they
were dependent upon the earth's bounties. I take a
drink from the jar just as the Indians could drink
from the natural waters. Then I begin to physically
demonstrate how water pollution occurs using small,
clear 35 mm film canisters filled with the following:
1. Soil: representing the uncontrolled urban
erosion in our area;
2. Sand: representing silt from sand spread in the
winter on streets and filth from commercial
parking lots;
3. Used motor oil: representing oil drippings
from autos and the tons dumped illegally
down storm sewer drains;
4. Litter: found abundantly in our towns/cities;
5. Cigarette butts: found abundantly in parking
lots/streets, undigestible to marine life and
filled with nicotine which is very poisonous;
6. Anti-freeze: representing what is dripped
from autos onto streets and parking lots,
dumped illegally down storm sewer drains; it
is very sweet-tasting to wildlife and very
poisonous.
All of this pollution I remove from parking lots
with the exception of used motor oil and yellow
food-coloring to represent anti-freeze. As I add the
contents of each of the film canisters into the jar of
water from which I had previously drunk, I explain
the damage each pollutant does to our precious
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
135
-------
water resources. I explain the term storm sewer
drain and how we need to change our philosophy
when it comes to storm sewers: they need to be
called waterway drains for that's exactly where these
drains lead!
I am continually amazed by the people who
either do not know that these storm drains lead
directly to our waterways or have never thought of
it before they heard me speak. Further, I explain that
litter in their community washes into the Cedar
River, then the Mississippi, and on into the Gulf and
finally the ocean. This fact amazes children, but
most importantly it concerns them. They quickly
realize that they can really make a difference in the
world by their actions in their backyard. They are
told to look around their neighborhood for signs of
pollution. I end my presentation by offering every-
one a drink of the water I've just polluted they
refuse. I encourage them to be brave enough to tell
someone they see littering not to trash Mother
Earth.
I also explain how a municipal water pollution
plant does not always remove all chemicals from
household cleaners and that their family needs to
read labels carefully before purchasing and using
household cleaners, and use alternative products
which are safe for the environment.
Even recycling the fruit and vegetable scraps into
a compost pile rather than their garbage disposal
takes a burden off the city water pollution plant and
conserves water. During the winter these scraps can
be placed in a covered receptacle outside and near
the door, and be emptied into the compost pile
when the first spring thaw comes along.
Students can learn a lot from a 40-minute class
and readily understand that their future is at stake.
After doing a class for Harding Middle School in
northeast Cedar Rapids, I was pleased to see the
actions the teacher and students took after learning
the consequences of water degradation. Students
began to test the water in a small stream that ran
under their locker link. During the initial building
plans the architect thought it delightful to build the
locker link across this peaceful little stream which
formerly was surrounded by farm fields.
This was a wonderful idea to begin with, but
shortsighted; as commercial development encroached
upon the stream, the stream was used by these
commercial businesses to drain their hard surface
runoff. But only a few years ago during a heavy
spring rain, the peaceful little stream became rapidly
overloaded and rose so high the velocity of the
rushing water damaged the locker link. This was a
learning situation for all students and for the janitor
of the school who was unaware of why the stream
came up so high. The students could see first hand
why there is an urgent need for best management
practices for on-site storm water management.
The Harding students removed litter from the
stream, inventoried it and labeled each type as to
how long, if at all, it would take to decompose and
the hazard each poses to the environment. This
display was put on tables in the hallway for all to
view. It was a real eye opener. Students tested the
stream water in their lab for nitrates, pH, phospho-
rous and types of algae found in non-polluted and
polluted water. Students are now planning a trip to
City Hall and a presentation to the City Council,
which is a great learning experience for them.
Large, five-gallon buckets were donated from
Swiss Valley Farms Dairy here in Cedar Rapids for
volunteers to take into a waterway for collecting
lit'ter. "We find these buckets are reusable and kept
out of the landfill, an added bonus. I print Adopt-A-
Stream on each bucket for advertising.
Presentations you do should include not only
your knowledge and slides, but any problems per-
taining to your area. My slides created such an
awareness among Metro Senior High students that
they adopted a section of Indian Creek, called the
media and scheduled regular cleanups. They were
praised by the community, which resulted in in-
creased self-esteem and pride.
Field trips are the best way to teach the problems
our waterways face. Students need to be taken to a
stream to view it themselves. I make arrangements
with the teacher to do a field trip after the initial
presentation. This works wonderfully and the stu-
dents enjoy it, especially when a teacher gets right in
with them.
136
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Another great factor is that students go home, talk
to their peers, their family, parents, grandparents and
neighbors. The word spreads quickly through the
community. It's up to us to teach the youth of today;
time is running out. I fear the environment is beingput
on the back burner because of the economy. More
than ever, it will take a total grassroots movement to
improve our water quality. Any major social changes
in this country have come from a grassroots level and
this major change too must come from citizens.
Basically a slide presentation and water pollution
demonstration can be taken to any club or organi-
zation to show people the problems they don't
normally view from their automobiles as they rush
through their daily life.
I leave you the fact that WATER IS LIFE, let us
all protect it.
Tom Murdoch
The Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
HOW TO LAUNCH PUBLIC AWARENESS
CAMPAIGNS
There is no magic formula to launching a public
awareness campaign. Of course there are, some
fundamental steps that are applicable to any cam-
paign. First you must have a clear picture of the goals
you want to achieve. You should also have measur-
able objectives enablingyou to evaluateyourprogress,
a date-specific plan of activities designed to reach
those objectives and an adequate budget.
While your goals will be a driving force, your
budget, in terms of human and financial resources,
will set some boundaries. You can do a tremendous
amount with little money provided you have volun-
teers with time and energy, and leadership is pro-
vided for follow through.
A LOCAL CAMPAIGN
The Jackson Elementary school began its stream
adoption program in 1983. The long-term goal of
the project was to reestablish a salmon run in Pigeon
Creek which, due to improper development prac-
tices in its headwaters, had lost its salmon run 25
years prior. The Adopt-A-Stream Foundation (AASF)
got teachers and 400 students at the elementary
school hooked on developing a public awareness
campaign and restoring salmon to Pigeon Creek.
The ASAAF provided teachers with its clean
water curriculum, Clean Water, Streams and Fish, a
Holistic View of Watersheds. The curriculum is avail-
able from the Washington State Office of Environ-
mental Education, 17011 Meridian Avenue N.,
Rm. 16, Seattle, Wa. 98133; (206) 542-7671.
AASF also provided teachers with assistance de-
veloping a long-term action plan and a $1,200 grant
to fund a classroom aquarium to hatch salmon and
help students learn how to test water quality. Stu-
dents learned very quickly that it's one thing to
hatch fish in a controlled environment and quite
another to deal with a wild ecosystem. By the spring
of 1984, students released baby salmon into Pigeon
Creek with the intention of doing everything they
could to ensure that the baby salmon had a place to
return to spawn future generations.
With guidance from their teachers, the students
devised a plan, to make their parents, all residents and
businesses in the watershed aware of their goal to
restore a salmon run in the creek. First, students
prepared a map of the watershed and the creek (a
small stream approximately 1.5 miles in length),
some facts about its condition, and a statement of the
school's goal to restore the salmon run.
The Pigeon Creek watershed information sheet
was enclosed in a pamphlet provided by the AASF
called Streams, Guidelines for Survival. The pamphlet
has a variety of hints on how to take care of a stream.
(For a copy of the pamphlet, send a request along
with 50 cents to AASF, Box 5558, Everett, Wa.
98206.) Students then delivered a packet to every
household and business in the watershed, along with
a plea for citizen help in restoring the creek by
following steps outlined in the pamphlet.
Other activities on the watershed included stream
cleanups, storm drain marking, stream identification
signs and writing letters to media outlets.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
137
-------
Another effective move in this public awareness
campaign came about two years later, when students
were granted an audience with the Everett City
Council. Prior to the meeting, students sent press
releases notifying media about the meeting and its
purpose of requesting assistance from elected offi-
cials to save Pigeon Creek. On the day of the
meeting, representatives from grades one through
five attended, and with media representatives in the
audience, gave a compelling slide presentation on
their efforts to restore the creek. The City Council
pledged to do everything they could to help.
Those initial efforts resulted in considerable me-
dia attention ranging from local newspaper articles,
to national periodicals and television coverage. This
continuous public awareness effort led to continued
positive results. Salmon returned to the creek in
1987 for the first time in 25 years! And in 1991, the
city constructed a storm water control facility that
will cure many of the problems that led to the loss
of the salmon run in the first place.
The Jackson Elementary School had clear goals,
measurable objectives, a date-specific action plan,
and a great deal of human resources to fill their
budgetary needs. They were, and continue to be,
very successful campaigners at the local level using
volunteers.
USING MEDIA TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION
The Adopt A Stream Foundation has been in-
volved in getting people interested in adopting
streams for 10 years. Building on the print media
response to the first 10 projects we initiated in 1981,
we were able to get requests for information and
support from volunteers wanting to adopt a stream.
The print media also led to inquiries from the
electronic media, and as a result, we now respond to
requests for information around the country.
Before you begin the process of using the media,
make sure that you know why you want to use them.
Do you want to recruit volunteers to join your group?
Recruit volunteers for a specific event? Announce
your group has discovered Company X is dumping
toxic chemicals into your watershed? You may want
different things at different times from the media.
There are several excellent references available
that provide the basics of getting free publicity.
They also tell you how to write an effective press
release and offer additional hints. The Kids' Guide to
Sodal Action is a great resource with templates on
press releases and a variety of other topics, such as
writing letters to the editor, power interviewing,
writing petitions and lobbying. To order a copy,
send $14.95 plus $2 postage and handling to the
AASF, PO Box 5558, Everett, Wa. 98206. Don't be
misled by the title, this book is an adults guide to
social action as well. In addition, most states and
metropolitan areas have a guide that provides a
complete list of all print and electronic media in the
area. Get one, and keep it up to date as you use it.
PRINT MEDIA
The AASF has been fortunate in that most of its
stream restoration and environmental education
projects have public interest appeal. It's easy to get
a newspaper to publish a photograph of a stream
project if that project is correcting a visible problem
or if you have kids involved. We also try to provide
something different, demonstrate action, showpeople
cleaning up a pollution problem, and occasionally
provide a little controversy.
The beauty of print media is that you have a
wonderful record of what you've done, and you can
use the coverage to get more media involved. Our
experience has been very positive when we send a
press release about a new project and include a
relevant article about a similar project written by
another newspaper or magazine. In addition, many
weekly papers will print an article prepared by you
and include accompanying photographs.
Because newspaper and magazine articles are
cheap to reproduce and mail, they are great tools for
your environmental education campaign and pro-
vide excellent support documentation to any re-
quest for funds.
RADIO
Radio stations broadcast community calendars to
promote events, and all stations are required to
provide a certain number of public service an-
138
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
nouncements. In general, radio is much easier to
access than television and having your project aired
on the radio is a great way to get the word out to the
public, particularly if your goal is simply to an-
nounce an event.
TV
The AASF has been fortunate that many of our
projects have been covered on television. Public
access and cable stations are the best outlets for
public service announcements with the least amount
of work on your part. Regular network TV stations
require a lot more lead time and planning. To get a
piece on the news it has to have a 30-second punch.
To get in-depth coverage, five minutes or longer,
on a regular show or PBS film may require several
days or even weeks of your time.
You may have to get creative to entice media
coverage of your project. If you provide a common
story with a different angle,' action, human interest
and kids, chances are you will be able to use the
media; keep the controversy approach in your hip
pocket if all else fails.
Remember, the media needs you. They are
hungry for good stories. Feed them well and watch
your project reap the rewards!
Electronic and print media provide great publicity,
but don't focus your media campaign exclusively on
the traditional newspaper, radio and TV crowd. As you
drive down the road, count how many advertisements
you see on the local convenience store, supermarket
and sporting goods marquees. You are not the only
one who sees them. If you can strike up a good
relationship with a store manager, you can get events
posted for free and promote your project to thousands
who drive by the same road.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
139
-------
FUND RAISING
Elizabeth LToler
Virginia Environmental Endowment
Jackie Carrera
Maryland Save Our Streams
RAISING MONEY IN THE'90s
For 15 years I have been in the business offund
giving on the staff of a foundation that awards up to
$1 million a year in grants for environmental im-
provement. Virginia Environmental Endowment
was created in 1977 as the result of a federal court
settlement on the pollution of the James River by
the pesticide Kepone, which was manufactured
under contract for Allied Chemical Company. With
an initial endowment of $8 million dollars paid in
the settlement, VEE was created as an independent
foundation and is one of the few in the nation that
makes grants solely for environmental programs.
VEE has subsequently received federal court
settlement funds paid by the FMC Corporation, the
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and the Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. These funds are des-
ignated for water quality projects in West Virginia,
Kentucky and the Martins Ferry, Ohio region, and
for projects related to the effects of toxic substances
on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. Since
1977, VEE has awarded some $11 million in grants
ranging from $1,000 to 8250,000.
One key to the success of our grants is our
flexibility to provide seed money to grassroots orga-
nizations that depend on dedicated volunteers to
monitor rivers, speak out at public hearings, present
educational programs in local schools, and raise
public awareness about environmental issues and
solutions. In working with these groups, we urge
and advise them to develop long-range fund-raising
strategies and to build a broad base of financial
support within their communities.
Raising money for environmental projects can be
as challenging as saving the rivers. Federal cutbacks
in funding in the 1980s and recent budget reduc-
tions in many states have put new pressures on
foundations, corporations and individuals to in-
crease or re-direct their charitable donations. How-
ever, with the recession continuing to take its toll,
many donors just don't have as much money to give.
A1990 study by the Independent Sector reported
that 13.4 percent of Americans gave money to at
least one environmental organization. However,
volunteers to environmental groups expected to
give less time in 1991 than volunteers to other
groups. This is important because an active volun-
teer base is very important to fund-raising efforts.
Environmental organizations share some of the
blame for the difficulties in fund raising, in spite of
an all-time high level of public interest in environ-
mental issues. There are tens of thousands of groups
focusing on a wide array of issuessometimes with
conflicting or confusing messages and competing
among themselves for public and private funds.
Controversies about environmental crises, jobs and
consumer health can cast a clouded public image on
all environmental groups.
Although foundations and corporations are giv-
ing more money to environmental organizations,
they still prefer the traditional causes education,
health and the arts. Foundations and corporations
are not, by nature, big risk-takers. There has been a
reluctance to get mixed up in the controversial
politics of the environmental movement. Grassroots
140
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
organizations often lack the financial and manage-
ment expertise that foundations expect from their
grantees. Foundations also assume that these organi-
zations can generate resources from their member-
ships and, therefore, have less need for grant sup-
port. Corporate support most often goes to environ-
mental law or to research groups who won't show
up at their headquarters with picket signs or embar-
rass them in public about poor environmental records.
The prospects for environmental fund raising are
not all discouraging, however. According to the
Foundation Center, foundations' share of support
for the protection of the environment jumped to 4.9
percent in 1989, up by one-fourth over 1988. Out
of $122 billion in total charitable donations in 1990,
$2.3 billion went to nonprofit organizations active
in environmental protection and wildlife conserva-
tion. Even after inflation, this was a jump of over 25
percent from 1989.
The proportion of companies that sponsor foun-
dations rose from 42 percent in 1977 to 64 percent
in 1989, and many of these foundations now con-
sider environmental nonprofits to be eligible for
matching gifts by employees. All of these statistics
indicate that environmental groups have good pros-
pects for fund raising.
To follow is a profile of the most likely donor to
environmental organizations as reported in 1990 by
the Independent Sector. I'll give you the highest
percentages within each category:
53 percent of donors to environmental orga-
nizations are females;
55 percent are age 25 to 44;
38 percent are college graduates;
31 percent earn annual incomes of $60,000
or more;
71 percent are married; and
33 percent are from the Midwest.
When asked how they decided to give to environ-
mental organizations:
29 percent said they decided on their own;
e 28 percent gave because they were asked;
28 percent responded to a letter;
six percent responded to an ad; and
four percent responded to a telephone appeal.
Just as there are rivers, bays, lakes and oceans to
be saved, there are lots of dollars and supporters out
there to attract. The competition among other
nonprofits is intense, and it is likely to remain so.
EXAMINING FOUNDATION PROSPECTS
According to the Foundation Center, there were
32,000 foundations in the United States in 1989,
holding total assets of $138 billion and awarding
almost $8 billion in grants.
Independent foundations, which include family
foundations, accounted for 76 percent of grant
dollars awarded in 1989. Community foundations,
which draw funds from many donors, accounted for
5.4 percent of grant dollars awarded and are one of
the fastest-growing sectors of philanthropy. Corpo-
rate or company-sponsored foundations made 17
percent of the grant awards.
Once you begin sorting through all of the avail-
able information'on individual foundations to find
the most promising prospects the ones that
may be worth your time to pursue you will find
that (1) the choices become much more limited,
and (2) the task of identifying them requires a lot of
work.
It has been estimated that 93 percent of grant
requests submitted each year fail, in many cases
because the proposals are not compatible with the
program interests or geographic limitations of the
foundations that receive them. The challenge is to
find those foundations that award grants in the dollar
range that you need, for the type of support you
seek, for the subject area of your program, and to the
type of organization that you are.
Most foundations limit their grants to their local
communities or states. Small foundations may sup-
port only selected schools, hospitals or charities; or
they may give to a wide range of interests. But they
typically don't provide much information to the
public. Only one-fourth of America's foundations
have paid staff. Only 26 percent issue publications
about their programs and procedures.
Community foundations, as a rule, focus giving
on specific areas or regions. Grants from corporate
foundations generally reflect the corporation's in-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
141
-------
terests and are targeted to areas in which the corpo-
ration has operations. The larger, national founda-
tions may have grantmaking programs that target a
specific region or field, but most of their grants
support projects that can be used as national models.
There are many good resources to help narrow
down the list of foundation prospects. One of the
best services for grantseekers is The Foundation
Center. This is an independent, nonprofit, national
service established in 1956 to provide accurate
information on foundation giving. The Foundation
Center operates four major libraries in New York,
Cleveland, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco,
and a network of 175 information centers through-
out the country.
You can also obtain copies of foundations' annual
IRS returns from your regional IRS office. Your
local IRS office should be able to give you the
address for your region and instructions on request-
ing this information.
Once you've put together a list of foundations
that appear to be promising prospects, you narrow
it down to those foundations that are the most likely
to consider your proposal favorably. Again, the task
is to find the right match.
At this point it is a good idea to keep a file on each
foundation prospect and update it regularly. Look
for news articles on that foundation and the grants it
makes. Call or write for an annual report, applica-
tion form, and other guidelines. If you know orga-
nizations that have received grants from that foun-
dation, call to ask them about their experiences.
Those organizations might be willing to write a
letter of support if you decide to submit a proposal.
An excellent list of questions to use in identifying
your best foundation prospects has been developed
by the Foundation Center. No matter how worthy
your program is or how good your grant proposal
may be, it is essential to go through this list in
examining each prospect.
Some foundations require a letter of inquiry in
advance; others want the full grant proposal. Some
foundations prefer meeting together to learn about
your organization and offer guidance on whether a
proposal would be considered. These decisions are
generally guided by the size of a foundation's staff
and the number of proposals it receives. Generally
this information can be obtained by reading a
foundation's publications or calling its office.
KEY ELEMENTS OF A GRANT PROPOSAL
Once you have targeted your foundation pros-
pects and decided to submit a grant request, you
must prepare your proposal to convince your pros-
pects that your program is a worthy investment.
Peter Drucker has wisely noted that "many non-
profits still believe that the way to get money is to
hawk needs, but the American public gives for
results." (Wall Street Journal, 7/11/90). In preparing
your proposal, keep this advice in mind.
Before we review the basic elements of a grant
proposal, I want to give you a list of what I call the
Seven C's of a good request.
The first C is Compatibility. The greatest pet
peeve of foundation staffers is receiving a proposal
that is grossly incompatible with their stated pur-
poses, interests, grant policies, grant size and geo-
graphic limitations.
The second C is Clarity. Make your proposal
brief, clear, accurate and specific. Avoid jargon or
highly technical terms. Put the request up front, and
ask for a specific amount. To say that you will take
"just any amount you will give us" doesn't show
much planning on your part. If you're asking for
operating support, say so. Don't call it a special
project if it's not.
The third C is Contribution. Again, focus on
goals, measurable objectives and results. Be specific
about how you will achieve them. Don't use emo-
tional appeals. Your proposal should be a well-
documented statement of facts.
The fourth C is Credibility. All donors must be
convinced that the people involved in your organi-
zation and its projects are well-qualified and will use
grant funds wisely to do what you have proposed.
They look at your experience, your management
capabilities, and your credibility in the community.
The fifth C is Cost-effectiveness. Foundations
usually have a lot of experience in reviewing balance
sheets and evaluating project budgets. Your budget
142
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
should be a realistic estimate of expenses don't
pad it, and don't cut it so short that you can't carry
the project through. Consider all available opportu-
nities to minimize costs.
The sixth C is Cooperation. Many foundations
believe that broad community participation in-
creases the potential for a project's success and
continuation after the grant ends. Be sure to describe
how your project relates to similar efforts in the
community, your group will coordinate with those
efforts and your contributions will be unique.
The seventh C is Commitment. Potential donors
must be absolutely convinced that everyone in-
volved in your organization, from your board mem-
bers to your volunteers, is fully committed to carry-
ing out your mission and your project.
There are also books available on how to write a
proposal. Remember, however, that the application
procedures and formats vary with each foundation.
If you fail to follow these procedures or don't
comply with the application deadlines, your pro-
posal may be automatically rejected.
Some foundations provide application forms.
Others are very specific about proposal length,
format, contents, budgets and cover letters. Don't
send a lot of extra materials that aren't requested.
Proofread carefully. Check your math. And don't
provide conflicting information.
If you decide to send a standardized proposal to
more than one funding source, be sure to tailor a cover
letter to each one, addressed to the correct contact, and
making a case for why that foundation should consider
your proposal in light of its special interests.
Let me very briefly review the basic parts of a
grant proposal that most funders expect to see:
A Cover Letter - On letterhead stationery, if
available, and signed by your organization's chief
officer or board chairman. This should highlight the
points of your project that would be of interest to
the foundation and state the amount being re-
quested;
A Table of Contents - To help organize your
presentation;
A Summary of the Project To describe the
purpose of the project, the total budget and the
amount requested, the plan of action, and the
anticipated results;
An Introduction to Your Organization - To
describe the mission of your organization, provide a
brief history of your activities and accomplishments,
list your officers and board members, and describe
the qualifications of the project staff;
A Problem Statement - To describe the specific
problem or need your project will address, who will
benefit, what other related efforts are being made,
and how your project will be unique;
Goals and Objectives To describe the measur-
able results you hope to achieve;
A Specific Plan of Action and Project Schedule -
To list the tasks that will get you to your results;
An Evaluation Plan - To describe how you will
measure the success of your project and evaluate
what worked well and what didn't;
The Project Budget - To provide a realistic
estimate of project costs. List all sources and amounts
of committed and anticipated income and a break-
down of expected costs by major expense catego-
ries. Identify which of the costs would be covered by
a grant from the foundation. Many foundations also
require a copy of your total operating budget or an
audited financial statement.
Future Funding PlansTo describe specific plans
for supporting the project after the grant support
ends. This is where your long-range fund-raising
strategy is helpful.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
After submitting a proposal, if you have not
received an acknowledgement in a few weeks, call
to be sure your materials were received and to ask if
any additional information is needed. If you aren't
sure about when you should expect to receive a
decision on the proposal, by all means ask. If you
have not met with the foundation's staff previously
and can make the trip to its office, you might suggest
an appointment to discuss your project.
As anyone in the fund-raising business can tell you,
you may hear "No" more often than you hear "Yes."
The process of seeking grants takes time and energy.
But don't let a rejection dampen your enthusiasm.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
143
-------
In many cases, a foundation's decision on a
particular grant application may be dictated by the
amount and type of grant commitments it currently
has, the number and type of proposals it has re-
ceived, the effect of economic trends on its available
assets, and recent developments in public policy and
legislation.
KEEPING DONORS INFORMED AND GIVING
Once you've devoted so much time and effort to
gain a new donor, it is extremely important to keep
that donor informed about your program, especially
if you want to get continued support.
The first and most simple step is to write a thank-
you letter to the donor. You should acknowledge
the efforts made by people who helped you contact
that donor or who wrote letters of support. You
should also clarify your responsibilities as a recipient
of a donation or a grant, and make sure that every-
one on your staffer your board who has a role to play
is aware of these responsibilities. If you have a
foundation grant, find out if there are specific forms,
procedures and deadlines for reporting progress,
expenditures and results. If you proposed an evalu-
ation process, get it into place.
Most foundations and corporations appreciate
acknowledgement of their support in press releases,
publications and reports about your program or
organization. Some will offer to help with publicity.
Other donors, particularly individuals, prefer not to
have their support publicized. In either case, ask
permission before making information public.
Good public relations is an ongoing process. By
making an effort to publicize your events, the
donors see that they have funded a successful project.
Donors realize that publicity is important in recruit-
ing citizens and volunteers to participate in commu-
nity environmental programs. You should cultivate
and educate your local reporters and invite them to
participate in your program or in special events.
Regular meetings with your donors, whether
they are your members or community business
leaders or foundations, are recommended. How
often and how long these meetings are depend on
the donor's interests and schedule. These meetings
offer the opportunity to discuss project results as
well as new plans. They can also provide leads to
new potential donors or community partners.
Cultivating current donors is an ongoing process
of educationfor you as the fund raiser and for the
donors. You are learning more about what donors
care about and what they want to do with their
money, and they are learning what you can do for
them and for their community.
For all of these tasks, it is important to keep good
records on your fund raising, on your project's
activities and results, and on any new contacts you
make that are potential new donors. Keep files of all
press clippings, photographs, videotapes and slide
programs about the project. These files will be useful
in preparing new fund-raising campaigns and grant
proposals.
REFERENCES
The Chronide of Philanthropy, VoLlH, No. 16, June 4, 1991,
"1990 Giving: Smallest Increase in Years," Stephen G. Greene.
The Chronide of Philanthropy, Vol.IV, No. 1, October 22,
1991, "Corporate Giving: Still Stalled," Jennifer Moore.
The Foundation Center, 79 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY
10003-3050; 800-424-9836. Catalog of books available.
The Council on Foundations, 1828 L Street, NW, Wash-
ington, DC 20036; 202-466-6512.
Environmental Grantmakers Association, 1290 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10104; 212-373-4260.
Grantsmanship Center, 1031 S. Grand Avenue, Los Ange-
les, CA 90015; 213-749-4721.
The Wall Street Journal, July 11, 1990, "Despite Appeal,
Saving the Earth Lacks Donors," Dana Milbank.
144
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE
CLEAN WATER ACT
Presenters: Diane Cameron, National Resources Defense
Council; and Roberta Savage, America's Clean Water
Foundation.
Diane Cameron
National Resources Defense Council
VOLUNTEERS: THE FRONT LINE OF THE
CLEAN WATER MOVEMENT
TheNaturalResourcesDefense Council (NRDC)
is spearheading the National Clean Water Network,
which is composed of over 260 grassroots, state and
national organizations working together for a strength-
ened Clean "Water Act. The network is diverse; it
includes commercial fishingassociations, trade unions,
religious and social justice organizations as well as
environmental groups.
The National Clean Water Network has a basic
three-part agenda: prevent, protect and enforce. We
want to prevent pollution at its source, regardless of
whether it is raw sewage from combined sewers or
leaking sanitary sewers, pesticides and manure in
farm runoff, or toxics in factory discharges. We want
to protect critical aquatic ecosystems including wet-
lands and reparian habitats that are essential for the
survival offish, amphibians, birds and other aquatic-
dependent species. We want to ensure that the
public isnotified of water-pollution problems through
posting requirements at beaches, factory and sewage
outfalls, and we want to make sure that the nation's
waters are protected through well-targeted moni-
toring and enforcement programs.
High on the Clean Water Network's agenda is
runoff policy: the need to tackle land-based sources
of water pollution, like overuse of nitrate fertilizers
that contaminate surface and groundwater, manure
runoff from dairy operations, siltation fromlogging,
row cropping and construction sites, and pesticides
from farms and lawns. Many state water-quality
agencies have longstanding waterquality protec-
tion programs based on traditional point sources:
factories and sewage plants. Although the work in
reducing these pollution sources is not yet over, we
have come a long way in controlling these sources
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System. We have barely begun, however, to
establish water-quality practices for land-based sources
of water pollution.
We need to create a program that will make states
accountable for restoring and protecting water-
sheds, and that will establish the responsibility of
land operators to use water-sensitive management
measures. The 1990 amendments to the Coastal
Zone Management Act establish similar state and
land operator responsibilities in coastal areas; we
simply want to expand this runoff policy to water-
sheds nationwide.
As the nation turns its attention to land-based
sources of water pollution, we realize that we need
to create and revise state monitoring programs so
that they provide an accurate picture of polluted
runoff problems and sources. Volunteer monitors
are now providing one of the few strong links in a
currently weak monitoring chain. Volunteer water-
quality monitors, especially those who work through
organizations like the Izaak Walton League's Save
our Streams Program, are on the front lines of the
national movement for watershed restoration and
projection. Virginia is just one example of a state
where volunteer monitors are an integral part of
watershed assessment for runoff-related water-qual-
ity problems. Without the hundreds of volunteers
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
145
-------
who are now looking at the effects of building
construction, farming and logging on lakes and
streams, Virginia's watershed assessment would pro-
vide a less-accurate picture of watershed health.
"We propose that state polluted-runoff programs
(319 programs) receive greatly expanded authoriza-
tions and appropriations from Congress on the
order of a five-fold increase from the current aver-
age oflessthanSlmiUionper stateperyearso that
state water-quality staff can do the watershed moni-
toring and assessment, the cooperatiave agreements,
and the program implementation that will get our
waterbodies back to full health. We also propose
that states be required to include a small but signifi-
cant part of their runoff program budgets for train-
ingand equipping volunteer monitoring data for use
in their biennial 305 (b) reports to EPA and Con-
gress. We welcome any citizen support for this
proposal, so that volunteer monitors can work with
state water-quality agencies as full partners in water-
shed restoration and protection.
Roberta Savage
America's Clean Water Foundation
HISTORY OF CLEAN WATER LAWS
The first major piece of clean water-related
legislation was the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946.
This statute incorporated the water-quality stan-
dards structure we use today and provided small
grants for the construction oflocal sewage treatment
plants.
In 1972, the first major law regulating the dis-
charges into our nation's waters was passed, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,
Public Law 92-500 (Clean Water Act).
This comprehensive legislative framework pro-
vided, among other things:
A goal of fishable, swimmable waters;
A goal of zero discharge of pollution into the
nation's water;
Grants for local wastewater treatment facili-
ties at $5 billion annually;
Community grants for area-wide planning;
A permitting structure to regulate industrial
and municipal discharges;
Effluent guidelines for categories of indus-
tries;
Constraints on dredging and filling of water-
ways;
An enhanced scheme for development and
implementation of water quality standards.
Congress re-examined the statute in 1977 and
added new provisions for toxic controls, sludge
management, stormwater controls and pretreat-
ment of industrial waste. Congress also re-emphased
the strong role they expected the states to play in
managing the Clean Water Program.
In 1981, with the election of Ronald Reagan as
president, a new federalism approach was applied to
the Clean Water Act. The president refused to call
for a budget allocation unit unless specific reforms
were enacted by Congress.
These reforms included cutting the budget for
clean water by more than half and limiting the
categories of cleanup eligibility for federal funding.
With the program, in essence, running at half
speed, Congress once again examined the Clean
Water Act, passing a bill to establish State Revolv-
ing Funds (SRF) to assist local governments with
wastewater treatment needs. The 1986 Clean Wa-
ter Act also incorporated expensive programs for
stormwater runoff, toxics and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
President Reagan vetoed the bill, forcing Con-
gress to pass it again in 1987. Once again President
Reagan vetoed it, but Congressional Override made
the 1987 Clean Water Act a law.
The twentieth anniversary of the original Clean
Water Act, 1992, is also a time to examine the
statute. Key issues this time around include:
SRF
Wetlands
e Combined sewer overflows
Nonpoint sources
Water quality standards
146
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Funding
Pollution prevention
POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES
Water quality is an integral part of water develop-
ment, and point and nonpoint controls must be
developed in sync with your water development
plans. Throughout the nation, we have made great
strides in improving water quality. Rivers and lakes
once devoid of aquatic life now boast diverse popu-
lations offish and other aquatic critters. More than
120 billion dollars have been invested in improving
water quality. Most sewage treatment plants are
meeting secondary treatment. Most industrial facili-
ties are meeting permit limits, and most streams are
in reach of meeting standards.
In a presidential election year it is unlikely that
the Clean Water Act will pass. And with the expec-
tation that there will be a host of new Congressional
members elected in November, we may still be
talking about Clean Water Reauthorization in 1995.
Who knows?
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
147
-------
Technical Sessions
RIVER AND STREAM MONITORING
TECHNIQUES
Wayne Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Five
Carl Weber
University of Maryland
Don Duff
USDA-Forest Service
Fred Mangum
USDA- Forest Service.
WHAT ARE BENTHOS AND
WHY USE THEM?
Bcnthic macroinvertebrates (benthos) are ani-
mals without a backbone that live in surface water,
depend upon the bottom, material for food and/or
shelter, and are usually easy to see. The most com-
mon groups ofbenthos include insects, clams, snails,
worms and crustaceans. Many benthos have life
cycles that require them to live in the water for their
entire existence (crayfish, riffle beetles), while oth-
ers have cycles that require them to eventually leave
the water permanently to feed and/or reproduce
(mayflies, dragonflies). Benthos are important in the
ecological food chain since they provide food for
other animals (fish and other benthos) and they
recycle parts of dead animals and other types of
organic matter (crustacea and worms).
Benthos have been used for over 100 years to
detect pollution in streams and rivers. By the accu-
mulated years of knowledge of collecting benthos
and recording the environmental conditions in which
they were found, biologists and others were able to
estimate the quality of rivers or streams by knowing
which benthos were present (with proper identifi-
cations), and in what abundances they expected to
find under the different water quality conditions. As
these indicated conditions anywhere between pris-
tine and severely polluted, their value to scientists
grew and have become a part of many pollution-
control programs to complement existing chemical
and toxicity testing efforts.
With greater amounts of pollutants to worry
about and the grab-sample nature of chemical and
toxicity testing, biological monitoring using benthos
and fish communities is increasing in popularity.
Today, EPA requires all states to adopt narrative and
numerical biocriteria, based upon habitat, benthos
and/or fish, in their water quality standards. This
integrated approach to protecting our water re-
sources has resulted in extraordinary revelations of
water quality problems where either we did not
think they existed or where we did not have the time
or money to sample.
WHY ARE CORRECT IDENTIFICATIONS
IMPORTANT?
Accurate identification ofbenthos is not just an
issue that professionals can use to nit-pick. Regard-
less of the level of taxonomy (a named group of any
organism is called a taxon), it should be accurate. For
educational situations and quality assurance pro-
gram needs, correct identification shows care and
pride in your work and earns respect from your
students and colleagues. Correct identifications are
essential if the data will be used to influence local or
state decisions, whether they are applying corrective
actions or to prompt additional monitoring and
148
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
investigation by agencies. Provisions for ensuring
correct identifications through training and estab-
lishment of a voucher collection are an essential part,
of the Quality Assurance Program Plan. An excel-
lent way to ensure this occurs is to establish a training
program as part of the overall Quality Assurance
Program.
HOW ARE BENTHOS CLASSIFIED?
Benthos are classified according to international
rules of nomenclature starting at the largest classifi-
cation (Kingdom, Animalia) and proceeding to the
lowest common classification (Species, Hexagenia
limbatcf) as follows: Kingdom_Phylum_Class_Order_
Family_Genus_Species.
Generally, the largest classification level used for
water quality assessments are Class and Order. The
smaller classifications can usually tell you more
about the specific environmental requirements of
the taxa (plural of taxon). Whereas species-level
classifications yield a great deal of assessment infor-
mation on chironomidae (midge larvae) and
oligochaeta (worms), species level identifications
are currently not as useful on many of the other
groups of benthos. It is very common for some state
assessment programs to identify some benthos to
Class, others to Order, Family, Genus, or Species,
depending upon the water quality assessment infor-
mation each level can provide for specific taxa. For
example, EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols use
predominantly Class and Order for level I, Family
for level II, and Genus/Species for level III (Plafkin
et al. 1989). The level of taxonomy is related to the
objectives of the program, resources available, and
the taxonomic expertise on hand. The more rigor-
ous field and taxonomic efforts generally afford
more flexibility in how the information is applied.
The important consideration here is to apply a
consistent classification scheme for all of your ef-
forts.
HOW AND WHERE ARE BENTHOS COLLECTED?
Benthos are collected by methods commonly
referred to as qualitative and quantitative methods
(Klemm et al. 1990). Quantitative methods use
sampling devices that allow for establishing the exact
number of organisms per unit area of substrate
sampled or organisms collected per time (drift net
samplers). Typical quantitative sample devices in-
clude Surber samplers (riffles and shallow), artificial
substrates, and grab samplers such as Ekman and
Ponar samplers (Klemm et al. 1990). Qualitative
sampling usually focuses on obtaining as many dif-
ferent types of benthos as possible with little regard
for collecting numerically representative samples.
This type of sampling is very popular due to the
relative ease and flexibility for collection. The pri-
mary sample device for qualitative collecting is the
long-handled dip-net and kick-seine of almost any
variety. Hand picking is also very popular, especially
for volunteer programs that want everybody to get
into the action. A good example of a program using
qualitative sample methods is EPA's Rapid
Bioassessment Program (Plafkin et al. 1989), and
one of the best biomonitoring programs in the
country uses a combination of artificial substrates
(quantitative) and dip-netting (qualitative).
The riffle/run portion of the stream is commonly
called the most productive portion of the system and
where the most diversity of benthos will be found.
There is a great amount of microhabitat in riffles for
benthos, an ample oxygen supply, and a good
chance for access by monitors. Therefore, sampling
in the riffle/run will suffice for most water quality
assessments. However, if there are no riffle/runs
available, habitat may become a limiting factor and
other habitat types may need to be sampled (such as
undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, pools, and
any part of the stream bottom that may be acces-
sible). Plafkin et al. (1989) and Klemm et al. (1990)
provide excellent discussion of this topic.
HOW ARE BENTHOS IDENTIFIED?
Before actual identifications can be made, you
must decide whether you will identify the benthos
in the field or in the laboratory. Many volunteer
programs rely upon field identifications (Illinois,
Ohio, Izaak Walton League of America IWLA)
with the organisms collected returned to the stream.
Other programs primarily depend upon laboratory
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
149
-------
identifications with some cursory field identifica-
tions (Maryland). A program with a good Quality
Assurance Program will have some facets of labora-
tory identifications for general education, specific
training, and performance evaluation of monitors
(IWLA). Whether laboratory or field identifications
are made will depend upon available resources and
the objectives of the program. At a minimum, a
voucher collection of the benthos collected from
the study area should be made and verified in a
laboratory.
Benthos are best identified by either a picture key
(for the higher levels) or a dichotomous taxonomic
key which contains generic and specific descriptions
of certain characteristics of the benthos comple-
mented by illustrations. In a dichotomous key,
benthos are identified to different levels by compar-
ing physical features and selecting one of the two
numbered descriptions that best fits the specimen
you are examining. This process continues until the
specimen is correctly identified. There are a number
of excellent taxonomic keys to choose from which
approach the topic from many levels. Selecting the
best key for you will be based upon personal expe-
rience and word-of-mouth from your colleagues or
other professionals. Klemm et al. (1990) provide a
comprehensive listing of available keys.
DEVELOPING YOUR OWN TRAINING SYSTEM
It is important to ensure that all volunteers in the
program are adequately trained to not only identify
the benthos, but collect them and establish a training
system. Training systems can be used for introduc-
ing this topic to new volunteers, to specifically train
and test the volunteers for their proficiency in
identifications, and to periodically freshen-up exist-
ing participants on an annual basis. The training
system, should contain a collection of preserved
representative benthos which could also serve as a
voucher collection for quality assurance needs. An
obvious first step is to contact other volunteer
monitoring organizations for a description of their
protocols and overall advice. Discussions with the
state or local water quality agency and local colleges
or universities also provide a great deal of insight
which can turn into actual assistance.
The Izaak "Walton League has an excellent VHS-
video on collection of benthos that touches upon
identification, and the EPA offers a VHS-video on
their Rapid Bioassessmerit Protocols which goes into
detail on dip.-net collecting, stream dynamics and
habitat assessment. The identification of the benthos
is much more difficult to learn from watching a
video. Benthos should be collected and ideally
preserved in a 70 to 80 percent ethanol solution,
although sometimes isopropyl alcohol is used. Each
type (or taxon) of benthos should be preserved and
labelled in individual vials for ready reference. Al-
though there are a great deal of taxonomic aides
available, none of them can replace actual experi-
ence. We strongly suggest teaming up with indi-
viduals or organizations with existing experience in
identification. If this is not possible, many volunteer
organizations have easy to use taxonomic keys
(McDonald et al. 1990) and there are many useful
professional taxonomic aides (McCafferty 1981).
Please refer to Klemm et al. 1990 for a listing of
equipment suppliers as well as an exhaustive list of
taxonomic references.
WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE DATA?
It is very important to properly document all of
your results including the location (description as
well as station number), date and time the sample
was collected, the date that the sample was identified
and the names of the individuals who collected the
data and identified the benthos. This information
should not only be documented in either report
form or electronic format, but the information
should also be stored with the samples themselves.
Data sheets should be developed to meet your
specific needs and be available either to include in
reports, transpose into electronic media, or to send
a copy to interested parties.
Data can be evaluated in several manners (Klemm
et al 1990). Evaluation options include using indices
such as biotic, diversity, similarity and composite
indices such as the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(Plafkin et al. 1989) and various enumerations or
counts of organisms. Functional feeding group in-
150
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
formation has also become popular and will become
subject to additional evaluation. It is important not
to rely upon a single measurement value for your
final assessment. It is best to use a multiple- metric
approach outlined in Plafkin et al. (1989) and uti-
lized by many state programs. The data, if properly
documented and conforming to the Quality Assur-
ance Plan, can be used by government agencies,
basin commissions, local councils/groups, water-
shed councils and state regulatory agencies for their
biennial Section 305 (b) reports, mandated by the
Clean "Water Act, which document the quality of
the water resources throughout each state. Working
with the intended user of the data prior to initiating
data collection is the wisest time-saving measure
you can utilize.
REFERENCES
Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, J.M. Lazorchak. 1990.
Macroinvcrtebrate Field and laboratory methods for evaluating
the biological integrity of surface waters. USEPA, ORD,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/4-90/030. 256 p.
McCafferty, W. P. 1981. Aquatic entomology: the fisherman's
and ecologist's: Illustrated guide to insects and thek relatives.
Science Books International, Boston, MA.
McDonald, B., W. Borden, andj. Lathrop. 1990. Citizen
stream monitoring: A manual for Illinois. Illinois Department of
Energy and Natural Resources. Springfield, IL 35 pp. (217-
785-2800).
Merritt, R.W., andK.W. Cummins (eds). 1984. An intro-
duction to the aquatic insects of North America. 2nd edition.
Kendall/Hunt PubL, Dubuquc, IA. 441 p.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. The use
of biocriteria in the Ohio EPA surface water monitoring
and assessment program. Division of Water Quality Planning and
Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological
criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. Standard-
ized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for
assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Division of
Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment
Section, Columbus, OH 43212. . ' .
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and
R.M. Hughs. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in
streams andrivers: bcnthic macroinvertcbrates andfish. USEPA,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA/440/4-39-001.
Rankin, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation
Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Application. Division
of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assess-
ment Section, Columbus, Ohio 43212.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Fisheries Habitat
Surveys Handbook (R-4 FSH 2609.23), Forest Service Inter-
mountain Region, Ogden, UT.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological
criteria: national program guidance for surface waters. USEPA,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C., EPA-440/5-90-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Volunteer
water monitoring: A guide for State managers. Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA-440/4-90-010.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
151
-------
LAKE MONITORING TECHNIQUES
Presenters: Carolyn Rumery Bete, Wisconsin Self-Help
Lake Monitoring Program; Scott Kishbaugh, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation; and
Sandra Fisher, University of Florida.*
Carolyn Rumery Betz
Wisconsin Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program
LAKE MONITORING TECHNIQUES:
THE NEXT GENERATION
Once the decision is made to expand a monitor-
ing program, the first step is to develop specific
criteria for the selection of possible tests. Criteria
that can be used to select tests are: low technology
and low cost equipment; yield on-the spot results as
often as possible; satisfy the interests of volunteers;
and fulfill some of the administering agency's data
needs. It is also useful to research other states' programs
and administer questionnaires to the affected volun-
teers and agency staff. Using these criteria and proce-
dures, the Wisconsin Self-Help Lake Monitoring Pro-
gram selected new tests to be included in its 1990-91
Expanded Pilot Program: dissolved oxygen, tempera-
ture and pH profiles, phosphorus and chlorophyll
samples, and precipitation.
Start on a pilot basis so sampling equipment and
procedures can be thoroughly tested and refined
before too much time or money is invested or
volunteers are trained in techniques that must then
be modified. The key ingredient to a successful
program is a complete training manual explaining
the reasoning behind the program components and
step-by-step procedures to be followed. Our train-
*TTamaipt Unavailable
ing manual is in a three-ring binder style notebook
allowing for greater flexibility when (not if) pro-
gram procedures change. Include photographs if
possible. (We use color xeroxes, which are easy to
reproduce.) A training session at each volunteer's
lake at the beginning of each season is recommended
to familiarize the volunteer with the equipment
used, demonstrate proper sampling procedures, and
acquaint the volunteer with the training manual.
In addition, our program does not charge its
volunteers for any of the costs involved and provides
each lake with about $200 worth of equipment.
A comprehensive quality control/quality assur-
ance program should be designed and implemented
in conjunction with the new program to verify
results, modify procedures as needed and demon-
strate the accuracy and reliability of the data to
agency personnel or others. Our quality assurance
program has volunteers take duplicate samples of the
data they collected for one of the five months they
sampled. In addition, aDNRfield technician visited
a representative number of lakes in the program.
While in the same boat as the volunteer, the tech-
nician took concurrent samples using DNR equip-
ment. All data sets were statistically analyzed and
used for program recommendations.
WATER QUALITY PROFILES
The most informative sampling regimes take
water profiles, samples or measurements, at incre-
mental depths from the surface to the lake bottom.
The depths to be sampled should include the rapid
changes that occur around the thermocline, but
should limit the number of samples to that which
can be accurately completed in a reasonable time.
The sampling intervals should be based on historical
data for your state using lakes with similar depths.
152
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Those programs that want to collect profile samples
need to obtain a water sampler, either by developing
one or purchasing a commercially made sampler
(about $60 to $300). If dissolved oxygen samples are
taken, a bottle (60 millimeter if using a DO kit)
should fit inside the sampler so that when the sample
is brought to the surface, it is not contaminated with
atmospheric gases. The 60 millimeter bottle must
flush a minimum of three times to obtain a sample
representative of a specific depth. The Wisconsin
Self-Help Water Sampler may serve the purpose of
some programs if most of the lakes are under 45 feet
deep. A modified version of the sampler may be
more suitable for intensive sampling efforts or for
lakes deeper than 45 feet. LaMotte Company and
Aquatic Research Instruments sell several samplers
that are relatively inexpensive and suitable to volun-
teer monitoring programs.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Dissolved oxygen PO) is essential to fish and
other aquatic organisms. Since electronic meters,
which usually cost at least $1,000, are financially
prohibitive for most volunteer monitoring pro-
grams, the alternative is to use a modified Winkler
test kit available through many scientific instru-
ments companies. Many programs use the kit devel-
oped by the LaMotte Company (Model 7414/
EDO) since it is EPA approved.
To test for accuracy, volunteers air saturate a pint
of distilled water and titrate three aliquots of the
sample. By knowing the temperature and altitude,
we can look up the expected saturation level and
compare that number to the results obtained by the
volunteer. Great differences between the expected
and achieved results can help identify a volunteer
that is having problems with the techniques.
Implementation of our quality assurance plan led
to the discovery of some systematic errors that were
easily corrected by modifying the test kit. The kit's
glass- vial for measuring 20 millimeters of fixed
sample was replaced by a small graduated cylinder
and eyedropper, which enabled more accurate trans-
feral of fixed sample to be titrated. Many of the
volunteers had not been reading the meniscus prop-
erly using the glass vial provided in the kit, resulting
in a smaller volume of sample being titrated.
The second modification was adding a 20-gauge
hypodermic needle (with the tip filed down) to the
glass syringe used for the titration. While the syringe
is divided into .2 milligrams per liter increments,
each drop delivered may represent as much as .6
milligrams per liter. If the titration is carried out to
the nearest drop, accuracy of plus or minus .6 mg/
liter is the best attainable. The addition of the needle
allows for increments of .1 mg/liter to be delivered,
resulting in a more precise final reading.
Once modified to our specifications, the kit fell
within an acceptable statistical confidence limit.
TEMPERATURE
Temperature data are critical in determining
whether or not a lake stratifies. Stratified lakes may
suffer from low or no oxygen conditions at depth,
and with potential release of phosphorus from bot-
tom sediments. Shallow non-stratified lakes may
suffer from fish kills. A temperature profile is used to
locate the thermocline, if one exists.
Thermometers can be used to monitor the tem-
perature of the water throughout the profile if a
discrete sampler is used to collect a water sample.
Most thermometers suitable to volunteer programs
are inexpensive and readily available through scien-
tific instrument companies. Since thermometers
break easily, it is advisable to use alcohol and mineral
spirits rather than mercury thermometers. Other
options are stainless steel, dial-face thermometers
which are easy to read and much harder to break.
Before use, every thermometer should be calibrated
in the laboratory against a liquid-in-glass thermometer
certified by the National Bureau of Standards. Correc-
tion factors for each thermometer based on linear
regression can then be applied to the temperatures
reported by volunteers. Also, keep in mind that depths
sampled during summer months may not be appropri-
ate for the fall turnover. In most cases, the thermocline
migrates downward, making an accurate electronic
thermistor an alternative method for taking tempera-
ture profiles. Given a long enough cable, the lake
temperature profile can be obtained quickly. With this
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
153
-------
information, the volunteer can calculate if and where
the thermocline exists and decide where the dissolved
oxygen samples should be obtained.
Thermistors available through scientific instru-
ments companies should be approached with cau-
tion, since they may be either very cheap, inaccu-
rate, or more expensive than necessary. The New
Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program has had
electronic thermistors made for them in bulk.
pH
Held pH can be measured with equipment ranging
from litmus paper familiar to most elementary school
children to sophisticated electronic meters that are
temperature compensated. A compromise readily avail-
able now are the pocket-sized pH testers using a sealed
combination electrode (Cole-Parmer is one distribu-
tor). These should be standardized by the volunteer
with a pH 7 buffer solution before each sampling
episode, using the set screw in the back of the meter.
Newer meters are now available at a slightly higher cost
that are temperature compensated and standardized
against both low and high buffer solutions.
According to the manufacturer, pH meters are
not intended to be used for more than one sampling
season and should be replaced each year. Since we
felt it was costly and wasteful to purchase disposable
meters, and the data generated were of dubious
quality, we decided to drop pH. Perhaps the new
pocket probes that are temperature compensated
and standardized against two buffer solutions yield
more accurate results.
PHOSPHORUS
Phosphorus is a nutrient that sustains aquatic
vegetation and algae. Phosphorus is an excellent
parameter to measure as part of a volunteer monitor-
ingprogram, particularly if the trophic state index of
the lake is to be calculated. However, phosphorus
analysis in most cases must be done by a laboratory.
Volunteers should collect two phosphorus samples:
one foot below the surface and one or two feet off
the lake bottom. The samples are usually preserved
with liquid sulfuric acid (premeasured and con-
tained in glass ampules) and mailed to a laboratory
for low level analysis. Special styrofoam boxes with
the necessary sample bottles and postage already
affixed should be provided. Volunteers must be
instructed to rinse the jar thoroughly with distilled
water before collecting each sample. They should
also be provided safety gloves and goggles for the
administration of acid. The Florida Lakewatchers do
not use acid, but instead freeze their samples and
hand deliver them to the lab.
Finding the correct depth at which to collect the
near-bottom phosphorus sample can be quite diffi-
cult, particularly for volunteers without a depth
finder and for those with very deep lakes. On
shallow lakes, volunteers can use the Secchi disc or
anchor line to determine the depth. If the sampler
hits bottom when collecting the sample, the volunteeer
moves the boat a few feet away and repeats the
sample to avoid contamination with bottom sedi-
ments.
CHLOROPHYLL
Chlorophyll data can be used to estimate how
much algae is in a lake, and the results can also
determine the trophic state index of a lake. Some
programs have volunteers collect integrated samples
for chlorophyll analysis while others collect a dis-
crete sample from one depth (we use three feet). In
Wisconsin the volume of water collected is based on
the Secchi depth. Volunteers use hand-operated
vacuum pumps and filter their samples through a
magnetic filter funnel into a larger receiving flask
using glass microfiber filter paper. Once the sample
is filtered, the filter paper is folded in half and patted
dry in a paper towel. It is then placed inside larger
filter paper which has been labeled with the lake
name, the date and volume of water filtered. This is
closed with a plastic paper clip and dropped into a
one-liter Nalgene bottle filled with two inches of
silica desiccant gel. This bottle, to which samples are
added each month, is frozen until the end of the
sampling season when the samples are delivered to
the DNR office for analysis.
VOLUNTEERS' OPINIONS
Besides assuring the validity of the data collected
154
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
by volunteers, it is equally important to ask volun-
teers what they think of the program. At the end of
each sampling season, a questionnaire should be
administered to the volunteers asking their opinions
of the various components of the monitoring pro-
gram and soliciting their suggestions for improve-
ments. Our program was changed to incorporate
many of the ideas expressed in this questionnaire.
CONCLUSION
Volunteer lake monitoring programs can be suc-
cessful ways of collecting valuable, credible data on
hundreds of lakes in a state. Volunteers exhibit
tremendous enthusiasm toward these programs and
are committed to making them successful. We
believe volunteers are capable of collecting high-
quality, reliable data that will ultimately be useful for
management purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the conta-
gious enthusiasm and dedication of Paul Anderson,
whose untimely death left us empty in many ways.
Thank you also to Gus Glaser for his contributions
on the QA/QC component of the program, Patricia
J. Howard during the initial phase of the pilot
program, all the DNR district staff who helped train
volunteers, and to the volunteers themselves.
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, American "Water "Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation, 1989,
17th cd. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastcwatcr.
Betz, C.R. and P.J. Howard. 1990. Expanded Self-Help
Lake Monitoring Program Training Manual. Wise. Dcpt. of
Natural Resources. PUBL-WHERE-258 90.
Betz, C.R. and J. Schloss. In press. Cent-saving Samplers,
Secchis, and 'Scopes. Presented to the Third National Volun-
teer Monitoring Programs Conference, Annapolis, MD, April,
1992.
Canfield, D. 1991. Professor, University ofFlorida. Personal
Communication.
Lind, O.T. 1974. Handbook of Common Methods in
Limnology. The C.V. Mosby Company. St. Louis.
Rumery, C. andJ.G. Vcnnie. 1988. Wisconsin's Self-Help
Lake Monitoring Program: A review of the first year - 1986. in
Lake and Reservoir Management 4(1): 81-86.
Shaw, B., C. Mechenich, andLX. Klcssig. 1989. Interpret-
ing Lake Water Quality Data: A Citizen's Guide. University of
Wisconsin-Extension and College of Natural Resources.
Smeltzer, E, and S.A. Hciskary. 1990. Analysis and applica-
tions of lake user survey data, in Lake and Reservoir Manage-
ment 6(1): 109-118.
U.S. Enivronmental Protection Agency, and Rhode Island
Sea Grant College Program. April 1990. National Directory of
Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. 3rd
ed. Office of Water. EPA 503/9-90-004
Wetzel, R.G. and G.E. Likens, 1979. Limnological Analy-
ses. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. June 1988.
Draft 2nd Edition of the Field Procedures Manual.
Scott Kishbaugh
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
USING VOLUNTEERS TO MONITOR
AQUATIC VEGETATION
As rooted aquatic vegetation growth becomes
more prominent, perceptions of lake water quality
are adversely affected. Other water quality changes
that occur attendant to macrophy te growth may also
affect perceptions of water quality (such as increased
phytoplankton growth, organic deposition and odors).
Aquatic plants play an important role in both the
health of the lake ecosystem and the overall percep-
tion of the lake. Since many lake residents equate
excessive plant growth with poor lake conditions,
aquatic vegetation sampling should identify those
plant species which provide the most excessive
growth (the dominant species in a lake plant com-
munity).
Although aquatic plant growth greatly influences
assessments of the condition of the lake, the rela-
tionship between the aesthetic quality of the lake
and plant growth is not as clear. For this reason,
aquatic vegetation sampling should focus on those
plants which most adversely affect the well-being of
a lake. In New York, there are four major nuisance
aquatic plant species. These exotic species, not
indigenous to the lakes of the state, have the greatest
potential for disrupting a lake ecosystem due to the
nature of their growth patterns. Since use of the lake
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
155
-------
is also of paramount concern, vegetation sampling
should also be concentrated in those areas in which
the greatest recreational impacts can occur: near
swimming beaches, boat launch sites and well-
trafficked areas. Not coincidentally, these are also
the areas in which the most significant plant growth
of non-native species does occur.
The proper control of nuisance aquatic vegeta-
tion within a comprehensive lake management plan
requires knowledge of overlying water chemistry,
the presence and relative abundance of individual
plant genera or species, length of growing seasons,
characteristics of the plant growth media and overall
plant community dynamics. Most lake associations
or local communities attempt to manage aquatic
vegetation with only a small piece of this knowl-
edge.
USING VOLUNTEERS TO SAMPLE
AQUATIC VEGETATION
There are many difficulties inherent in the devel-
opment of a standardized comprehensive vegetation
survey using volunteers. Quantitative estimates of
biomass, variability, and abundance of aquatic vas- ,
cular rooted plant species require equipment and
personnel for setting transects and sampling quad-
rants, biomass sampling, bed demarcation, survey-
ing, plant tagging and identification, tissue analysis,
sediment sampling, water chemistry and additional
environmental measures. Most volunteer groups do
not possess the manpower or expertise to undertake
extensive surveys, or the management budgets to
contract for these services. The difficulty in provid-
ing adequate, yet simple training, and the potential
liability associated with scuba work, places such
extensive surveying beyond the scope of most lay
monitoring programs.
However, even a simple vegetation sampling
program can generate some useful information for
volunteers, the local lake community, and the state
agency or organization conducting the program.
For example, the New York Citizens Statewide
Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) generates quali-
tative data that has greatly extended the mapping
and collection capabilities of state agencies such as
the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), especially in low profile
or remote lakes.
CSLAP began in 1986 as a ky monitoring pro-
gram to regularly collect water samples and measure
standard water-quality indicators. Currently the
programinvolves nearly 100 lake associations through-
out the state. In addition to water quality, CSLAP
also participates in an aquatic vegetation sampling
program to identify important plants within their
lakes, assess the health of the plant community and
improve existing plant control strategies.
In developing the vegetation survey component
of CSLAP, the NYSDEC had to balance the rigid
data collection requirements of the state agencies
with the relative inexperience of the sampling vol-
unteers in conducting vegetation surveys. Since this
information is ultimately used to assess aquatic veg-
etation growth throughout the state and to help
implement control techniques on specific lakes, a
standardized sampling protocol had to be developed
similar to the water quality component of the
program. The new protocol would also have to
satisfy existing CSLAP and state quality assurance/
quality control requirements, allow comparison of
results within and between lakes, and simplify the
training process. Due to the difficulty in estimating
biomass or obtaining quantitative measures of plant
growth, the CSLAP vegetation sampling protocol
had to center on qualitative assessments of indi-
vidual plant genera or species (presence/absence),
althpugh some effort is made to assess relative
abundance of these plants. The program has been
limited primarily to sampling within the open water
and near-shore littoral zones of lakes.
SAMPLING PROTOCOL
The CSLAP vegetation sampling protocol was
developed in 1987 to collect and identify the most
dominant submergent and floating macrophyte spe-
cies in the open water and littoral zones of lakes.
While the impetus for the program has been the
great interest in adequate management of excessive
aquatic vegetation, CSLAP also attempts to provide
a general inventory of aquatic plants, including
156
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
endangered species, for protecting beneficial plants
and assessing plant diversity throughout the state.
Professional staff visit each participating lake one
to three times each summer to provide training in
new techniques, retrain volunteers who experience
difficulty in mastering the sampling or processing
procedures, conduct special studies to address spe-
cific local concerns, answer questions, provide in-
terpretive data summaries and address lake associa-
tion meetings. The primary focus of each vegetation
sampling session is to familiarize volunteers with the
importance of aquatic vegetation within the larger
lake ecosystem and the concept of managing lake
resources within the scope of stewardship.
Volunteers collect aquatic plants from locations
consisting of three equispaced sites along a transect
stretching from a depth equal to the maximum
Secchi disk reading to the shoreline, travelling
perpendicular toward the shore. The first sampling
location chosen by most lake associations is an active
boating area, usually a public boat launch site or
marina. At the deepest point along this transect,
weighted rakes with retrieval lines are dropped
approximately five feet from the far-shore side of the
boat three times at each site. When dragged across
the lake bottom, the rake tines grab plants. Upon
retrieval, plants are separated into piles of individual
genera and species, where possible, based on differ-
ing physiological characteristics. Volunteers assume
that any specimens that look different constitute
unique genera or species. They are given color
prints and line drawings for each of the four major
non-native exotic species, along with prints and
drawings for other common species commonly
mistaken for exotics or nuisance algae, and asked to
determine if any of the specimen piles correspond to
one of these species. This helps to improve volun-
teers' understanding of exotic plants and expand
efforts to educate the public about plant identifica-
tion. During the initial training session and each
quality control visit conducted by the CSLAP staff,
other plants of interest are tentatively identified in
the field using botany keys.
After the three collections, each genus/species
pile is assigned a numeric designation and relative
abundance (as percent of total pool of plant piles),
and a well-preserved specimen from each pile is
dewatered and placed in a labeled bag. Any floating
or emergent plant species (within the open water or
littoral zone) not collected with the rake at each
collection site are hand-pulled, assigned a letter
designation and placed in a labeled bag. Additional
field information about the sampling site, including
description of water depth, distance from shore,
classification of bottom sediment, description of
uncollected plants, including algae, epiphytes and
large emergents, and an estimate of the overall
submersed plant abundance, are recorded on a field
sampling form. To maintain consistency, any plants
seen outside the immediate collection area can be
collected and identified, but are not considered to
reside within the collection site and are mapped
separately.
The same procedure is completed at two addi-
tional sites equidistant between the shoreline and
the point overlying the water column with depth
equal to the maximum Secchi depth. The three sites
constitute a single location; volunteers sample as
many locations as possible throughout the lake
littoral zone to understand the spatial variability in
macrophyte communities. Each site location is well-
documented to facilitate continued monitoring of
the same site in the future. Volunteers are also
encouraged to conduct aquatic vegetation surveys as
many times as possible during the ice-free months,
to gauge the length of the growing season and
determine the temporal variability in these plant
populations.
The plant specimen bags and field sampling forms
are packaged with the regular water chemistry samples
and sent in styrofoam coolers with ice packs to the
New York Department of Health. Although volun-
teers often identify some of the plant genera and
species using the color prints and line drawings, all
plant specimens are identified and archived by
NYSDEC staff. Results and interpretive summaries
are returned to the volunteers. The vegetation data
is also included in the CSLAP Annual Report and is
used extensively in the data analyses and develop-
ment of management recommendations in the five-
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
157
-------
year summary report prepared for each participating
lake association.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
There are several important lessons to be learned
from, the last several years of vegetation sampling.
Although quantitative sampling may presently be
beyond the scope of most lay monitoring programs,
it appears that qualitative plant sampling and collec-
tion can be an important part of any volunteer
program, and may ultimately serve to greatly in-
crease the pool of information about aquatic plant
growth in a lake, region or state. In 1990 and 1991,
volunteer teams at 61 lakes collected and sent for
identification 532 plant samples, constituting at least
130 unique plant species or genera (about 65 percent
submerged), including an identification of each of
the four exotic submersed plant species found in
New York state. Overall, the 130 unique species
come from 30 different families.
The number of statewide verified identifications
of Myriophyllum spicatum, the most common of the
exotic species, increased dramatically due to CSLAP
volunteers (nearly 30 percent). While the other
exotic plant species were not commonly found in
CSLAP lakes, previous vegetation surveys show this
may be due to a narrower range and less frequent
occurrence of these plants in New York lakes.
The data was also useful in supplementing and
updating NYSDEC location maps for various plant
species, and for increasing the known range of both
native and exotic plants. For most of the CSLAP
lakes, this constitutes the only known vegetation
identification and has already served to modify
planned or proposed management plans. Although
significant staff time may be devoted to plant iden-
tification, the cost savings associated with volunteer
efforts make this portion of a lay monitoring pro-
gram very attractive, particularly for states commit-
ting substantial resources to aquatic plant control.
Ultimately, it maybe possible to train volunteers to
provide more complete plant identification, al-
though some professional staff time will still be
needed for identification of important, endangered
or unusual plant species.
In comparing CSLAP vegetation data with the
vegetation survey data collected through other state-
or university-conducted studies, it appears that vol-
unteers were able to locate and collect most of the
important vegetation species. Corroboration with
independent (quality control) data was even greater
when corrected for differing collection depths, sites
and the lack of specific emergent plant collection
procedures within the CSLAP protocol. Volunteer
data provide a reasonable estimate of macrophyte
communities in large lakes, particularly if the sam-
pling sites are representative of the in-lake plant
community, and often exceed the present pool of
data on smaller lakes. This indicates that volunteer
monitoring can be used as a surrogate for at least
some vegetation work frequently conducted by the
scientific community. Together with the water
chemistry data, user surveys and watershed analyses
presently conducted by volunteers, the vegetation
data completes a more rounded body of information
than is otherwise available to these lake communi-
ties.
It also became clear to staff at the state agencies
that the knowledge gained by the volunteers and
local communities through participation in this
program improved their ability to better manage
their lakes. Lake management techniques once pro-
posed and debated at lake association meetings were
shelved for more plant-specific techniques that bet-
ter incorporated ecosystem sensitivity and encom-
passed the management needs of the lake commu-
nity.
The aquatic vegetation component of CSLAP
did not escape difficulties and problems, however.
The method for sample collection and transport was
relatively ineffective for obtaining species-level iden-
tification of several genera. This problem is due in
part to the difficulty in identifying unique species-
level physiological differences in the field and labo-
ratory, the difficulty in identifying a mature species
from the fingerprint of an immature species, and the
tendency for specimen degradation during trans-
port.
To aid in laboratory identification, volunteers are
encouraged to provide the complete plant structure,
158
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
including roots, flowers, leaves and fruits. The
difficulties in identifying plants without the regular
assistance of botanists (not available on many gov-
ernment lake management staffs) was not para-
mount, but precluded precise identifications in some
cases. Unfortunately, species identification keys are
neither easily reproduced nor understood by the
layperson. Since species-level identification of some
specimens is often a formidable task for trained
botanists, dramatic improvements in species separa-
tion and identification may not be forthcoming.
The Educational Video Series from the Center for
Aquatic Plants at the University of Florida may help
volunteers identify aquatic vegetation in the field.
As for specimen transport, additional preservation
methods can be employed to reduce degradation. The
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program uses
glycerol within the plant bags to aid in sample preser-
vation during transport. Samples also can be trans-
ported in suspensions or preserved on-site using blotter
presses. This, however, can greatly increase the costs
associated with vegetation surveys.
It is also very difficult to detect the growth
patterns of those plant species that are active under
the ice. The potential danger in having unsuper-
vised volunteers sampling on thin ice is too signifi-
cant to collect this additional information. Since ice
can remain from December through April, this
eliminates a potentially large portion of the growing
season for some particularly hearty plants. The lack
of specific techniques for sampling large algae and
emergent vegetation, especially those plants grow-
ing between the third (shallowest) site and the
shoreline, impairs the ability to develop a truly
comprehensive inventory of aquatic plants.
Finally, although multiple location sampling is
strongly encouraged, some volunteers limit their
sampling and time commitment to the aforemen-
tioned hot spots. Without a large number of loca-
tion pockets, vegetation mapping using the sam-
pling results is not very useful. This is perhaps
inherent in the use of perpendicular versus parallel
(to the shore) transects.
However, in summary, even after adjusting ex-
pectations for the limitations associated with these
qualitative analyses, it appears clear that a vegetation
sampling component of a lay monitoring program
can yield important information about ecosystems,
and can provide a critical supplement to the existing
data already collected by the volunteers.
REFERENCES
Adirondack Lake Survey Corporation. 1984-1987. Adirondack
Lakes Survey Reports. Volumes 1-18. Ray Brook, New York.
Eichlcr, L.W. 1990. Assessment of Brant Lake. RPI Fresh
Water Institute at Lake George. FWI Report #90-17.
Ely, E. 1991. Aquatic plants: Value is in the Eye of the
Beholder. The Volunteer Monitor. 3(1). p.12.
Kishbaugh, S.A. New York Citizens Statewide Lake Assess-
ment Program: user survey, unpublished results. 1992.
Rcnsselacr Polytechnic Institute Fresh Water Institute. 1985.
An assessment of the water quality of Babcock Lake, Rensselaer
County, New York. FWI Report #85-2.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
159
-------
WETLAND MONITORING TECHNIQUES
Presenters: Christopher Swarth, Jug Bay Wetlands Sanc-
tuary; and Amanda Lindley Stone, Audubon Society of
New Hampshire.
Christopher Swarth
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary
VOLUNTEERS PLAY IMPORTANT ROLE IN
WETLANDS MONITORING
Few habitats in this country have experienced as
much loss and degradation as wetlands. Between 30
percent and 50 percent of the original wetlands in
the lower 48 states have been lost due to human
activity. By some estimates we are still losing up to
half a million acres per year. Wetlands, many people
once believed, were an impediment to progress;
areas to be reclaimed, filled in, or otherwise disposed
of because they produced disease, pests and noxious
odors. Diking, draining and filling went on at a
furious rate. Only in the last few years has society
begun to realize the value and importance of these
fragile and maligned areas.
Wetlands protection has been nonexistent or
slow for several other reasons. Wetlands are transi-
tional lands with blurred boundaries occupying a
zone between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Because wetlands change gradually from upland to
aquatic conditions, a strict definition tends to be
arbitrary. Furthermore, wetlands vary greatly in
size, location and hydrological conditions. Only
until very recently have the federal agencies respon-
sible for protecting and regulating these areas agreed
on a common definition of a wetland. In 1989 the
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers agreed to the
following definition:
"Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegeta-
tion typically adapted for life in saturated soil conr
ditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs and similar areas."
Today experts skilled in wetlands delineation use
three criteria to identify, measure and map a wet-
land: hydrology, soil characteristics, and vegetation.
The Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual,
prepared by the EPA, is used for guidance, jurisdic-
tional determinations and standard field methodol-
ogy-
As wetlands are protected, we are learning more
about the important role they play in the ecosystem
and the many benefits they provide society. Wet-
lands are considered to be among the most produc-
tive habitats on the planet, in terms of the weight of
plants and animals (biomass) they support. Dead
marsh vegetation serves as a primary source of
energy to detrital-based riverine and estuarine food
webs. A large percentage of commercially important
finfish and shellfish depend on this source of detrital
material during phases of their life cycle. Wetlands
also act as a nursery for fish, provide nesting and
non-nesting habitat for large numbers and many
species of birds, and support numerous types of
reptiles and mammals.
Wetlands provide a number of important values
for human society, too. They have been described as
kidneys because of their ability to transform and
ameliorate the ecological effect of excess nutrients
from human wastes, agricultural runoff and acid
rain. This function is especially important along
coastal rivers, which often have high nutrient levels.
Wetlands do such a good job of taking up nutrients
160
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
that an increasing number of man-made wetlands
are being created specifically for cleansing polluted
water. Wetlands help reduce erosion and check the
effects of flooding by absorbing and holding flood-
waters. They may also aid in recharging groundwa-
ter aquifers.
Finally, wetlands are beautiful and mysterious -
wonderful places to explore and enjoy.
THE ROLE OF THE VOLUNTEER MONITOR
Citizen volunteers can pky an important role in
protecting and monitoring wetlands. Education is
an extremely important tool, and monitoring is a
great way to spread the word. Make your neighbors
and elected officials aware of the wetlands in their
area! A volunteer wetland monitoring group can
enlighten the local community about the value of
wetlands while generating data that can be used by
resource agencies to enforce laws and stop potential
threats.
Here are some components of a wetland moni-
toring program:
Sediment Study: Excess sediments from up-
stream construction or field erosion can ad-
versely affect wetlands. It may be possible to
trace sediment sources to their origin. Many
states now have laws requiring developers to
control silt runoff into rivers and wetlands
from construction sites. Farmers can be en-
couraged to use best management practices
(BMPs) to hold soil on their land.
Permit Check: Most wetlands fill projects
require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. This permit spells out details of
the project, steps to reduce environmental
degradation, size of the fill and other details.
A copy of a permit to check for compliance
can often be obtained.
Water Quality Testing: Nutrient pollution can
cause algae blooms, which lead to ecological
imbalance in a wedand. Volunteers can do
onsite analysis for dissolved oxygen levels and
turbidity (cloudiness of the water), and can
collect suspect water to be tested later at alab for
nutrient levels or coliform bacteria.
Animal Studies: Subtle, long-term degrada-
tion may result in declines in animal popula-
tions. Full-scale destruction may leave mi-
grant birds without a critical staging area and
resident animals will lose their home. Many
wetlands support a high diversity of animals.
Because a healthy population is dependent
on a well-functioning wetland, it is impor-
tant to know if the population is remaining
generally stable. Birds are highly visible and
conspicuous, making them especially easy to
monitor. All that may be needed is a pair of
binoculars or a spotting scope. There are
many conservation groups, such as the Na-
tional Audubon Society or local birding clubs,
that can offer help and advice on formulating
methods or may even join in the monitoring
effort. Monitoring mammals, reptiles and fish
requires more specialized techniques; ask for
help from specialists at a nearby college biol-
ogy department.
Plant Studies: An advantage of monitoring
plants is that they remain in one place. The
plant community can provide a lot of infor-
mation about the health of a wetland. Rela-
tively rapid changes in plant species compo-
sition is often related to anthropogenic changes.
A variety of simple techniques, such as line
transects or permanent plots, can be used to
measure changes in a plant community over
time. Concentration on a single rare or en-
dangered species or on the spread of a nox-
ious species can be very helpful.
WETLANDS MONITORING AT JUG BAY
One of the goals of the Jug Bay Wetlands Sanc-
tuary in Maryland is to gather data on environmental
conditions and train volunteers in ecological field
techniques. The wetland monitoring program at Jug
Bay consists of long-term studies designed to answer
basic questions about the health of a tidal freshwater
marsh and characterize the populations of native
plants and animals. The studies take place entirely
within the 490-acre sanctuary and employ standard-
ized, simple methods or techniques so that citizen
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
161
-------
volunteers can be trained fairly easily. Special train-
ing sessions are offered as well as on-the-job train-
ing. Methods are modified when necessary. This
research program was started in 1987, and in 1991
about 100 volunteers assisted with several studies,
from, water quality/nutrient dynamics to reptile/
amphibian populations.
The frequency of data collection varies widely
amongstudies. Some studies occur year-round while
others take place only during the breeding or grow-
ingseasons. The data are stored on computer spread-
sheets and then summarized in technical reports that
are made available to the public and to state and
federal resource agencies. Information is shared
with volunteers through a quarterly newsletter and
through slide presentations.
Jug Bay was designated as a component of the
Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Re-
serve in 1990. This has made it possible to expand
the research/monitoring program and to improve
the system of training and recruiting volunteers.
The sanctuary is also better able to disseminate the
results of its studies and educate the public about
wetlands and the value of citizen monitoring.
Amanda LJndley Stone
Audubon Society of New Hampshire
WETLAND EVALUATION -ATOOL FOR
VOLUNTEER MONITORING
"Wetlands are among the most fertile, productive
and threatened ecosystems in the world, and com-
prise an estimated six percent of the earth's total land
surface. In the past, wetlands were considered in-
sect-ridden wastelands whose best use could only be
attained through filling and draining for agricultural,
commercial, industrial and residential development.
Largely as a result of this view, more than half of
America's wetlands have been irretrievably lost. It
has only been in recent decades that wetlands have
been recognized as valuable natural resources.
WHY EVALUATE WETLANDS?
Wetlands perform a variety of functions which
contribute to a balanced and healthy environment,
and are valuable to both society and the natural
ecosystem in which they exist. It is important to
understand these values to help protect and manage
one of our most precious and fragile natural re-
sources.
Wetland evaluation is the process of determining
the value of a wetland based on an assessment of the
potential and/or actual functional values that it
performs. Functional values represent the practical,
measurable values of wetlands, such as flood control,
water quality improvement and wildlife habitat.
However, while the overall significance of wetlands
is recognized, the functions and values of specific
wetland sites often remain undefined. Wetland evalu-
ation can provide a very useful tool for achieving a
better understanding of the functions performed by
wetlands, collecting valuable baseline information
about particular sites, and assisting local and regional
planning processes.
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE A WETLAND?
In order to collect information about a particular
wetland, one needs to conduct an inventory of the
resources available in that wetland. This task is most
efficiently accomplished by following an established
procedure. Wetland evaluation methods provide a
very useful tool for collecting data in a standardized
and consistent manner. There are a number of
wetland evaluation methods available, primarily for
use at the professional level. However, the remain-
der of this paper describes a wetland evaluation
method that was developed in New Hampshire
specifically for use by volunteer monitoring groups.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE METHOD OF WETLAND
EVALUATION
The numerous pressures on wetland resources
and the nature of wetland protection laws do not
always allow the luxury of a detailed scientific study
of each threatened wetland resource. However, an
established database of the relative ecological values
for the wetlands in a defined study area (such as a
162
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
town or a watershed) can help local officials make
knowledgeable decisions concerning their wetland
resources. To this end, the Audubon Society of
New Hampshire (ASNH) spearheaded the develop-
ment of the Method for the Comparative Evaluation of
Nontidal Wetlands in New Hampshire (known as the
N.H. Method) (Ammann and Lindley Stone, 1991).
The production of the N.H. Method manual was a
cooperative endeavor between ASNH, the USDA
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services,
Wetlands Bureau. The N.H. Method was based on
the Method for the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in
Connecticut (Ammann et. al 1986; Levere 1991).
The N.H. Method is a wetland evaluation method
that provides local towns with a practical means for
determining a wetland's functional values in relation
to the functional values of all the wetlands within a
defined study area, such as a town, watershed or
regional area. This allows the town to inventory and
screen wetlands in advance of any proposed activity,
and to identify those for which additional protection
is warranted.
The N.H. Method was specifically designed to
provide a wetland evaluation method that is simple
enough for use by public officials and others who
have some familiarity with wetlands (but are not
necessarily wetlands professionals), while still pro-
ducing results that are scientifically defensible. After
introductory training and professional guidance,
groups of volunteer citizens will be able to use the
N.H. Method to evaluate wetland resources in their
towns. The N.H. Method is documented in a user's
manual that leads the user through the evaluation
procedure step by step.
WHAT DOES THE N.H. METHOD DO?
The N.H. Method is designed to be used for the
comparison of the functional values of a number of
wetlands within a designated study area, such as a
town or a watershed. It is not suitable for detailed
impact analysis or specific detailed evaluation of
individual wetlands. The N.H. Method is intended
to be applied on a town-wide (or watershed) basis to
provide baseline data on the relative values of wet-
lands for up to 14 separate functional values. The
functional values of wetlands evaluated by the N.H.
Method include: ecological integrity; wildlife habi-
tat; finfish habitat; educational potential; visual/
aesthetic quality; water-based recreation; flood con-
trol potential; groundwater use potential; sediment
trapping; nutrient attenuation; shoreline anchoring
and dissipation of erosive forces; urban quality of
life; historical site potential; and noteworthiness.
Each of the functional values listed above is
evaluated by answering a series of predictor ques-
tions, which are based on the physical characteristics
of wetlands. These questions are answered using
published data (aerial photographs, soils, topographic
and wetlands inventory maps) as well as on-site field
investigation. The answers to these questions pro-
vide information relating to the ecological functions
that wetlands perform.
Central to the N.H. Method is the use of wetland
base maps. These maps are initially derived from
published sources of information, and are then
modified following on-site field checking. Some of
the principal resources used in the preparation of
these maps include: U.S. Geological Survey topo-
graphic maps, national wetlands inventory maps
produced by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
USDA Soil Conservation Service county soil survey
maps, and large-scale black and white aerial photo-
graphs that are available in most county offices.
These resources provide valuable information
regarding the location, approximate size and shape
of the wetland, the dominant soil characteristics, the
roads and buildings located in the vicinity of the
wetland, land use in the surrounding areas, and
topography. The information recorded in these
maps provide a central source for answering predic-
tor questions.
Each of the functional values is evaluated using
the information derived from base maps and field
investigation, and assigned a unidess numerical score.
The scores for each functional value in a particular
wetland are then compared with the scores for other
wetlands within the study area to determine the
relative value of the wetland of interest for a specific
functional value. No single overall score is provided.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
163
-------
Following the comparison of functional value scores,
all the wetlands in the study area are ranked accord-
ing their overall significance to the town. The
ranking of wetlands for different functional values
allows a town to tailor wetland protection for those
values it views as most important.
HOW CAN THE N.H. METHOD BE USED BY
VOLUNTEER GROUPS?
The N.H. Method is intended to be used by
volunteer groups in local towns for the purposes of
wetlands inventory and as a land-use planning tool.
Furthermore, the N.H. Method provides an impor-
tant educational tool to further the understanding
and protection of wetlands. The N.H. Method
manual is designed to provide sufficient background
information and a step-by-step procedure to stand
on its own as a user's manual. However, it is
recommended that volunteer groups undergo in-
troductory training to acquaint them with the use
and practical applications of the N.H. Method.
In New Hampshire, with its Yankee tradition of
town government, land-use decisions are primarily
seen as local decisions. Local conservation commis-
sions (which are comprised of volunteers) have
significant input into the state process which issues
permits for wetland impacts. The N.H. Method
allows towns to base their comments on a scientifi-
cally based evaluation system, and can highlight
specific critical values of wetlands that may be
threatened by some form, of impact (residential,
commercial or industrial development or road con-
struction). Since its publication in 1990, the N.H.
Method has been used by a number of volunteer
groups (primarily local conservation commissions)
in New Hampshire towns. Most of these local
groups have attended introductory training sessions
in the use and practical application of the N.H.
Method.
While this evaluation methodology was devel-
oped for use in New Hampshire, it can be very easily
adapted for use by volunteer groups in other states.
Currently, Oregon is adapting the methodology for
use in their region, and the state of Maryland is
considering adapting the N.H. Method for local use.
HOW CAN THIS WETLANDS DATA BE USED?
The data collected can be used for basic inventory
purposes, for comparing the functional values of
wetlands within a given study area, and for support-
ing the planning and decision-makingprocess within
a town or region. Once a database of relative
% wetland values has been established for a particular
study area, the information is available for local
officials to rapidly review the local value of a par-
ticular wetland in the context of all the wetlands
within that town or watershed. The availability of
this information also provides valuable baseline data
for the acquisition of wetlands.
REFERENCES
Ammann, A. P., R.W. Fianzen, and J.L. Johnson, 1986:
Method for the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut.
Published by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, DEP Bulletin No. 9.
Amman, A.P. and A.J. Lindlcy Stone, 1991: Method for the
Comparative Evaluation of Nontidal Wetlands in New Hamp-
shire. Published by the New Hampshire Department of Envi-
ronmental Services. NHDES-WRD-1991-3.
Lcvcrc, A. (editor), 1991: Method for the Evaluation of
Inland Wetlands in Connecticut. Revision of Ammann et.al
(1986).ConnecticutDcpartmcntofEnvironmentalPr6tection,
DEP Bulletin No. 9.
164
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
ESTUARY MONITORING TECHNIQUES
Presenters: Kathy Ellett, Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay; Virginia Lee, University of Rhode Island; Sharon
Meeker and Ann Reid, University of New Hampshire. *
Kathy Ellett
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Virginia Lee
University of Rhode Island
USING VOLUNTEERS FOR
ESTUARY MONITORING
The following general description of estuarine
systems is taken from White, C.P., Chesapeake Bay:
A Field Guide.
"An. estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of
water that has a measurable salinity gradient from its
freshwater drainage to its ocean entrance. Most
estuaries are characterized by daily tides, seasonally
variable flow and salinity, and a two-layer circula-
tion pattern; a salty deepwater kyer that flows
landward and a fresher surface kyer travelling
seaward that produces a net flow downstream.
Typically, mixing is promoted between the two
kyers by the action of wind, friction, and tides.
These are minimum criteria. More than 850 such
basins are found in the United States.
Healthy estuaries usually have an open aperture
to the sea. Tidal flushing is therefore more vigor-
ous, and this promotes circulation of oxygen and
nutrients within the brackish basin. A model estu-
ary must also receive an influx of fresh water from
one or several rivers, instead of simple rainwater
runoff or contributions from intermittent streams.
*Transaipt Unavailable
These rivers provide another source of detritus,
dissolved gases, and nutrients, as well as an input of
minerab, each important to plant growth and the
dual food chain intrinsic to estuaries. Also, high
river flow drives estuarine circulationyielding a
net discharge towards the ocean. Some coastal
kgoons lack either strong freshwater inflow or a
wide ocean entrance and, therefore, are saltier, less
productive, and more prone to over enrichment.
The tidal cycle, circulation dynamics, and influx
of fresh water provide for a relatively stressful
environment for the living resources that inhabit or
visit estuaries. Fluctuations in temperature and
salinity are only two of the many reasons for this
kck of hospitality. Estuaries are typically character-
ized by a highly variable set of physical and chemi-
cal parameters.
The same things that make an estuary a stressful
environment to its inhabitants and visitors also
make it difficult to monitor. It is not easy to
distinguish between changes caused by nature and
those caused by human activities. There is no
constant flow-through of water as in a river or
stream; the hydrology is typically very complex;
the presence of salt in varying amounts interferes
with many standard procedures for measuring things
like dissolved oxygen and nutrients; and there are,
as yet, no identified biological indicators as there
are for streams and rivers."
Monitoring of estuarine waters is a relatively new
activity. All estuaries are downstream from every-
one else and have adapted to handle the runofffrom
one or more watersheds. As people have migrated to
the coasts, the estuaries have been overwhelmed and
are no longer able to process the nation's pollutants.
Because these waters are brackish to downright
salty, they have not been used for drinking water and
consequently have not had water quality standards
imposed for them. Freshwater standards do not fit
estuarine waters; one would expect to see anoxia (0
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
165
-------
mg/1 of dissolved oxygen) in a salt marsh, for
instance. The concept of riparian rights has not been
applied to the coasts in the same way it has to the
banks of rivers. The area between mean high and
mean low water has traditionally been in the public
domain.
DEFINITION OF MONITORING
The Chesapeake Bay Citizens Monitoring Pro-
gram (CBCMP) planners defined citizen monitor-
ing as the scheduled sampling of selected environ-
mental and biological variables by volunteers. Citi-
zen monitoring was divided into two categories:
formal technical monitoringand non-technical moni-
toring.
Formal technical monitoring is performed for
scientific, technical or legal purposes. For such
monitoring: 1) the quality of all data must be
assured; 2) the data must have identified value; 3) the
data must meet all criteria for inclusion in the
Chesapeake Bay database or banks of equal quality;
and 4) the potential must exist for continuity over
ten or more years.
Non-technical monitoringincludes all other types
of citizen monitoring. Data from such sampling will
vary in content, precision, schedule and duration.
Such monitoring can serve many values. These
include: 1) education of students and the public; 2)
achievement of personal involvement in environmen-
tal cleanup efforts; 3) development of preliminary
information and useful signals for citizen groups, local
and county governmental use, and for other govern-
mental, regional or institutional use. The developed
technical monitoring programs can assist non-techni-
cal monitoring programs by identifying appropriate
and standardized techniques, by effectively communi-
cating related information, and by participating in the
development of these widespread citizen efforts to
monitor parts of the ecosystem.
PLANNING
The first step in planning a successful volunteer
monitoring project is to answer the question, Why
do you want to monitor? You should have an
identified question or hypothesis in mind before
you design your project. Volunteers can help re-
searchers, managers and policy makers by providing:
1. Characterization and assessment of a water
body that is not being monitored, particu-
larly when samples or observations are needed
from remote locations or from private prop-
erty. ,
2. More frequent sampling and time-variable
sampling of storms and algae blooms.
3. Observations on number and size offish kills,
amount of precipitation or areas of severe
erosion.
4. Maintenance of continuous monitoring equip-
irient. , '
5. Sample collection and/or delivery for labora-
tory analysis.
6. Ground truthing for remote sensing.
Projects using volunteers to monitor estuarine
waters began in 1985 with the RJhode Island Salt
Pond Watchers and the Chesapeake Bay Citizen
Monitoring Program. Techniques and methods to
measure various physical and chemical constituents
were developed and have been adopted and adapted
by estuarine programs all around the country.
PARAMETERS MEASURED
Dissolved Oxygen
Most living organisms require oxygen for their
basic metabolic processes. Plants, through photo-
synthesis, produce more oxygen than they use and
the excess is released to the water or atmosphere.
Oxygen is also dissolved in water through diffusion
and surface turbulence. Oxygen is poorly soluble in
water, roughly 10 ppm (parts per million) at 0-2
degrees C compared to almost 1,700 ppm for carbon
dioxide at the same temperature. When oxygen
levels in the water fall below about three to five
ppm, fish and many marine organisms cannot sur-
vive. Oxygen levels may be reduced because the
water is too warm (near a power plant), because
there are too many bacteria or aquatic animals in the
area, or through overfertilization of water plants by
runoff from farmland or addition of sewage which
contains phosphates and nitrates.
166
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
In general, oxygen levels during mid-day at the
surface are near saturation (the maximum level
sustained at the temperature), and Fall off with
depth. Dissolved oxygen levels are an indicator of
water quality. Bodies of water which have low
amounts of dissolved oxygen also have poor balance
between the animals and plants. Eutrophication is
the term describing the condition in which high
nutrient levels cause an excess of phytoplankton.
The Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Pro-
gram (CBCMP) and the Rhode Island Salt Pond
Watchers (RJSPW) use a Winkler titration kit from
LaMotte Company to measure dissolved oxygen.
pH is a measure of how acidic or basic (alkaline)
a solution is. In any given solution some atoms of
water dissociate to form H and OH ions (H O=H
+OH ). The pH scale is a means of showing which
ion has the greater concentration. At a pH of 7.0 the
concentration of both hydrogen ions and hydroxyl
ions is equal and the water is said to be neutral. Pure
water has a pH of 7.0. When the pH is less than 7.0,
there are more hydrogen ions than hydroxyl ions
and the water is said to be acidic. When the pH is
greater than 7.0, there are more hydroxyl ions than
hydrogen ions and the water is said to be basic or
alkaline.
pH is defined as the negative logarithm of the
hydrogen ion concentration which means that the
concentration of hydrogen ions does not increase or
decrease in a linear fashion; That is, a pH of three is
not just twice as acidic as a pH of six. Increases are
in powers of 10. At pH of five there are. 10 times
more H than at a pH of six. A change in pH of one
whole number is therefore quite a large change.
Water dissolves mineral substances it contacts,
picks up aerosols and dust from the air, receives
man-made wastes, and supports photosynthetic or-
ganisms, all of which affect pH. The buffering
capacity of water, or its ability to resist pH change,
is critical to aquatic life, as it determines the range of
pH. Generally, the ability of aquatic organisms to
complete a life cycle greatly diminishes as pH be-
comes 9.0 or 5.0. Coastal marine systems are well
buffered. Consequently, pH is not an important
indicator. The exception is during intense algal
blooms. In an estuarine system where the salinity is
highly variable, pH is a useful indicator.
Photosynthesis by aquatic plants removes CO
from the water, which can significantly increase pH.
Therefore, in waters with plant life (including plank-
tonic algae), especially low-velocity or still waters,
an increase in pH can be expected during the
growing season. During the 1983 algal bloom in the
Potomac River Estuary, a pH of 10 was recorded.
The turbulence of flowing water promotes gas-
eous interchange between the atmosphere and wa-
ter. The CO content of water in rivers and streams
is less likely to change, but be aware of other events
in the watershed that may affect pH. Increased
leaching of soils or mineral outcrops during snow
melt or heavy precipitation affects pH downstream.
Human activities, such as accidental spills, agricul-
tural runoff (pesticides, fertilizers, soilleachates) and
sewer overflow may also change pH.
CBCMP uses LaMotte wide and narrow-range
color comparators to measure pH at estuarine sites.
pH is not measured by volunteers in the Conestoga
River, Pennsylvania, project because the river is
buffered by limestone underlying the region. RISPW
do not measure pH in the ponds where the salinity
is higher than 25 parts per thousand.
Temperature
Although temperature may be one of the easiest
measurements to perform, it is probably one of the
most important parameters to consider. It dramati-
cally affects the rates of chemical and biochemical
reaction within the water. Many biological, physical
and chemical principles are temperature dependent.
Among the most common of these are the solubility
of compounds in sea water, distribution and abun-
dance of organisms living in the estuary, rates of
chemical reactions, density, inversions and mixing,
and current movements. The Chesapeake Bay and
lagoon systems, such as the Rhode Island salt ponds,
are relatively shallow. This makes their capacity to
store heat over time relatively small. As a result,
water temperature fluctuates considerably. Water at
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
167
-------
higher temperatures holds less dissolved oxygen.
Extreme temperature fluctuations can be stressful
to living resources. Increased temperatures raise the
metabolic rate of organisms. Aside from the poten-
tial stress of temperature changes, certain changes in
temperature signal the onset of various stages in the
reproductive cycle such as spawning and egg laying.
The temperatures of surface and subsurface water
usually differ. This results in thermal stratification of
deeper water and can lead to density differences.
The Chesapeake Bay's vertical temperature profile
is fairly predictable. During the spring and summer
months in deeper parts of the bay, the surface waters
are warmer than the deeper waters, due to the
warmth of the sun. In the fall, the warming radiation
of the sun begins to diminish. As the surface water
cools, it increases in density, becoming heavier.
Once the surface water becomes colder and denser
than the water toward the bottom, it begins to sink
and vertical mixing occurs. Wind may speed up the
process. This mixing action can bring nutrients,
materials essential to the growth of organisms, up
from the bottom and into higher water levels. This
turn-over makes the nutrients available to phy-
toplankton and other organisms inhabiting the up-
per water levels. During the winter, the water
temperature becomes relatively constant from sur-
face to bottom, until March, when the process of
surface warming begins again.
Water Clarity
The transparency of natural waters is directly
related to the amount of materials suspended in the
water. Particles in the water, such as resuspended
sediment or algae, will reduce water clarity. Maxi-
mum water clarity is important in maintaining
healthy sea grass beds, which are important habitats
in shallow coastal and estuarine waters.
The amount of algae in the water is related to the
productivity of those waters; usually the greater the
nutrient enrichment of a body of water, the more
algal growth it is able to support. Sediment, too, is
often related to the nutrient enrichment of a river
because nutrients such as phosphorus cling to soil
particles. Fine sediment can become resuspended in
more shallow waters during heavy winds and tidal
action. In addition, unprotected shoreline will erode
and contribute suspended particles to the water.
The Secchi disk transparency is widely used as a
basic measure of water clarity. The Secchi disk is a
black and white disk attached in the center to a rope.
This rope is measured and marked in centimeters
and meters. The weighted disk is lowered slowly
into the water and the exact depth just before the
disk disappears from view is observed and measured
on the marked line. This depth is known as the
Secchi disk transparency. The less algae and silt in
the water, the greater the water clarity and the
deeper the Secchi disk will be visible. Alternatively,
turbid water with significant amounts of suspended
algae and silt will lower the ability to see the disk
resulting in shallow Secchi depth readings.
Salinity
The definition of salinity is the total amount of
dissolved solids per 1,000 units of solution. Percent
or parts per 100 is shown as o/o whereas salinity
parts per 1,000 is shown as o/oo. Typical open-
ocean salinities are about 34.8 o/oo. The RJiode
Island coastal lagoons salinities range from 25-32 o/
oo. Chesapeake Bay salinity off Annapolis in the fall
is about 13 o/oo. Salinity in Virginia's James River
varies from a mean of 8-19 in the lower estuary to
a mean of 0.1 to 0.3 in the tidal freshwaters.
Since seawater enters an estuary through its mouth,
the salinity is highest at that point and gradually
diminishes as one moves toward the northern end.
The salinity levels within the estuary vary, depend-
ing on the volume of freshwater that flows into it.
Salinity declines in the spring when rainfall, ground-
water and melting snow cause large increases in
freshwater inflows.
Graduated salinity levels effect the distribution and
well-being of the various biological populations living
in an estuary. Bottom dwelling species are tolerant of
salinity variations but salinity will affect growth and
spawning. Some species spawn in freshwater and live
mostly in salt water; others do the opposite.
CBCMP determines salinity by measuring specific
gravity (density) with a hydrometer and converting the
168
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
value to salinity. RISPW use a refractometer which is
an optical instrument. Another common method for
measuring salinity is a conductivity meter.
Nutrients
Some volunteers are involved in nutrient (nitro-
gen and phosphorus) sampling. The available kits
designed to measure nutrients are often unable to
measure the observed concentrations found in sur-
face waters. CBCMP and RISPW volunteers col-
lect and preserve samples that are analyzed in a
laboratory. The CBCMP Conestoga volunteers use
a LaMotte kit to measure nitrate and nitrite where
the concentrations of this nutrient run three to 10+
parts per million.
Other pollutants
Analyses for pesticides, toxic metals, petroleum
compounds, PCBs and arsenic require sophisticated
laboratory equipment and often require specialized
sampling procedures. Consequently, these param-
eters are not usually measured by volunteers except
in support of scientific research projects.
Biological indicators - Bacteria
Disease-causing bacteria are a concern in coastal
waters for two reasons: 1) potential contamination
of shellfish making them unfit for human consump-
tion; and 2) contamination of bathing areas making
them unsafe for swimming.
Different monitoring programs use different
methods for sampling bacteria. RISPW train volun-
teers to take samples which are then analyzed at the
state Department of Health and the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration laboratories which use the
multiple tube dilution (MTD) method. This method
is necessary for assessing the safety of Rhode Island
coastal waters for commercial shellfishing. Another
method, the membrane filtration method (MFM), is
used by other volunteer programs including Maine's
coastal program.
Rapid bioassessment methods such as those used
by streams and river monitoring programs have not
been developed for estuarine systems. Volunteers
are also involved in fish tagging, identifying beds of
submerged aquatic vegetation and checking for eel
grass disease.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
169
-------
Work Group Recommendations
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH
GOVERNMENT
Moderator: Susan Handley, United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region iO
Recorded by: Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch
Below is a summary of the discussion and contri-
butions by work group members:
OBSTACLES TO VOLUNTEER MONITORING
1. Existence of government misconceptions
about quality and nature of volunteer data
collection. Government managers often have
an image of kids in the creek, not realizing
the procedures and potential of volunteer
monitoring projects.
2. Even though the US EPA headquarters office
may have adequate stocks of materials and
information pertaining to volunteer moni-
toring program management, there is a lack
of information, materials and resources in the
regional offices of EPA.
3. National funding of volunteer monitoring
programs is scattered and inconsistent. Fund-
ingunder 319,106,205j and other programs
for volunteer monitoring projects is encour-
aged and approved in some areas but not in
others.
4. There is a lack of standardization of methods
and data-collection formats that makes gov-
ernment acceptance difficult.
5. Environmental protection program manag-
ers have a fear of citizens and the public. They
get nervous when approached by outside
groups.
6. Some government organizations may with-
hold information about issues and pollution
problems on particular watersheds. They seem
to erect barriers to getting at public records
such as complicated Freedom of Information
request procedures, screening files (not pro-
viding complete copies of some documents)
and stretching the proprietary, litigatory and
internal communication provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act to block access
to documents and records.
7. Citizens don't understand legal restrictions
placed on the authority of governmental
agencies; they expect more than the agency is
empowered to deliver.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. EPA should publish a list of performance
standards and protocols for field procedures
tiered for different end uses of information.
For example, if data collection is just for
personal knowledge, one type of testing will
do; if for program management decisions, a
more advanced level of testing is needed; and
if for regulatory or litigatory purposes a
higher level of quality assurance would be
needed.
2. All participants of volunteer monitoring pro-
grams should work to sell the field to other
professional groups by getting on conference
agendas and publishing in newsletters and
trade journals of groups such as ASWIPCA,
NALMS, "Water Resources Institutes, pro-
fessional scientific societies and others.
3. EPA should encourage delegated state agen-
cies to involve volunteers in agency decisions
and policy-making by providing them with
public notices inviting them to participate in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System hearings, regulation development
hearings, tri-annual reviews, study groups,
170
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
review of publications and reports.
4. EPA should develop, publish and distribute
training documents and background publica-
tions on participation strategies for active
citizens in various regulatory programs such
as water quality standard reviews, 401, 319,
106, and other programs.
5. EPA should develop and maintain a clearing-
house of information for basic water-quality
problem-solving and environmental man-
agement similar to River Networks'sDORIS
computerized database. This may involve
setting up a similar operation in the national
EPA office or by providing funding for D ORIS
to do it for us.
6. All participants should conduct outreach ef-
forts directed at local and state officials they
are working with, inviting individuals to a
monitoring visit, stream walk, canoe float or
other outings.
SPECIFIC RESOURCES TO BE DEVELOPED
1. Continue the Volunteer Monitor newsletter,
with distribution to agencies and other orga-
nizations.
2. Provide monitors with a national 1-800 tele-
phone number to call that rings at EPAs's
Office of Water and includes one or two
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
assistants to take calls and send out relevant
information on volunteer monitoring pro-
gram management.
EPA and other agencies should sponsor re-
gional workshops for volunteer monitors
similar to the EPA Region 10 workshop held
recently. Regional workshops could also be
further subdivided by eco-region, then even-
tually by watershed.
Designate and publicize a staffperson in each
of the 10 EPA regional offices to provide
assistance and follow up support to states and
other agencies wishing to establish and oper-
ate volunteer monitoring projects. Give that
individual the time (80 percent) to fulfill the
function.
Include a new section of the Clean Water Act
that establishes a grant pool fund for state and
local volunteer monitoring programs similar
to the Environmental Education Act.
Tailor program offerings and establish a spe-
cific component for advanced student moni-
tors to be used in upper level science pro-
grams.
Continue sponsoring national citizen moni-
toring conferences, holding the next one on
the West Coast or in Washington, D.C. area
if possible.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
171
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH
SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES
Moderator: Esperanza Standoff, University of Maine
Below is a summary of the discussion and contri-
butions by work group members:
1. School/University administration doesn't give
value to citizen projects. Some possible solu-
tions include:
Publicity let administrators know the
benefits to them;
Get them involved early in design and
other aspects of program planning;
Tenured professors are at less risk, so get
them involved;
Get their families involved in fun type
events (such as open house).
2. Networking and communication obstacles.
Too many projects from schools for agencies
and groups to handle. Schools have time and
other limitations other curricula to cover,
no communication between schools, which
makes regional efforts difficult. So many
types of schools and programs to choose from
that networking is difficult. Some ideas for
solutions include:
Hire new people;
" Train teachers, volunteers and students to
train others;
Law requires inclusion of environmental
education in curriculum;
Utilize existing association/directories for
networking.
3. Schools and universities face budget con-
straints which often mean they lack equip-
ment, computers and other supplies. Some
ideas for solutions include:
Ask for time commitment, lab use, in-
land contribution;
Establish partnerships with business or com-
munity groups get corporate sponsor
for schools;
Run fund raisers for environmental projects.
4. Issue of liability. Some solutions include:
Waivers must be specific;
May need liability insurance to get certain
grants team up with organization that
has liability insurance, such as Coopera-
tive Extension;
Develop clear safety instructions be
repetitive.
5. License/permits to do invertebrate sampling.
Solutions include:
Work towards change in regulations;
Have kids write letters and talk to govern-
ment legislators;
Work together with volunteer groups for
change;
Contact government agencies to work on
change in permit procedures.
6. Educational goals of schools, teachers or stu-
dents may conflict with monitoring project
goals.
7. Must design appropriate level of education
for various levels of students.
172
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
Moderator: Ned D. Emerald, Trout Unlimited
Below is a summary of the discussion and contri-
butions by work group members:
A number of problems and potential solutions
were identified during the group discussion. These
problems stemmed primarily from the lack of orga-
nized infrastructure at the local, state and national
level to deal with volunteer water quality monitor-
ing. Below is a summary of the discussion and
contributions by group members:
Problem I
Turf battles among conservation/environmental
groups over monitoring the same sections of a
stream and what appropriate corrective measures
should be taken.
Solution: The need for a local organization or
agency to coordinate and assemble monitoring data
and specify sampling methodologies and protocols
to produce uniform results.
Problem 2
Lack of cooperation between environmental groups
and state agencies. At the state level there appears to
be two concerns:
a. A need to set state protocols and quality
assurances of water quality monitoring data,
so that such data is usable by state agencies.
b. A need to coordinate and assemble monitor-
ing data at the state level.
Solution: Agreements need to be reached over
which protocols are used and a system of training
and testing should be developed to assure that
collected data is accurate. A state-level agency needs
to coordinate and assemble data from groups work-
ing at the local and state level, and also serve as a pass-
through conduit to a federal agency which as-
sembles such information.
Problem 3
Federal agencies have a variety of Water-quality
monitoring programs that need to be coordinated.
Between federal land managers and regulatory agen-
cies, it is easy for volunteers to become confused.
Solution: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey working together
would be an excellent way to coordinate water quality
monitoring data from the various federal agencies.
These problems show a definite need for a system
to assemble, coordinate and track water-quality
monitoring data at all levels. Such data could be
relayed through a system starting at the bottom or
local level and then progressing upward through the
state, regional and federal agencies. This informa-
tion could then be utilized by anyone requesting
such information.
One major point made was the need to reach
beyond traditional venues to reach a larger audience
in regards to protecting water quality. This point
breaks into two separate areas:
a. Many rural areas kck organized conservation
groups. This does not mean, however, that resi-
dents do not have environmental concerns. An
effort needs to be made to reach these people.
b. The environmental community needs to fo-
cus attention on utilizing the academic/edu-
cation community. Groups such as the Na-
tional Education Association have large yearly
meetings. We need to get on the agenda to
speak at these meetings about monitoring.
We need to educate teachers about environ-
mental concerns.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
173
-------
It was agreed that EPA should continue to hold
water-quality monitoring conferences. The group
agreed that there is a need for a series of regional
conferences which would be held around the coun-
try, allowing more people to participate. These
regional conferences would be technical in nature.
It was also agreed that a yearly national confer-
ence should still be held to bring everyone together
to communicate and assess progress in water quality
monitoring.
174
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water,
-------
STEERING COMMITTEE
The following persons dedicated time and effort to ensure that the Third
National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference was a success.
Committee members developed the scope of the conference, created
workshop ideas, suggested speakers, helped with logistics and provided a
wide range of expertise, background and philosophy to ensure that the
conference was a truly cooperative effort, thus reflecting the theme,
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water. Without their help, this
conference would not have been possible. Thanks to all those who
contributed.
Thomas Armitage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wanda Bisbee, America's Clean Water Foundation
Ken Cooke, Kentucky Department of Natural Resources
Wayne Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Five
Kathy Ellett, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Neal Emerald, Trout Unlimited
Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of America
Ray Hall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Susan Handley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Michael Herz, San Francisco BayKeeper
Loren Kellogg, Izaak Walton League of America
John Kopec, Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Virginia Lee, Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers
Alice Mayio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kathy O'Hara, Center for Marine Conservation
Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Donna Sefton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Seven
Jonathon Simpson, North American Lake Management Society
Martha Stout, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Third National Citizens' Volunteer "Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
175
-------
LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
Mi. Dolores Abney
Wildcat Guardians
2116N100E
Kokomo, IN 46901
317-457-7454
Ms. Inga Adams
Colorado River Watch
9202 Cedar Crest Dr.
Austin, XX 78750
512-858-0004
Mi. Cynthia Adams Dunn
Alliance Chesapeake Bay
225 Hne Street
Harrisburg. PA 17101
717-236-8825
Mr. Gil Alexander
Missouri Water Network
504 Dearborn
Helena, MX 59601
406-443-2745
Mr. Charles Allen
215 W. Bay Park
Lewes, DB19958
Mr. Xom An
Metro Wash. Council Govti.
777 North Capitol St
Washington, DC 20002
202-962-3366
M$,RittAndry
Wildcat Guardians
PO Box 6421
Kokomo, IN 46904-642
317-628-3155
Mr.JefireyAnKker
Earth Xeam Program
SCS Coordinator
US Dept Agriculture
PO Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
Mr. Michael Arcuri
WV DNR. Water Resources
Rt6, Box 185
Charleston, WV 25311
Mr. Joseph Bachant
MO Dept Conservation
PO Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-4115
Ms. Angela Baker-James
Alliance Conserv. Action
PO Box 10627
Raleigh. NC 27605
919-856-1581
Ms. Mary Ball
Carson-Newman College
CNC, Box 72044
Jefferson City, TN 37760
615-471-3254
Ms. Alice Bamberger
Westchester Land Xrust
31 Main Street
Bedford, NY 10507
914-241-6346
Ms. Beverly Handler
Interstate Com. Potomac R.
6110 Executive Blvd. Suite 300
RockvUIe, MD 20852-3903
301-984-1908
Mr. Steve Barnes
BayKeeper
Sandy Hook Bldg. 18
Highlands, NJ 07732
908-291-0055
Ms. Ginny Barnes
Glen Preservation Fdn.
10311 Glen Road
Potomac, MD 20854
301-762-6423
Leslie Bates
Back Bay Wildlife Refuge
5041 Bonney Road
VirginiaBeach, VA 23462-4365
804-427-6396
Mr. Karl Bergman
Chicopee Watershed Coun.
PO Box 148
Chicopee, MA 01014
Ms. Giselle Bernstein
Metro Wash. Council Govts.
777 N. Capitol St. ME, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002
202-962-3345
Ms. Kelly Bessel
Cornell Cooperative Extn.
223 JB Wise Place
Watertown, NY 13601
315-788-8450
Ms. Carolyn Bete
Wisconsin DNR.
PO Box 7921, WR/2
Madison, WI 53707
608-266-8117
Mr. Robbie BEnkoff
Citizens' H2O Quality Prg.
ECU/ICMR
Greenville, NC 27858
757-6220
Mr. Robert Boone
Anacostia Watershed Soc.
PO Box 1309
Landover, MD 20785
Ms. Carol Bradshaw
PO Box 177
Ranson, WV 25438
304-728-7281
Mr. Paul Brant
Mountain R C & D
204 1/2 W. Maple Ave.
Fayetteville, WV 25840
304-574-3036
Mr. Mark Breederland
NW MI Council of Govts.
PO Box 506
Xraverse City, MI 49685
616-929-5000
Mr. William Brierly, Jr.
Inland Bays Estuary Prog.
c/o DNREC
Dover, DE 19903
302-739-5409
Mr. J.D. Brown
Bream Fishermen Assoc.
400 Colbert Avenue
Pensacola, FL 32507
904-455-1223
Mr. Ronald Bruner
Soc. Plastics Industry
1275 K St. NW. #400
Washington, DC 20005
202-371-5210
Mr. John Brunner
DE Riverkeeper Network
PO Box 753
Lambertvffle, NJ 08530
609-397-4410
Mr. Rob Buirgy
Thompson River Project
1669 Eagle Drive
Loveland, CO 80537
303-669-0801
Mr. Loring Bullard
Watershed Com. the Ozarks
819 Boonville
Springfield, MO 65802
417-866-1127
Ms. Pearl Burbage
89 Kings Hwy.
Dover, DE 19901
302-739-6340
Ms. Sharon Burchenal
Inland Bays Citizen Mon.
736 Holly Drive
Dover, DE 19901
302-734-7441
Ms. Amy Burns
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-782-3362
Ms. Jane Bush
MO Dept of Conservation
1110 S. College Ave.
Columbia, MO 65201
314-882-9880
Mr. Dave Buzan
Xexas Water Commission
PO Box 13087
Austin, XX 78711
512-463-8206
Mr. Jack Byrne
River Watch Network
153 State Street
Montpelier, VX 05602
802-223-3840
Ms. Letitia Callis
Carson-Newman College
3917 Greenleaf Ave.
KnoxviUe, XN 37919
Ms. Diane Cameron
Natural Res. Defense Coun.
1350 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-624-9347
176
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Ms. Gayla Campbell
LaMotte Company
PO Box 329
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3100
Ms. Celeste Carmichael
Cornell Cooperative Ext.
20 S. Main St., Box 150
Albion, NY 14411
716-589-5561
Ms. Jackie Carrera
Maryland SOS
258 Scotts Manor Dr.
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
301-969-0084
Mr. Neal Camcker
Term. Valley Authority
Forestry Bldg
Noras, TN 37828-2002
615-751-7330
Mr. Robert Chance
3631 Berkley Road
Darlington, MD 21034
Mr. Brian Christman
Marine Resources Council
PO Box 22892
Melbourne, FL 32902-2892
407-952-0102
Mr. Ken Cooke
Kentucky Water Watch
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
800-928-0045
Ms. Olga Corey
US EPA
939 26th St. NW, #106
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Michael Cox
Michigan DNR
MDNR-SWQD,POBox30028
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-4757
Ms. Trudy Coxe
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmosph.
University Bldg., Rm. 706
1825 Connecticut Ave.
Washington, DC 20235
202-606-411
Ms. Heather Crawford
CT Sea Grant Marine Prog.
43 Marne Street
Hamden, CT 06514
203-789-7865
Mr. James Cunningham
Cornell Extension Nassau
1425 Old Country Rd.
Plainview, NY 11803
516-454-0900
Mr. Geoff Dates
River Watch Network
RRl,Box209
Hartland, VT 05048
802-436-2544
Mr. Dave Davis
US EPA OWOW, WH-556
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Wayne Davis
US EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-2591
Mr. Scott Deibler
Arlington County Parks
3608 N. Military Rd.
Arlington, VA 22207
703-358-3403
Mr. Chetan Desai
Info. Support Systems Lab
106A Faculty Street
Virginia Tech Univ.
Blacksburg, VA 24061
703-231-5843
Mr. Erich Ditschman
Clinton R. Watershed Coun.
8215 Hall Road
Utica, MI 48317
313-739-2507
Ms. Jacqueline Doherty
Izaak Walton League
1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B
Arlington, VA 22209
703-528-1818
Mr. Don Duff
USDA Forest Service
Wasatch-Cache NF
Fed. Bldg., 125 S. State
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
801-524-6491
Ms. Karen Edektein
4-H Natural Resources
Cornell University
DNR Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-2834
Mr. Norm Edwards
Coastal America
722 Jackson Place NW
Washington, DC 20503
Ms. Kathleen Ellett
Alliance Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Road
Baltimore, MD 21212
410-377-6270
Ms. Eleanor Ely
Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
1318 Masonic Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-255-8049
Mr. Neal Emerald
Trout Unlimited
800 Follin Lane SE, Suite 250
Vienna, VA 22180-4959
703-281-1100
Mr. Joseph Ervin
Institute Water Research
302 Berkey Hall
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-355-2388
Mr. Bruce Fallen
Orlando Stormwater Util.
400 S.Orange Ave.
Orlando, FL 32801
407-246-2370
Mr. Ron Falyar
Friends N. Fork
PO Box 746
Woodstock, VA 22664
Mr. Joseph Farrell
Univ. of DE, Marine Studies
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958-1298
302-645-4250
Ms. Ann Faulos
512 Spencer Road
Avondale, PA 19311
215-268-2153
Ms. Mary Feldman
Back Bay NWR & APES
904 Lovell Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
804-481-4721
Wenley Ferguson
Save the Bay
434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908
401-272-3540
Ms. Karen Firehock
Izaak Walton League
Save Our Streams Program
1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B
Arlington, VA 22209
703-528-1818
Ms. Nina Fisher
89 Alexander St., A
Charleston, SC 29403
803-723-4812
Ms. Marion Fisher
US Geological Survey
6103 Bardu Avenue
Springfield, VA 22152
703-644-6550
Ms. Saundra Fisher
FL Lake Watch
7922 NW 71 Street
Gainesville, FL 32606
904-392-9613
Mr. Neal Fitzpatrick
Audubon Naturalist Soc.
8940 Jones Mill Road
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301-562-9188
Ms. Bettina Fletcher
US EPA - OROSLR
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-4731
Mr. Paul Foer
Nautilus Press
PO Box 5024
Annapolis, MD 21403
301-858-6289
Mr. Fred Ford
Conserv Fd. Freshwater In.
PO Box 1746
Shepherdstown, WV 25443
304-876-2815
Mr. Bob Frease
Marine Resources Council
PO Box 22892
Melbourne. FL 32902-2892
407-952-0102
Mr. Gorman Fry
Izaak Walton League
9405 Byeforde
Kensington, MD 20895
301-946-2751
Mr. Marc Gaber
WV Soil Conservation Com.
204 1/2 W. Maple Ave
Fayetteville, WV 25840
304-574-3036
Ms. Eileen Gannon
Natural Heritage Fdn.
505 Fifth, Suite 444
Des Moines, IA 50309
515-288-1846
Ms. Christine Gault,
35 Pinecrest.Bch. Dr.
East Falmouth, MA 02536
Ms. Eileen Gibson
US EPA Headquarters
Mail Code TS-779
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Chani Gilfeather
Colorado River Watch
504 Strawberry Cove
Austin, TX 78745
512-448-3516
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
177
-------
Ms. Susan Glenn
Conserv. Fd. Freshwater In.
PO Box 1746
Shepherdstown, WV 25443
304-876-2815
Mr. Paul Godfrey
Water Research Center
BlalideU House
Univ. of Mass.
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-2842
Mr. Jack Goodman
Colorado River Watch
206 Wild Bum Rd., Suite 200
Austin. TX 78746
469-6883
Mr. Joseph Goisuch
Eastman Kodak Company
Kodak Park, Bldg. 306
Rochester, NY 14652-3617
716-588-2140
Mr. John Gottschamer
Kansas Water Office
109 W. 9th St, #300
Topeka KS 66612-1249
913-296-0866
Ms. Cheryl Graham
NOAA/OCRM/SRD
1825 Conn. Ave. NW, #714
Washington. DC 20235
202-606-4122
Ms. Ilia Gray
USDAASCS
1118 St Agnes Lane
Baltimore, MD 21207
410-381-4550
Ms. Linda Green
RI Watershed Watch
210B Woodward Hall
Kingston, RI 02881-0804
401-792-2905
Ms, Inc Grcgcr
Glen Preservation Fdn.
12025 Edgepark Court
Potomac, MD 20854
301-340-7796
Ms. Eileen Gunn
Coalition Buzzards Bay
PO Box 268
Buzzards Bay, MA 02536
508-759-1440
MJ. Mindy Habecker
Dane County UW Extension
57 Fairgrounds Dr.
Madison, WI 53713
608-266-4106
Ms. Rita Haberman
River Network
PO Box 8787
Portland, OR 97207
503-241-3506
Ms. Patricia Haddon
Anne Arundel County
PO Box 6675
Annapolis, MD 21404
410-222-7441
Ms. Ann Hadley
Middlesex County S&WCD
POBox70
Haddam, CT 06438
203-345-3219
Mr. Bob Haines
Friends of Penny Pack Pk.
2858 Angus Road
Philadelphia. PA 19114
215-698-2434
Mr. Alfred Hale
Salt Pond Watchers
20 Cormorant Rd.
Wakefield, RI 02879
401-783-5331
Mr. Ray Hall
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Susan Handley
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave, WD-139
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1287
Mr. Ed Hanson
WV State Soil Conserv.
840 Charles Street
Wellsburg,WV 26070
304-737-0641
Ms. Leslie Hartman
Baywatch
PO Box 369
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
205-861-2141
Ms.JayneHench
Dept. Parks Montgomery Co.
9500 Brunett Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20901
301-495-2504
Mr. Michael Herz
San Francisco Baykeeper
Bldg A, Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123
415-567-4401
Mr. George Hess
People for Puget Sound
2917 Morrison Rd. W.
Tacoma, WA 98466
206-564-9034
Ms. Adriana Hess
People for Puget Sound
2917 Morrison Rd. W.
Tacoma, WA 98466
206-564-9034
Mr. Russell Heyde
Arlington Echo
975 Indian Landing
Millersvffle, MD 21108
410-987-1330
Ms. Lorena Hiep
Dept. Env. Resources
9400 Peppercorn PI., #540
Handover, MD 20785
301-925-5850
Mr. Gerald Higuchi
Dept. Health-Water Pollut.
500 Ala Moana Blvd. 5
Waterfront Plz. 250
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-586-4309
Mr. Garry Hill
Wildcat Guardians
PO Box 6421
Kokomo, IN 46904-6421
317-628-3155
Mr. Rick Hoffinan
State Water Control Board
PO Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
804-527-5000
Ms. Kyra Hoffmann
NJ DEPE/Water Watch
CN029
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-7021
Mr. Buzz Hollett
Wildcat Guardians
1430 W. 131st St.
Carmel, IN 46032
317-848-2076
Mr. Matt Hubler
Carson-Newman College
807 West Rhoten St.
Jefferson City, TN 37760
615-475-9499
Mr. Garland Hudgins
Friends N. Fork Shen.
PO Box 746
Woodstock, VA 22664
Ms. Patricia Hurley
AL Dept. Env. Management
1751 Congressmen
W H Dickenson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
205-271-7938
Ms. Jeanne Ison
OH Water Sanitation Com.
49 E. 4th St., #300
Cincinnati, OH 45202
513-421-1151
Mr. David Iverson
Battenkill Conservancy
814 C Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-546-3609
Ms.JUlJacoby
St. Louis River Watch
320 W. 2nd St., Rm 704
Duluth, MN 55802
218-723-4927
Mr. Edward Jamro
Monsanto
730 Worcester St.
Springfield, MA 01151
413-730-3397
Ms. Elizabeth Jester
EPA Office Water Assesmt.
US EPA, WH 553
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7040
Ms. Julia Jones
Arlington County
2828B South Abingdon
Arlington, VA 22206
703-235-9018
Mr. J. Michael Jones
PA Dept. Env. Resources
Box 197, Region #4
Perkasie, PA 18944
215-257-3646
Ms. Simra. Jones-Bufkins
Galveston Bay Nad. Est.
711 W Bay Area Blvd., #210
Webster, TX 77598
713-332-9937
Ms. Marcyjudd
Alliance Chesapeake Bay
PO Box 1981
Richmond, VA 23216
804-775-0951
Ms. Lisa Kahn
Tufts University
42 Almont Street
Medford, MA 02155
617-393-9691
Mr. Charles Kanetsky
US EPA Region HI
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Ms. Veronica Kasi
PADER
1 Ararat Blvd., #214
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
717-657-6395
178
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Ms. Norma Kawecki
M-NCPPC Montgomery Cnty.
8000 MeadowBrook Ln.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301-650-2612
Ms. Carmen. Keane
TVA
One Mass Ave., #300
Washington, DC 20444
202-479-4412
Mr. Loren Kellogg
Izaak Walton League
Save Oar Streams Program
1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B
Arlington, VA 22209
703-528-1818
Ms. Judy Kelly
EPA
2616 Charleston St.
Oak, CA 94602
510-531-6072
Mr. Michael Kensler
Chesapeake Bay Fdn.
100 W. Plume St., #701
Norfolk. VA 23510
804-622-1964
Ms. Meg Kerr
Univ. of RI
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
401-792-6224
Ms. Cecily Kihn
Pew Charitable Trusts
2005 Market St., #1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7017
215-575-4742
Ms. Mary Kilbourne
Patuxent River Park
16000 Croom Airpt. Rd.
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
301-627-6074
Ms. Joan Kimball
Adopt-A-Stream
100 Cambridge St., #1901
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-1614
Ms. Lydia Kimble-Johnson
LaMotte Company
PO Box 329
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3100
Mr. Robert King
Carroll County
225 N. Center St.
Westminster, MD 21157
301-857-2150
Mr. Scott Kishbaugh
NYS Dept. Env. Conserv.
50 Wolf Rd., #301
Albany, NY 12233-3502
518-457-7470
Ms. Karen Klima
US EPA Headquarters
401 M Street SW
Mail Code WH-556-F
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Jean Kling
PA Bureau of State Parks
8 Frisch Drive
Duncannon, PA 17020
717-783-4359
Ms. Marie Kneser
S. Branch Watershed Assn.
2200 Rt. 31, Box 10
Lebanon, NJ 08833
908-730-7292
Dr. David Knotts
Calwood Env. Educ. Cntr.
PO Box 349
Jamestown, CO 8045
449-0603
Ms. Kimberly Knox
AWWA
6666 W. Quincy
Denver, CO 80235
303-794-7711
Ms. Stella Koch
Audubon Naturalist Soc.
8940 Jones Mill Road
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301-652-9188
Ms. Elaine Koerner
EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2623
Ms. Linda Kolodziej
Fairfax Audubon Society
10406 Adel Road
Oakton, VA 22124
703-938-4694
Mr. John Kopec
OHDNR
1889 Fountain Sq. Ct.
Columbus, OH 43224
614-265-6458
Ms. Kathryn Kramer
Aquatic Habitat Instit.
1301 South 46th St.
Richmond, CA 94804
510-231-9539
Ms. Valerie Kruger
Kruger Ventures
6770 Brown Rd.
Parma, MI 49269
517-531-4761
Mr. John Kundt
103 Fox Run
Laruel, DE 19956
Ms. Conine Kupstas
Monsanto Company
730 Worcester St.
Springfield, MA 01151
413-730-2454
Jamie Kyte Sapoch
Watershed Association
31 Titus Mill Road '
Pennington, NJ 08534
609-737-3735
Ms. Angela Lambert
Jacobsburg Env. Ed. Ctr.
RD 1, Box 340
Jermyn, PA 18433
717-254-9280
Mr. Richard LaMotte
LaMotte Company
PO Box 329
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3100
Ms. Natalie Landry
NH Dept. Env. Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2658
Mr. Richard Laska
US EPA Headquarters
401 M Street SW, A-107
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Richard Leader
Chesapeake Bay Trust
60 West St., #200-A
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-2941
Mr. Phillip Patrick Leahy
US Geology Survey
Water Quality Assesm.
413 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703-648-5012
Mr. Terry Lee
Olmstead County Water
1650 Fourth St. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
507-285-8115
Ms. Virginia Lee
SC Coastal Resources
UnivofRI
Narragansett, RI 02882
401-792-6224
Mr. William Leet
Delta Laboratory
69 West Brook Road
Pittsford, NY 14534
716-586-8150
Mr. Stuart Lehman
Maryland DNR
Tawes Bldg, C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-5780
Ms. Alicia Lehrer
Dept. Nat. Res. Sci.
University of RI
Kingston, RI 02881
401-792-2905
Ms. Kathleen Leyden
Maine Coastal Program
184 State St., Sta 38
Augusta, ME 04333
207-289-3261
Mr. Mark Lickus
Wells Nad. Estuarine
RR #2, Box 806
Wells, ME 04096
207-646^1555
Mr. Craig Limpach
Friends of Black River
161 Courtland
Elyria, OH 44035
216-324-2539
Ms. Amanda Lindley Stone
Audubon Society of NH
PO Box 528-B
Concord, NH 03302
603-224-9909
Mr. Steve Livengood
Terrene Institute
1000 Conn. Ave. NW, #802
Washington, DC 20036
202-833-8317
Ms. Connie Logbthetis
Deleware Stream Watch
Ashland Nature Ctr.
PO Box 700
Hockesrin, DE 19707
302-239-2334
Ms. Elizabeth Lourie
Univ. of NH Sea Grant Ext.
306 C Dover Point Rd.
Dover, NH 03820
603-742-0117
Mr. Douglas Ludwig
Montgomery Co. Cons. Corps
600 E.Gude Drive
Rockvffle, MD 20850
301-294-8720
Ms Lynda Lukasik
Dalhouse U, EMDI Project
1312RobieSt.
Halifcx B3H 3E2 NS CANADA
902-494-3632
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
179
-------
Ml. Anne Lyon
Term. Vafley Authority
Forestry Bldg.
Nomi,TN 37828
615-632-1639
Mi. Susan Madeod
Ctr, Marine Conservation
306A Buckroe Avenue
Hampton. VA 23664
804-851-6734
Ms. Patrnarie Mahcr
NOAA Sanctuaries-Reserve
1825 Conn, Ave. NW, #714
Washington, DC 20235
202-606-4122
Mi. Pat Maier
Friend! N. FotkShen.
PO Box 746
Woodstock, VA 22664
Mr. Craig Mains
WV Stream Watch
772 Weaver Street
Morgantown, WV 26505
304-292-3463
Mr. Fred Mangum
USDA-Forest Service
Macro Lab 105
PageSchool-BYU
Prove, UT 84602
Mr. David Manski
Cape Cod Natl. Seashore
POBox47
South Wellflcet, MA 02663
Ms. Abby Markowitz
Maryland SOS
258 Scotts Manor Dr.
Glen Bumie, MD 21061
301-969-0084
Ms. Joan Martin
Huron R. Watenhed Cncil.
5530 Warren Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
313-769-5123
Mi. Stephanie Mason
Audubon Naturalist Soc.
8940 Jones Mill Rd.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301-652-5964
Mi. Pam Matthes
National Park Service
PO Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127
202-208-4639
Mi. AEce Mayio
USEPA.WH-553
401M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7018
Ms. Liz McClunin
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanct
1361 Wrighton Road
Lothian, MD 20711
410-741-9330
Mr. Brook McDonald
Conserv. Fdn. DuPage Cnty.
1010 W. Madison Ave.
Wheaton, IL 60187
708-665-5534
Pat Mcllvain
Loudoun Soil & Conserv.
30-H Catoctin Crc. SB
Leesburg, VA 22075
777-2075
Ms. Lori McKean
New York Audubon Society
PO Box 111
Eldred, NY 12732
914-557-8025
Ms. Cheryl McKinldy
5650 Cheryl Lane
Chesapeake Bch., MD 20732
202-636-3411
Ms. Sharon Meeker
ME-NH Sea Grant
Univ. of NH, Kingman Farm
Durham, NH 03824
603-749-1565
Mr. Steven Melcher
89 Kings Hwy.
Dover, DE 19901
302-739-6340
Mr. Eric Mendelman
Texas Water Commission
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-371-6477
Mr. TimMerkel
DE Riverkeeper Network
PO Box 753
Lambertville, NJ 08530
609-397-4410
Mr. Ted Mikalsen
3445 Chestnut Drive
Doraville, GA 30340
Mr. Anthony Miller
DE Inland Bay Monitor
PO Box 217
Ocean View, DE 19970
302-539-8449
Ms. Tracy Miller
National Park Service
Rec. Res. Asst Div.
PO Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127
202-343-3663
Mr. Les Monostory (
Izaak Walton League
125 Euclid Drive
Fayettevffle, NY.13066
315-435-2640
Mr. David Moody
US Geological Survey
407 National Center
Washington, DC 22092
703-648-6858
Ms. Marcia Moore Homsey
Adopt-A-Stream
3311 Carlisle St. NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
319-365-3200
Mr. Kenneth Moser
Puget Soundkeeper
PSA 130 Nickerson, Suite 107
Seattle, WA 98109
206-286-1309
Ms. Lue Ellen Mosher
Back Bay Wildlife Refuge
5041 Bonney Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23462-4365
804-497-2218
Mr. Jere Mossier
ID Div Eny. Quality
2110 Ironwood Parkwy.
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814'
208-667-3524
Ms. Nora Mullarkey
Colorado River Watch
POBox220
Austin, TX 78767
512-473-4009
Ms. Trish Mulvey
CLEAN South Bay
527 Rhodes Drive
Palo Alto.CA 94303
415-326-0252
Mr. Philip Mummert
TVA
601 Summit Hill Dr.
Knoxvffle, TN 37902
615-632-8975
Mr. Tom Murdoch
Adopt A Stream Fnd.
PO Box 5558
Everett, WA 98105
206-388-3487
Ms. Suzanne Nardone
Salt Pond Watchers
84 Donizetti Road
Westerly, RI02891
401-322-7104
Mr. Ken Nelson
Friends N. Fork Shend.
PO Box 746
Woodstock, VA 22664
703-459-8550
Mr. Ray Norris
Tennessee SOS Program
4021 Sunnybrook Dr.
Nashville. TN 37205
615-665-2324
Mr. George Norris
Stream Watch
1527-A Hanover St.
Raleigh, NC 27608
919-733-4064
Ms. Kathy O'Hara
Ctr. Marine Conservation
Chesapeake Held Ofc., 306A
Buckroe Ave.
Hampton, VA 23664
804-851-6734
Mr. Harvey Olem
Terrene Institute
1000 Conn, Ave. NW, #802
Washington, DC 20036
202-833-8317
Ms. Helen Olena
PA DER State Parks
Nolde Forest EE Ctr.
RD #1 Box 392
Reading, PA 19607
215-775-1411
Mr. John Omer
USDA Forest Service
180 Caufield Street
Morgantown, WV 26505
304-285-1544
Mr. Michael Orbach
Coastal Marine Resources
East Carolina Univ.
Greenville, NC 27858
919-757-6760
Mr. Rick Parsons
IWLA, SOS Kokomo Chapter
7299 W. OO N.S.
Kokomo, IN 46901
317-883-5461
Ms. Janet Pawlukiewicz
US EPA
499 S. Capitol St. SW
Room 20024, WH-556F
Washington, DC 20024
202-260-7194
Mr. Web Pearsall
Maine DEP
Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
207-289-3901
Ms. Anne Pearson
Alliance Community Educ.
190 Beech Ridge Rd.
York, ME 03909
207-363-1890
180
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Ms. Karen Pclto
Mass. Div. Fish & Wildlife
100 Cambridge Street, 19th Fl.
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-1614
Mr. Dave Fender
Inland Bay Citizen Mon.
RD 1, Box 184
Ocean View, DE 19970
Ms. Doris Peters
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanct.
1361 Wrighton Road
Lothian, MD 20711
410-741-9330
Mr. Robert Pfeiffer
America's Clean Water Fd.
750 First St. ME, #911
Washington, DC 20002
202-898-0927
Mr. Tom Pheifier
US EPA Headquarters
401 M Street SW, H-1530
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Roy PiatelH
General Electric
1000 Western Ave.
Lynn, MA 01910
617-594-3834
Mr. Jim Pierce
Env. Action Foundation
6930 Carroll Ave. 6th Fl.
Takoma Park, MD 20912
301-891-1100
Ms. Margaret Podlich
Ctr. Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-429-5609
Mr. Walter Poleman
Cayuga Nature Center
1420 Taughannock Bid.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-273-6260
Ms. Christina Pbmpa
Chesapeake Bay Fnd.
162 Prince George St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
301-261-1131
Ms. Cynthia Poten
Del Riverkeeper Network
PO Box 753
Lambertville, NJ 08530
609-397-4410
Ms. Cynthia Pring-ham
EPA Region One
JFKBldg.,WQE-425
Boston, MA 01930-1117
617-565-4437
Mr. Richard Pritzlaff
Env. & Recycled Prod.
2102 Renard Court
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-6500
Mrs. Lewis Purnell
Thorneby Rt. 6, Box 98
Millsboro, DE 19966
302-945-1317
Mr. Denis Quails
Brazos River Authority
PO Box 7555
Waco, TX 76714
817-776-1441
Ms. Nancy R-Hansen
Stream Team Program
PO Box 90012
Bellvue, WA 98009-9012
206-451-4476
Mr. Marcus Ramsey
Carson-Newman College
2319 Iris Lane
New Market, TN 37820
615-475-8594
Ms. Maureen Raposa
RI Citizens Vol. Monitor
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
401-277-6519
Ms. Nancy Rappaport
Springfield River Watch
Springfield Tech. College
Springfield, MA 01105
Ms. Susan Ratcliffe
US EPA Clean Lakes Prog.
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5404
Mr. Dave Redford
US EPA
WH 556-F
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9179
Mr. Pat Reese
Friends of Fox River
PO Box 1470
Elgin, IL 60121
708-741-1124
Ms. Ann Reid
Great Bay Watch
Sea Grant Extension
UNH Kingman Farm
Durham, NH 03824
603-749-1565
Ms. Rita Reinke
Acid Rain Monitor Proj.
WRRC Blaisdell House
Univ. of Mass.
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-4797
Mr. Paul Rentschler
Huron R. Watershed Cncil.
415 W. Washington
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
313-769-5123
Mr. Dennis Reynolds
Baykeeper
Sandy Hook
Highlands, NJ 07732
908-291-0055
Ms. Anne Rheams
LA Dept. Env. Quality
PO Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
504-765-0511
Ms. Nancy Richardson Hansen
S.S.W.U.
PO Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009
206-453-2895
Ms. Ann Robinson
Izaak Walton League
801 Commerce Drive
Decorah, IA 52101
319-382-2947
Mr. Gary Rosenlieb
NFS Water Resources Div.
301 S. Howes Street
Federal Bldg., Rm 353
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Ms. Deborah Ross
EPA
401MStSW, PM-211D
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1705
Ms. Heather Rosselle
National Park Service
5200 Glover Rd. NW
Washington, DC 20015
202-426-6828
Mr. Robert Rostkowski
Springfield River Watch
Sprgfld. Public Works
1600 East Columbus
Springfield, MA 01103
Ms. Estelle Ruppert
Pennsylvania DER
PO Box 2063
Harrisburg. PA 17105-2063
717-783-7005
Mr. Joseph Sanders
Long Beach Schools/SCAS
PO Box 91598 ..
Long Beach, CA 90809-1598
310-498-2071
Mr. Andrew Saul
Citizens For Clean Env.
PO Box 196
Rose Valley, PA 19065
215-566-2569
Ms. Mary Sauls Kelly
Western NC Alliance
PO Box 18087
Asheville, NC 28814
704-258-8737
Ms. Roberta Savage
America's Clean Water Fd.
750 First St. NE, #910
Washington, DC 20002
202-898-0902
Gov. William Donald Schaefer
State of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-3901
Mr. Jeff Schloss
NH Lakes Lay Monitoring
Univ. of NH
109 Petee Hill
Durham, NH 03824
603-862-3848
Mr. Al Schmauder
1602 129th'St. East
Tacoma, WA 98445
206-967-7191
Ms. Joan Schnell
EPA, A101-ED
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-3600
Mr. Jerry Schoen
Mass. Water Watch Part.
Blaisdell House
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-5532
Ms. Donna Sefton
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7500
Ms. Jennifer Shalinsky
Laurel Creek Cite. Comm.
47 Allen Street
E. Waterloo, Canada
ON N2J-1J1
519-576-3745
Ms. Cassy Shaukat
Texas Water Commission
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-308
512-463-8453
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
181
-------
Mi.JiUShoejmith
Brodhead Watershed Assoc.
RDBox53
Canadcmii, PA 18325
717-595-9080
Mr. Al Short
N & S Rivers Watershed
11 Hughey Road
Sdtuate, MA 02066
617-545-3453
Mi. Joan Short
N te S Rivers Watershed
11 Hughey Road
Sdtuate, MA 02066
617-545-3453
Mr.JeffShreiner
RD #2, Box 1010
Dingmous Ferry, PA 18328
717-828-2319
Mr. Carolos Sifuentes
Profiuiu Mexico
PO Box 1632
Eagle Piss. TX 78853
Mr. JimSigmon
992 Rustic lane
Dover, DE19901
Mi. Karen Siletti
Hackeraack R. Canoe Club
19 N. Adelaide Avenue
Highland Park, NJ 08904
201-807-0900
Mr. FrcdSflva
51 Jared Place
Seaford, DB 19973
Mr. Jonathan Simpson
N. American Like Mgmt Soc.
SSHfflandaleRd.
Dinbury, CT 06811
203-797-9939
Mr. Scott Sinex
Prince George's College
Dept. Physical Science
largo, MD 20772
301-322-0431
Ms. Jennifer Smith
Chesapeake Bay Fdn.
162 Prince George St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mr. David Smith
National Park Service
Rock Creek Nature
5200 Glover Rd.NW
Washington, DC 20015
Ms. Robin Snyder
119 Webster Street
Arlington, MA 02174
617-646-4308
Ms. Kathryn Stafford
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanct.
1361 Wrighton Road
Lothian, MD 20711
410-741-9330
Ms. Esperanza Standoff
Univ. of Maine, Coop. Ext.
375 Main Street
Rockland, ME 04841
207-594-2104
Mr. Andrew Standoff
Georges River Tidewater
RR 2, Box 351
Warren, ME 04864
207-273-2366
Mr. Ramon Stansfield
The Wells Reserve
RR #2, Box 806
Wells, ME 04090
207-646-1555
Ms. Linda Stapleford
Delaware Stream Watch
Ashland Nature Ctr.
PO Box 700
Hockessin, DE 19707
302-239-2334
Mr. David Steinman
Interstate Comm. Potomac
14601 Nodey Road
Silver Spring, MD 20905
301-384-8412
Ms. Lynn Stemmy
Alliance Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Rd., #100
Baltimore, MD 21212
410-377-6270
Ms. Lexie Stevenson
Orsanlo
49 E. 4th Street, #300
Cincinnati, OH 45202
513-421-1151
Ms. Beth Stochaj
Univ. of Delaware, Mar. Stud.
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958-1298
302-645-4252
Mr. Allan Stokes
Iowa DNR
900 East Grand Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50315
515-281-6284
Ms. Martha Stout
US EPA, Wetlands Div.
401 M Street SW, A-104-F
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Chris Swarth
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanct.
1361 Wrighton Road
Lothian, MD 20711
410-741-9330
Ms. Diane Switzer
US EPA Region One
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
617-860-4377
Ms. Stacey Tabor
Water Resource Institute
One Campus Drive
AUendale, MI 49401
616-895-3749
Mr. John Taggart
Estuarine Research Res.
7205 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
919-256-3721
Mr. Ray Tesh
State Water Control Bd.
117 N. Main St.
Bridgewater, VA 22812
703-828-2595
Mr. David Tessitor
E. Watch
PO Box 272
Ingoma, PA 15127-0272
412-367-9898
Dr. Carolyn Thomas
Ferrum College
Life Sciences Div.
Ferrum, VA 24080
703-365-4368
Mr. John Tiedemann
New Jersey Sea Grant Prg.
NJ Marine Sciences Bldg 22
Fort Hancock, NJ 07732
908-872-1300
Ms. Virginia Tippie
Coastal America
722 Jackson Place NW
Washington, DC 20503
Ms. Elizabeth Toler
VA Environmental Endowmt.
PO Box 790
Richmond, VA 23206
804-644-5000
Ms. Judi Toohey
Friends of Penny Pack Pk.
116 E. Chestnut Hill, 3rd Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19118
215-247-4418
Mr. Elbent Traylor
NE Dept Env. Control
301 Centenial MallS.
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
402-471-4700
Ms. Sharon Trendy
Carson Newman College
1029 Morrow Road
Knoxville, TN 37923
615-531-1473
Mr. Dean UHock
US EPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
Ms. Robin Ulmer
Boquet River Assoc.
Elizabethtown, NY 12932
518-873-6301
Ms. Danielle Valvassori
Wisconsin DNR
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53704
608-266-9276
Mr. Keith Van Ness
M-NCPPC Parks
8000 Meadowbrook Ln.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301-650-2610
Ms. Nicole Veffleux
US EPA OWOW, WH-556
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Marie-Francoise Walk
Mass. Acid Rain Monitor Prj.
Blaisdell House
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-5531
Mr. John Wallace
Alliance Chesapeake Bay
225 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Mr. Bill Watkins
St. Johns River Water Mgt.
PO Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32084
904-329-4345
Dr. Carl Weber
University of Maryland
Dept Biological Sci.
5401 Wilkens Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21228
410-455-2258
Mr. Peter Wellenberger
NH Fish and Game
37 Concord Road
Durham, NH 03824
603-868-1095
Ms. Eve Wenger
Brodhead Watershed Assoc
RD 1, Box 486
Canadensis, PA 18325
717-676-4991
Ms Dee West
Clean & Beautiful Comm.
308. Main St., #5A
Alpharetta, GA 30201
404-442-9057
182
Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water
-------
Ms. Dot White
RDl.Box.103
Greenwood, DE 19950
Mr. Cameron Wieland
Dept. Env. Protection
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850
301-217-2747
Ms. Lajuana Wilcher
EPA Asst. Adm. for Water
US EPA, WH-551
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Steve Wildberger
LaMotte Company
PO Box 329
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3100
Ms. Candie Wilderman
All arm
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-245-1573
Ms. Kelly Williams
AL Dept. Env. Mgmt.
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile, AL 36615
205-479-2336
Mr. Andrew Willner
Baykeeper
Sandy Hook
Highlands, NJ 02732
908-291-0055
Ms. Cheryl Wolfe
Friends of Black River
PO Box 14
Kipton, OH 44049
216-775-8810
Mr. Larry Wonderlin
28 Marshall Road
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Mr. C. Ken Woody
Carson-Newman College
1725 S. Russell Ave,, Apt 1
Jefferson City, TN 37760
615-475-5556
Mr. Robert Wright
Hill School
130 S. Madison Street
Middleburg, VA 22117
Mr. William Yeaman
National Park Service
Rock Creek Park
5200 Glover Rd. NW
Washington, DC 20015
202-426-6832
Ms. Barbara Yeaman
Upper Del. River Assoc.
HC1 Box 1926, River Rd.
Milanvffle, PA 18443
717-729-7053
Ms. Lisa Younger
Ctr. Marine Conservation
306A Buckroe Ave.
Hampton, VA 23664
804-851-6734
Ms. Constance Zehner
Texas Water Commission
5144 E. Sam Houston Pk.
Houston, TX 77015
713-457-5191
Mr. Hank Zygmunt
US EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-3429
Third National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, 1992
183
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Printed on Recycled Paper
------- |