PROCEEDINGS
Fourth National
Citizens' Volunteer
Monitoring Conference
Putting Volunteer
Information to Use
April 10-14,1994
Portland State University
Portland, Oregon
Conference Sponsors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CITE, Creative Information
The Wetland Conservancy's Urban Streams Council
City of Portland Environmental Services
Portland State University Center for Urban Studies
Clackamas County Utilities
Unified Sewerage Agency
Portland General Electric
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Proceedings editing and layout: Eleanor Ely
Design consultant: Brien Brennan
-------
National Steering Committee
Jack Byrne, River Watch Network
Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Kathy Ellett, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Eleanor Ely, The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of America
Ivy Frances, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Susan Handley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Mike Houck, The Wetlands Conservancy's Urban Streams Council
Patricia Hurley, Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center
Abby Markowitz, Maryland Save Our Streams
Alice Mayio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters
Eric Mendelman, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Deborah Rodney Pex, CITE, Creative Information
Robbi Savage, Association of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Local Steering Committee
Mark Jockers, Unified Sewerage Agency
Jane Blair, Oregon Graduate Institute
Aaron Bodor, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Ivy Frances, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Rosemary Furfey, Metro, Region 2040 Program
Susan Handley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Rich Holloch, Clackamas County Department of Utilities
Mike Houck, The Wetlands Conservancy's Urban Streams Council
Steve Johnson, Portland State University, Center for Urban Studies
Phillip Johnson, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition
Esther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy's Urban Streams Council
Bob Mann, Portland Community College, Rock Creek Environmental Studies Center
Deborah Rodney Pex, CITE, Creative Information
Pat Willis, Jackson Bottom Wetland Preserve
Lynn Wilson-Dean, Milwaukie High School
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
In April, 1994, EPA co-sponsored the fourth in a series of National Volunteer Water
Monitoring Conferences. More than 300 people — volunteer program organizers, volunteer
monitors, government and business representatives, and educators -- came to Portland,
Oregon to share their experiences, insights, methodologies, questions, and enthusiasm.
The conference included time devoted to small group discussions. What emerged from these
discussions was a vision for the future of volunteer monitoring in which:
- Lines of communication are open between data users (especially government
agencies) and data gatherers (the volunteer programs).
- EPA plays a strong role at the regional and national levels in enhancing
communication, promoting standardization of methods, assisting in data management, and
encouraging state use of volunteer data.
- State and local agencies recognize the value of volunteer data.
- Strong state or regional associations of volunteer programs exist to support and
promote volunteer monitoring.
- Volunteer monitoring programs adopt a watershed approach.
We have already made great strides toward reaching this vision. As these conference
proceedings show, volunteer programs nationwide are working to develop collaborative
partnerships with businesses, government, and universities; are exploring ways to increase
the quality and utility of their data; and are expanding the scope of their monitoring activities
in myriad ways. More and more state and local water quality agencies are recognizing the
value of volunteer data, and many are sponsoring their own volunteer monitoring programs.
Increasingly, volunteers are seeking involvement in watershed-level decisionmaking.
We hope these conference proceedings will serve as another tool to help us reach the vision
articulated in Portland for the future of yetanteer monitoring
/
Geoffrey H./Xirut
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Recycled/Recyclable
Primed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
Contents
OPENING PLENARY SESSION
Chuck Clarke - Looking Toward the Future of Volunteer Monitoring 1
Virginia Lee - The Volunteer Monitoring Movement: A Brief History 1
SESSION 1
Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part One
Joby Winans 3
Designing Your Water Quality Study
Geoff Dates, Julie Rector, Esperanza Stancioff •. 6
Understanding Biocriteria
Donald A. Duff- Forest Service Uses of Biocriteria 11
Gretchen Hayslip - Developing Biocriteria—The EPA Perspective 12
David Penrose - Biocriteria in North Carolina 13
Defining Data Use: Are We All Speaking the Same Language?
Abby Markowitz, Patricia Hurley, Liz Hoenig 16
Collaborative Partnerships: It's Good Business
Sharon Behar - Creating Partnerships with Businesses 18
Meg Kerr - Using Business Partnerships to Enhance Volunteer Monitoring 19
Darrell Simms - Involving Minority Populations in Business Partnerships 20
Observational Monitoring
Ivy Frances - Observational Monitoring Using Streamwalk 22
SESSION 2
Data to Action, Part One: Volunteers Using Their Own Data
Mike Herz - Monitoring for Compliance 23
Lynn Kramer - Actions Resulting from Herring Run Stream Survey 24
Anne E. Lyon - Profiles from TVA's Teacher/Student Water Quality Monitoring Network 25
David A. Nolle - Data to Action with Trout Unlimited 27
Assuring Quality Data
Kathleen Ellett - Opening Remarks 29
Martha Cheo - Quality Assurance for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 29
Gayla Campbell - Some Quality Assurance Pointers 31
Linda Taylor Green - The "PARCC" Parameters ; 32
Julie Rector - Quality Assurance Samples 35
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Geoff Dates, Dave Penrose \ ; 39
Building Partnerships with Universities
Paul Godfrey - Introduction 44
Bill Davies - Cooperative Extension Service Involvement 45
Meg Kerr- Involving University Students 45
Paul Godfrey - Water Resources Research Institute Involvement 46
Gail Whitney - University Support of Pre-College Monitoring Activities 48
Increasing Communication Among Volunteer Programs
Andy Aim- Computer Networks 49
Jack Byrne - Creating Dialog 50
Group Discussion 50
Fundraising, Part One: Developing a Fundraising Plan
Elizabeth M. Heath 52
-------
Table of Contents
Geographic Information Systems and Volunteer Monitoring Data
Dave Drescher, Rosemary Furfey - Geographic Information Systems 55
Jim Stimson - Using GIS to Support Volunteer Water Monitoring Projects 57
Jeff Schloss - GIS Applications for Volunteer Monitoring Programs: A Case Study 59
PLENARY SESSION, DAY TWO
Deborah Alex-Saunders - Diversity: A Special Challenge 63
SESSIONS
From Data to Action, Part Two: Working Together for Change
Jack Byrne-Working Together for Change 65
Jerry Schoen, Marie-Francoise Walk, Ginny Barnes - Data-to-Action Exercise 66
Committing to Diversity, Part One
Dr. William B. Stapp - Working with Diversity in Project GREEN 69
Elizabeth Waters - Overcoming Obstacles to Diversity 69
Building Partnerships with Local Government
Eric Mendelman, Alice Blatt, AnnaDunbar, Ivy Frances, Dr. Jeffery Gottfried 71
Managing Your Data: Some Basic Principles
Janice Miller - Data Handling Procedures 72
Fundraising, Part Two: Training Fundraisers
Abby Markowitz 74
SESSION 4
Committing to Diversity, Part Two: Success Stories
Dr. William B. Stapp - Project GREEN Success Stories 78
Cliff Jones-Tools for Diversity 79
Jane V. L. Hardy - Senior Participation in Environmental Monitoring 80
Building Partnerships with State Governments
Ken Cooke - Tips on Working with State Agencies 82
Italo G. Carcich, P.E. - Agency-Citizen Partnerships in New York State 83
Mr. Lynn R. Singleton - Volunteer Monitoring Partnerships: Some Agency Considerations 84
Bacteria Testing, Part One
Esperanza Standoff-Basic Concepts and Definitions 86
Sigrid Schwind - Overview of Methods 86
Geoff Dates - Choosing an Indicator Bacteria and Analyzing Bacteria Data 87
Presenting Your Data to Different Audiences
Katney Bair - Capturing Attention with Visual Images 91
Jana Suchy - Packaging Your Message Effectively 92
Lynn Kramer - Presenting Your Vision 93
Monitoring Restoration and Pollution Prevention Activities
Jonathan Pearson - Monitoring Construction Sites 95
Gayla Campbell - Texas Watch Nonpoint Source Program 96
Susan Barthel - Monitoring Improvement Efforts in the Columbia Slough 97
Mike Rigney - Inventorying Riparian Resources in California 98
Discussion Session 98
Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two: Developing Leadership
Abby Markowitz - Developing Leadership Among Volunteers 101
Wes Halverson, Ph.D - Techniques That Build Leadership Among Teachers and Students 103
Patrick Reese - About Leadership in the Boardroom 104
VI
-------
Table of Contents
PLENARY SESSION, DAY THREE
Dr. Stan Gregory - The Willamette River: Ecosystem Management and Restoration 107
SESSION 5
Using Your Data to Evaluate Your Volunteer Monitoring Program
Abby Markowitz - How SOS Used Data Evaluation to Identify and Solve a Problem 108
Janice K. "Jan" Miller - Chemistry Data 109
Mike Mullen- Resolving Data Discrepancies , .". 110
Deborah A. Dahling - Volunteers Help Monitor the Effects of a Lake Restoration Project Ill
Bacteria Testing, Part Two
Marie Levesque Caduto - Membrane Filtration for E. coli 113
Mary P. Gilroy - Fecal Coliform Test: Equipment and Information 114
Debra Wirkman - Bacteria Testing Methods Used by Surfriders 115
The Watershed Approach
Workshop Summary 117
Data Analysis for the Technically Impaired
Ginny Barnes - Workshop Summary 119
Joyce Lathrop - Principles of Data Analysis 119
An Interdisciplinary Approach to Monitoring
Dr. William B. Stapp - Project GREEN: An Interdisciplinary, International Student Network 121
Dr. Robert Williams - The Rivers Curriculum Project 122
Lisa Bryce Lewis - Some Practical Tips for School-Based Monitoring Programs , 123
Building Partnerships with Federal Government Agencies
Jerry Schoen - Introductory Remarks i .". 125
Donald A. Duff - Forest Service Partnerships 126
Susan Harris - Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program 127
Alice Mayio--EPA's Volunteer Monitoring Program 127
David A. Nolle - Bring Back the Natives 128
Regional Breakout Discussion Session 130
Writing Wall Responses 132
Attendee Address List 133
Vll
-------
-------
Opening Plenary
Opening Plenary Session
Chuck Clarke
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 10
Looking Toward the Future of
Volunteer Monitoring
I worked for 10 years in the State of Washington's Depart-
ment of Community Development, which also housed the
state's Volunteer Action Council. I have also worked with the
Vermont Department of Natural Resources. Based on those
experiences, I' d like to talk to you today about what I consider
some of the critical components for a volunteer monitoring
program, as well as some of the future challenges facing these
programs.
Vermont volunteers discover zebra mussels
While I was at the Vermont DNR, the Department set up a
monitoring effort to look for zebra mussels in Lake Champlain.
Our technical staff spent about two years on the project, and
never discovered any zebra mussels, so we assumed they
were not there. We also happened to have organized a
volunteer monitoring effort for zebra mussels at the same
time. We had printed up cards showing what the zebra mussel
looked like, and handed it out at events, parks, docks, etc. Last
summer, a high school student who was out fishing pulled up
a rock with what he suspected was a zebra mussel. He sent it
to the agency, and we confirmed that it was in fact an
infestation of zebra mussels in that area.
So the agency spent a lot of time and money trying to
figure out if there were zebra mussels in that lake, but it was
really the volunteer monitors, and the commitment of our
staff to work hand in hand with the volunteers, that made the
difference.
Critical components of volunteer programs
As I look back over various successful volunteer programs,
I see certain components that have been critical:
1. Leadership. Most successful programs have one or two
core people who are the lifeblood of the effort. It's
critically important to train some additional
"lifebloods," because if that critical person leaves, the
entire effort can die.
2. Goals and objectives. Rather than just saying, "The
stream's going to be great in two or three years," try to
lay out specific interim goals so you can get feedback
periodically. If the longterm success is salmon coming
back, what are the interim successes that can get you
there? You can use these interim successes not only to
encourage your volunteers but to help persuade funders
to support your efforts. The stronger a story you can tell
about your work, the more likely you are to obtain
support.
3. Financial and technical resources. Make sure you
have enough resources not just to collect the data but
also to tell your story. If you can't tell your story, your
resources will dry up.
4. Education, education, education. Get involved in the
school system and in public education forums. This is
key to bringing about change.
Future trends and needs
If you look at polling data, you see that many people consider
jobs more important than the environment. But you have to
look at the demographics. If you take college-age kids, high
school kids, grade school kids, you'll find that overwhelm-
ingly environmental protection is number one on their list of
important public policy issues. There is a disconnect between
kids coming up through the system who have been educated
on the importance of environmental issues, and us—the more
middle-aged—who are still trying to find that balance be-
tween jobs and environmental protection. There's a priority
change going on, and that means there is going to be more and
more pressure on government, volunteer groups, and others
to do as much as we can to protect the environment. This
offers a real opportunity to volunteer groups.
A second trend is a switch to watershed programs. This
will help us pull all our dispersed monitoring efforts together.
A third trend is the decreasing availability of government
resources. This will force government to set up more partner-
ships with the volunteer community.
There is a lot of power sitting in this room. It's like a
chemical chain reaction—if we can get to the threshold where
enough people are active, fundamental change will start to
occur. That's why the volunteer system works.
Virginia Lee
Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island
The Volunteer Monitoring
Movement: A Brief History
I was involved in putting together the first national volunteer
monitoring conference, in Rhode Island, in 1988. There's
been enormous growth since then, and a wonderful, exciting
change throughout this country in the ensuing years, and it's
a real honor and privilege for me to be here and see this.
Every year since 1988, more and more programs have
been formed. There were 95 new programs formed in 1992.
The new national directory includes 517 programs.
Early environmental monitoring
Using volunteers to monitor the environment is not a new
idea. In 1890, the National Weather Service began training
volunteers to report daily measurements of rainfall and air
-------
Opening Plenary
temperature throughout the country. There are now 11,500
volunteer weatherstations nationwide (compared to only 300
nonvolunteer stations). More than 500 of these stations have
100 years of continuous monitoring. Much of our knowledge
of our nation's climate is based on these longterm volunteer
records.
The National Audubon Society's Christmas Birds Counts
started in 1900. In 1929, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
started its Bird Banding Program, in which people were
trained to capture birds, band birds, and record observations.
From that came a lot of our knowledge of migration patterns,
of depletion of species, and of changes in habitats.
In 1926, the Izaak Walton League started a "national
pollution war." They sent out sample bottles to all their
programs and asked people to take water samples and have
them analyzed by their local chemist, then send the results
back to IWLA headquarters.
In the 1950s, we saw the founding of the National Marine
Fisheries Service's cooperative fish tagging program.
Lake and stream monitoring
At the end of the sixties, we come to the beginning of the era
of lake and stream monitoring. You have to remember that in
the sixties the Cuyahoga River was catching on fire, there
were major oil spills and debris problems, we had Ralph
Nader giving a funeral service for the Houston ship channel
on national TV. People were happy when they had fish kills
because at least it meant there were fish to be killed. We had
major point source problems, and volunteer monitoring ac-
tivities reflected that.
Lake programs developed early in the seventies in Maine,
Michigan, and Minnesota. In 1969, Malcolm King founded
Save Our Streams in Maryland, and in 1970 he persuaded
Maryland's Department of Natural Resources to include the
SOS program as an item in the state budget. In 1974, the Izaak
Walton League of America's national office adopted the SOS
concept and promoted it through its state and local chapters.
Between 1975 and 1977, the IWLA's "Water Wagon" (a
motor home equipped with kick seines, basic field kits, and
SOS literature) visited schools and community groups in
every state in the contiguous United States, raising commu-
nity awareness about streams.
The 1972 Clean Water Act, especially the requirement for
states to submit reports to EPA and Congress on the "state of
the state's waters," provided some of the early impetus for
monitoring programs.
The eighties: Growth in credibility and scope
In the eighties, estuary programs caught up with the stream
and lake programs. Three estuary monitoring programs—
Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers, the Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring Program, and Maine's Clean Water Pro-
gram—were all founded in the second half of the eighties.
Bacterial monitoring was important to these programs be-
cause of the public health issues associated with the shellfish
industry.
Another development, which quickly had an impact on
national legislation, were the marine debris programs. In
1986, the Center for Marine Conservation developed a data
card that was used by volunteers to catalogue debris picked
up during the Texas Coastal Cleanup. By 1988 the cleanup
had become a national effort, and soon after it became
international. Information from the data cards was used to
support the MARPOL legislation outlawing disposal of plas-
tics at sea.
Monitoring data from the Acid Rain Monitoring Program
were also credible enough to be used in support of national
legislation—the new Clean Air Act.
The next phase, and perhaps the most energetic and
creative, has been the involvement of schools. Through
GREEN (Global Rivers Environmental Education Network),
students throughout the U.S., as well as in other countries, are
linking up by computer to share monitoring information and
experiences in solving water quality problems. That model is
now being modified and adopted throughout the country.
A more integrated approach
During the 1990s, we are evolving toward a more integrated
approach to monitoring. Now programs are evaluating streams,
lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and in some cases groundwater,
along with adjacent land uses, in whole-watershed assess-
ments. This approach is linking communities along the wa-
tershed in a stronger sense of their connection to the environ-
ment and to each other.
An agenda for change
Even though we call it "monitoring," volunteer monitoring
has never been about simply monitoring the decline of the
system. It has always been about activism—about interpret-
ing the information and making a difference with it. Today
we are moving more into urban environments, and making
sure we are not only cleaning up these environments, but
actually restoring them.
The recommendations that came out of that first work-
shop, in 1988, have largely been achieved. We took them to
Washington the very next month. From those recommenda-
tions came the EPA guidance documents, the national news-
letter, and the continued support for conferences like this.
I really encourage us to think big this time, to think hard,
to engage in discussion, and to come up with an agenda for
change with which we can move forward.
(Note: A longer article by Virginia Lee, based on this talk,
was published in the Spring 1994 issue of The Volunteer
Monitor newsletter. To obtain a copy, send a self-addressed
• envelope with 750 postage to The Volunteer Monitor, 1318
Masonic Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94117. Be sure to
specify that you want the Spring 1994 issue.)
-------
Session 1: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part One
Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part One
Moderator: Susan Handley, U.S. EPA Region 10
Presenter: Joby Winans, Washington State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development
Joby Winans
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development
Trends in volunteerism
First I'd like to ask you to tell me something you've seen in
the last few years that you would characterize as a trend in
volunteerism.
Responses from workshop participants:
• It's getting harder to find people who have time.
• Volunteers are getting choosier. They have more choices
of where to volunteer.
• It's easier to recruit volunteers for the short term.
• Volunteers come from a wider range of backgrounds.
• We're seeing more older people.
• Volunteers are more interested in environmental issues.
• Volunteers are interested in meeting their own career
needs—resume, networking.
• The image is changing. Volunteers used to be people
who had nothing else to do with their time.
There is a certain image that we used to associate with
volunteers—the little old lady, white, always smiling, not
working outside the home, who has 40 hours a week to
volunteer. The Latin name for this person is "Volunteerus
extinctus no-more-us."
Today volunteers are coming from a wider range of
backgrounds and ages. But "Volunteerus extinctus no-more-
us" is still the species of volunteer that we tend to expect and
look for. For example, the staff of your organization may say,
"We need a volunteer in the lab." But who shows up? Not
their grandmother—which is who they expect—but an 18-
year-old Vietnamese immigrant who doesn't yet speak En-
glish very well. The staff says, "This isn't a volunteer."
Nowadays most people don't have the leisure time that
they used to. So we're seeing more family volunteering;
families are saying, "Let's do something together."
A study done in 1990 on why people volunteer and who
volunteers found that the environment as a cause was making
headway. About 10 to 12 percent of people wanted to do
volunteer work on environmental issues. It's still not as
strong as human services or church, which were up around 25
percent each, but people are showing increased interest in the
environment.
Volunteers are getting choosier. I worked in a food bank
here in Portland in 1983, and when I first started, people
would knock on my door saying, "I'll work 40 hours a week
doing anything you want. Just let me be involved." By 1985,
people were saying, "I'll work Tuesdays only, I don't want to
deal with any clients, I'll only do computer work, I can work
six weeks only because during the winter I go to Arizona and
during the summer I go to Alaska. Take it or leave it."
Volunteers are looking for things that meet their needs.
We are sellers in a buyer's market right now. If you want
volunteers, you have to have a good enough program to get
people in the door and keep them in the door. Find out what
your volunteers' needs are, and make sure their needs are met.
The old adage is still true: If you want to get something
done, find someone who is busy. These are the people who
have learned to juggle and get everything done. So if you're
recruiting, don't be afraid to go down the street to the
Salvation Army and say, "Who's a good volunteer?" You
don't have to steal that person away, but you could interest
them in doing more than one thing in a week.
One practical thing you can do is make it easy for people
to volunteer. Distribute forms around the neighborhood.
People can fill out a form and then you contact them. The
clearer, more accessible, and more friendly you can be, the
more likely you are to get volunteers.
Why people volunteer
Now can you tell me some of the reasons why people
volunteer?
Responses from workshop participants:
• to do things that aren't part of their regular job
• to get inside information
• to gain experience and build their resume
• to gain a sense of personal pride and fulfillment
• to satisfy the need to belong
• to achieve something that they value
• to meet people and make friends
• to get recognition
• to learn something
In a recent nationwide study about why people volunteer, the
number one answer people gave was that they believed they
ought to give something back to their community. The
second was that they felt a sense of satisfaction about
volunteerism. Number three was that they gained some
tangible benefit.
People also said they volunteered "because somebody
asked me." Let me say something about asking. One of the
main reasons people don't volunteer is that they aren't
asked—and having a public service announcement on the
radio is not asking. Volunteers want to be asked individually
by someone. It doesn't have to be you. You can recruit some
volunteers and have them ask their friends and associates.
In Washington, we found that the number one reason why
people volunteered was that they had a connection. That
relates to volunteer monitoring, because people are afraid of
-------
Session 1: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part One
what's happening to their own back yard, or the park down
the street, or the river that runs through their community.
They're connected to those things: "I've seen that river my
whole life; now it's brown; I want to do something about it";
"I used to fish with my grandfather in that river and now there
are no more fish."
Comment from participant: Another reason to volunteer
is that "you have to." I have found that court-referral volun-
teers work three times harder than any other volunteers. Some
of them are people who probably would not have volun-
teered, yet often they end up staying.
Joby Winans: Yes, this is a resource. We could get into a
whole philosophical discussion about whether court-ordered
volunteers are volunteers are not. I consider mandatory,
court-ordered, or therapeutic volunteers to be "potential"
volunteers.
For example, take Frankie, a nine-year-ol who was caught
shoplifting and ordered to do 12 hours of community service.
This was the first time in his life that he had had any kind of
a positive experience. He was giving, people were praising
him, he was part of the team, he felt wonderful. He did his 12
hours and he left. Two weeks later we got another call:
"Frankie's coming back." "Why?" "He shoplifted again."
So Frankie came in and I asked him why he shoplifted
again, and he said, "This is the best experience I ever had and
I didn't know how to do it again." Remind your staff that
when "potential" volunteers get finished with their 50 or 100
hours, to sit down and talk with them about additional
volunteer opportunities, and recruit them right there.
Evaluating and thanking volunteers
Oddly enough, volunteers like performance evaluations.
Volunteers were asked, "How do you know the people you're
volunteering for feel that you've done a good job?" Their
response was, "Because they took the time to take my work
seriously, they evaluated what I was doing, and they gave me
feedback."
The McClelland Model of Motivation
I" ve found the McClelland Model of Motivation to be a quick,
easy way to structure the way I think about people and their
differing needs. McClelland says that people have a need
either to influence other people, which he called "power," a
need to affiliate, or a need to achieve. In each person, one of
those motivators is probably stronger than others. So you can
try to satisfy those needs in your volunteers.
People are not necessarily motivated by the same things in
their volunteer work as in their regular job. The person who
is very achievement-oriented on the job may be looking for
a more social experience when they volunteer.
What do these categories mean?
1. Influence or power. These people are motivated by
status. They can work alone or with others. They like to
be given a vision of the big picture, and then to have
autonomy and independence. They don't like to have
other people hanging over them.
2. Affiliation. Affiliators like to take care of other people.
They work best with others. They like to be popular and
they are concerned about relationships.
3. Achievement. Achievement-oriented people like to
accomplish things. They prefer to work alone. They like
projects with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and
they like to know the standards by which they're going
to be judged. Why? So they can exceed the standards.
I personally am highly achievement-oriented, with some
influence/power and no affiliation. So don't bother hugging
me on the way out—just tell me that I exceeded your
expectations, and keep on going. I tend to stand back and say,
"Affiliators waste time! They're talking—or worrying about
whether we have donuts. Who cares? I want to get the work
done!"
On the surface it may look as if only certain types of people
can do certain jobs, but that's not true. Say you are looking for
a volunteer to supervise 16 people on a project. Can an
influence person do that? Sure. Can an affiliator do that? Very
well. They can make sure that everyone feels like part of the
team. Can an achievement person lead a team of 16? Sure,
especially if you say, "Here are the expectations and here's
what you need to do."
Can you get an influence person to stuff envelopes? Yes.
How would you do it? Let them write the letter. Say, "Look
at all the people you are going to influence." Let them find
others to help fold and stuff the letter. Can an affiliator do it?
Yes, especially if they are working with a group. An achieve-
ment person? Tell them "We' ve got to get 600 out today," and
they can achieve that goal.
What do these categories mean in terms of recruiting,
supervising, and thanking volunteers?
Recruitment:
The influence or power person: Tell them, "You can make
a difference"; "You'll meet the important people"; "Here's
your title"; "This is our vision—we want to you to lead us."
The affiliator: Say, "We need you"; "Come join our
family." Invite them to a social event—Meet the Creek.
The achievement person: Say, "We have lots to do—we
need your help"; "Here is the project that I need you to do."
Set targets.
Supervision:
Influence or power people: Supervise them one on one—
but recognize that they will ask questions and argue. Give
them autonomy, but don't lie down and let them step on you.
Affiliators: Take the time to talk to them individually.
(That's a challenge for the achievement-oriented.)
Achievement people: Tell them, "Here* s where we need to
go, here are the steps to take. F11 check in with you in a couple
of months."
-------
Session 1: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part One
Thanking:
Influence or power people: Give them public recognition.
Give them more leadership; promote them.
Affiliators: Do something personal: a party in their honor,
a card everyone signed, a gift everyone contributed to.
Achievement people: Tell them specific things they've
accomplished that you have appreciated. Then give them
more responsibility.
It's worth spending some front-end time figuring out what
volunteers need and how to keep them satisfied. Continually
go through a cycle of evaluation. If you can retain the people
you've got, then two things happen. One, you don't have to
spend a lot of time running around recruiting more. Two, a
satisfied volunteer is the best possible person to recruit more
volunteers for you.
-------
Session 1: Designing Your Water Quality Study
Designing Your Water Quality Study
Moderator: Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Presenters: Geoff Dates; Julie Rector, Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology; Esperanza Standoff, University of Maine
Cooperative Extension Service
Geoff Dates
River Watch Network
Julie Rector
Washington Department of Ecology
Esperanza Standoff
University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service
While it may be tempting to get right into the water and begin
sampling, the experience of many groups suggests taking the
time to figure out whatyou want to do before you get wet! The
process of designing the study forces you to define your
purposes and a specific set of questions that you wish to
answer. This makes it much more likely that you'll select
equipment and procedures appropriate for your purposes,
that you'll look for the right indicators in the right places at
the right times, and that decision makers will use your data.
A study design deals with the why, what, where, when,
who, and how of the sampling and analysis:
A. WHY - Issues, questions, uses to be addressed by
monitoring
B. WHAT - Considerations for selecting water quality
indicators to be analyzed
C. HOW - Field and laboratory methods and quality
assurance/quality control considerations
D. WHERE - Sampling and analysis sites considerations
and site selection criteria
E. WHEN - Sampling schedule considerations for
frequency, time of year and tune of day
F. WHO - Responsibilities for various tasks
Each of these decisions is discussed below.
A. WHY - Issues, questions, uses
Why are you monitoring the water body? What specific
questions about it are you trying to answer? Who will use this
information? How will they use it? How good do your data
need to be to be useful? Design your sampling and analytical
activities specifically to address these questions.
I. Identify water uses and values
Your state's Water Quality Standards classify the waters of
the state. Each classification has a list of the designated uses
and values associated with it. For example, common Class A
uses for rivers and lakes include public water supply and
waters with significant ecological value or waters in their
natural condition. Class B uses and values include swim-
ming, fishing, good aesthetics, good aquatic habitat, etc.
Your monitoring effort may try to determine whether actual
conditions support the uses and values.
2. Identify issues facing the water body
What and where are the activities that threaten the uses and
values? Some threats are common to rivers, lakes, and
estuaries: sewage discharges, bacterial contamination, and
erosion/sedimentation, for example. Some are unique to the
water body. Specific river threats include dams and other
flow alterations and loss of riffle habitats, and the relatively
rapid downstream transport of pollution. Lake threats include
nuisance aquatic plant growth and water level fluctuations,
and estuary threats include shellfish contamination and dredg-
ing for navigation.
3. Determine questions to be answered by monitoring
Some examples:
• Does the water meet state water quality standards?
• Is the water safe to swim in?
• Where are the problem areas?
• What are the sources of problems?
• What is the overall condition of the water?
• What is the impact of pollution sources on aquatic life?
• How does the water body function?
• Is it safe to eat shellfish?
4. Define data quality goals
Data quality goals are narrative statements that link the
quality of the data with the intended use of the data. These
statements should identify whom you expect to use the data
and for what purpose.
For example, suppose you want to evaluate the health risk
of water contact at a popular swimming area. Your data
quality objective might be to produce data that your local
health officer could use to determine whether to post warning
signs. Or you might want your state water quality officials to
use your data to decide whether action is needed to clean up
pollution sources that might be causing contamination.
Data quality requirements refer to certain aspects of your
sampling and analysis. For sampling, data quality require-
ments would include how complete (do you have enough
samples?), representative (do they represent conditions in the
river?), and comparable (can you compare the results from
one site to another?) your data need to be to meet your data
quality objectives. For the analysis of the samples, data
quality requirements would include how precise (repeat-
able), accurate (agreement with a known reference), and
sensitive (the detection limit) your methods and equipment
need to be.
B. WHAT - Considerations for selecting waiter
quality indicators to be analyzed
Rivers, lakes, and estuaries are very complicated systems of
-------
Session 1: Designing Your Water Quality Study
inter-related physical, chemical, and biological characteris-
tics. It would be impossible to measure them all, so you must
select some of these characteristics as water quality indica-
tors. In choosing which indicators to monitor, you need to
consider (1) What question are you trying to answer? and (2)
How difficult, time-consuming, and expensive is the indica-
tor to sample and analyze?
1. What question are you trying to answer?
Here are some examples of questions asked about rivers,
lakes, and estuaries, and the indicators commonly selected to
answer them.
Examples of questions for rivers:
Does the river meet state water quality standards? Select
the water quality indicators that are included in the standards.
Indicators commonly included in the standards are bacteria,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, toxic substances, and
turbidity. Some states are developing biocriteria that use
benthic macroinvertebrates as the primary indicator of bio-
logical integrity. Some indicators in the standards are not
practical for volunteer groups to monitor—toxic substances
for example—because the tests are difficult.
What is the impact of a wastewater treatment plant on the
river? Sample for indicators contained in the discharge and
for characteristics in the river that would be affected by the
discharge. Examples include bacteria, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, turbidity and/or total suspended solids,
oxygen demand, nutrients (especially phosphorus), benthic
macroinvertebrates, and algal growth.
Examples of questions for lakes:
How does the water body function? Simple, cost-effective
indicators that require little training and inexpensive equip-
ment are Secchi disk transparency and temperature. Tem-
perature profile data will help monitors document lake strati-
fication. Additional monitoring may include observations
about land uses, dates of ice-on/ice off, storms, algae prob-
lems, location of aquatic plants, etc.
Are pollution sources aproblem? Screen areas for indica-
tors such as bacteria, total suspended solids, and turbidity. If
you decide to work up a water or nutrient budget, you'll need
estimates of lake volume as well as flows from the inlets and
outlets.
Examples of questions for estuaries:
How does the estuary work? Salinity will tell you about
the source and mix of river and ocean water you are sampling.
Nitrogen is often the nutrient of concern in estuaries (in
contrast to freshwater systems, where it is phosphorus).
Is it safe to eat the shellfish? Because fecal coliform
bacteria is the indicator used by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, volunteer groups often lest for this indicator.
2. How difficult, time-consuming, and expensive is the
indicator to sample and analyze?
Table 1 lists the degree of difficulty, time, and expense
involved for some common water quality indicators.
C. HOW - Field and laboratory methods;
quality assurance/quality control
Once you've selected the water quality indicators you will
measure, you then select a method for measuring them. The
three basic references for methods are:
1. American Public Health Association, et al. 1992.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 18th edition (generally referred to as
"Standard Methods").
2. U.S. EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. (EPA-440/4-90-010), Cincinnati,
OH. 3/83.
3. U.S. EPA. Methods for Microbiological Analysis of
Water and Wastes.
In these thick books you will find methods to analyze most
any water quality indicator you can think of. However, they
are written in a technical style that assumes a certain level of
experience with laboratory procedures. Many of the com-
mercially available kits use variations on these methods that
are more user-friendly for nonprofessionals.
Selecting a method involves three basic considerations:
1. Your data quality goals. Consider how sensitive the
method must be to enable you to detect levels of each
indicator that will be meaningful for your water body and for
the users. The most rigorous methods will be required to
address data quality goals for determining compliance with
water quality standards or assessing pollution impacts for use
by state and federal water quality agencies. Meeting commu-
nity awareness goals requires much less sensitive and rigor-
ous methods.
2. The difficulty of the method. Consider how much time
and how many people are needed to perform the method, and
how much skill is required. Will relatively small errors have
a dramatic impact on your results? How soon after collection
must the samples be analyzed?
3. Your available human and financial resources.
In some cases, you may decide that a particular indicator
is not worth analyzing because achieving your data quality
requirements is too expensive or complex.
Quality assurance/quality control measures
Quality assurance/quality control measures are those activi-
ties you undertake to demonstrate the accuracy (how close to
the real result you are) and precision (how reproducible your
results are) of your monitoring. Quality assurance can range
from measures as simple as clear documentation and training
of your field and laboratory procedures to complex sets of
"checks" (duplicate samples, split samples, blanks, audits,
and so on) designed to reveal problems in your field and
laboratory procedures. These are covered in detail in the
workshop on "Assuring Quality Data" in Session 2.
If you are using federal funds as part of your monitoring
effort, you may need to prepare a "Quality Assurance Project
-------
Session 1: Designing Your Water Quality Study
Plan." This is a document that is similar to your study design,
but is organized in a consistent manner for EPA review.
D. WHERE - Sampling and analysis site
considerations and site selection criteria
Sampling locations are selected to answer your question(s).
For example, if you want to establish baseline information on
the water body's overall health, sample a variety of sites that
represent the variety of conditions in the watershed. On the
other hand, if you want to measure the impact of a pollution
discharge on a water body, choose sites that will isolate the
impact being assessed. It is often desirable to select sites
historically monitored by the state water quality agency.
To select sample sites:
1. Use a topographic map to do a preliminary selection of
sites.
2. Field check each site for accessibility, safety, represen-
tativeness, and appropriateness. Record directions to the
site, a brief description of the site, and other relevant
information on a field sheet. Photograph each site at the
sample collection point.
3. Place the site description and the photograph in a loose-
leaf binder for permanent archiving.
Following are guidelines for selecting sampling locations
for specific types of water body:
For rivers: Sites should be located in the main river
current and away from the banks. If that is not possible, locate
the site next to the bank where homogeneous mixing of the
water occurs, such as on an outside bend of the river. Consider
variable flow patterns caused by artificial physical structures
such as dams, weirs, and wing walls. These may influence the
representative quality of the water.
Depending on your purpose, you may want to locate
sampling sites at areas of public use for water contact recre-
ation (e.g., swimming areas) or at habitat areas of sensitive
species (e.g., holding or spawning areas important to particu-
lar fish species).
For macroinvertebrate monitoring, sites should be shal-
low (1-2 feet deep), "riffle" areas with current between 0.4
and 2.0 feet per second, and rocky/gravelly bottoms.
Generally, three sites should be chosen to "bracket" areas
of erosion or point source pollution:
1. a reference or control site immediately upstream of any
potential impact;
2. an impact site immediately downstream of the alteration
Indicator
Bacteria
'.Z .,, ,,iZ }•:-'-
Dissolved Oxygen
^ v^s „ "X ^ "" ,
Oxygen Demand
'»• w i • ^ p
Temperature
pii _ ' _^7
Alkalinity
Turbidity "m
Total Suspended Solids
_._ f /
Secchi Disk
Nutrients (nitrogen/phosphorus)
Algal Growth
Weed Growth
Chlorophyll a
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Toxic Substances
Salinity
Difficulty
Moderate
Easy to moderate
' J ^ '' S i V
Moderate
Easy
Easy to moderate
Easy to moderate
, s
Easy
„' '
Moderate
' ' ' ^ % * /
Easy
Moderate
•; f Jf '
Moderate
Low
Low
S * f *
Low
Low
Moderate
s /
Low
Moderate
Low to moderate
Low to moderate
Moderate
Low to High
High
Low
Expense
! Moderate
! Low to Moderate
••! •• '
Moderate
Low
Low to Moderate
Low to Moderate
•"••
Low to Moderate
Moderate
, , •• •• '
Low
Moderate
Low to Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low to Moderate
High
Low to moderate
Table 1. Difficulty, time required, and expense for some common water quality indicators. (Note: For
expense, low = <$100, moderate = $100 - $2,000, high = >$2,000.)
-------
Session 1: Designing Your Water Quality Study
(at the point where the impact is completely integrated
with the water);
3. a recovery site downstream stream of the impact (where
the water has at least partially recovered from the
impact).
It is very important that these three sites be as similar as
possible in every respect except for the impact being as-
sessed.
For lakes: The first step is to get a bathymetric map of
your lake showing depth contours, inlets, and outlets. Once
sites are selected, identify three or four landmarks so you can
relocate the site.
For monitoring typical conditions, sampling stations should
be located in the deepest part of the lake or the deepest part
of significant arms or bays. Avoid near-shore areas, areas
near inlets, secluded areas, or downwind areas that accumu-
late windblown algae and debris.
To identify sources of pollution, you need to sample inlets
and outlets as well as lake sites.
For estuaries: Site selection in estuaries needs to account
for the complex interactions between tides and river flows. A
useful site selection tool is a Navigational Chart (from
NOAA) which gives depth, latitude and longitude, and navi-
gational aids.
Consider the influence of tides at your sampling location.
You may need to sample at several different depths in order
to get a representative sample, since fresh water from the
river will "float" on the salt water coming in with the tide.
Sample analysis locations
Where you analyze samples—i.e., in the field or in a lab—
depends on the water quality indicators you are using and the
requirements of the analytical methods you've chosen.
Simple field observations and measurements: Some of
the water quality indicators listed above are analyzed by
merely observing and estimating them or by simple direct
measurements. Examples include width, depth, current ve-
locity, water color, shading, bottom composition, algae cover,
temperature, and stream bank characteristics.
'More complicated field sampling and analysis: Some
indicators are likely to change either immediately or within
hours after the sample is collected. In this case, the indicator
can either be measured directly from the water (usually with
a meter) or a sample can be collected and immediately fixed
(stabilized) in the field, then analyzed later in a lab. Field
meters may be used for dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity,
for example. However, meters may be expensive, difficult to
operate, and/or less sensitive than laboratory methods. More-
over, the number of sites you can sample will be limited by
the number of meters you have.
Laboratory analysis: Laboratory analysis is required to
produce precise and accurate results for some indicators.
Bacteria, certain forms of phosphorus and nitrogen, sus-
pended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and benthic
macroin vertebrate identification to family level must be done
in the lab because they require special equipment or facilities
that can't be brought into the field. For others, like pH,
alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen, analysis in the lab is easier
but not required.
E. WHEN - Sampling schedule considerations
for frequency, time of year, and time of day
Next, you will put together your sampling schedule. Consider
time of day, holding time, frequency, and time of year.
Time of day: The time of day you collect your samples can
greatly affect your results. For example, in waters with dense
aquatic vegetation, dissolved oxygen levels fluctuate dra-
matically over a 24-hour period, with the lowest levels found
at sunrise and the highest levels in mid-afternoon. So if you
want the worst-case scenario, sample at sunrise. For estuar-
ies, if you want the worst-case scenario, sample consistently
at low tide. If you want to establish baseline conditions,
sample at all tidal stages.
Holding time: Take into account the maximum holding
time the sample can be held for each test. For example, the
maximum holding time for E. coli bacteria is 6 hours in a
container with ice.
Frequency: How often you need to sample depends on
what you want to know. For example, if you want to detect
sewage pollution events from a possibly failing wastewater
treatment plant, analyze bacteria as frequently as possible—
daily, perhaps even hourly. Benthic macroinvertebrates need
only be sampled once or twice per year in rivers.
Time of year: In deciding the time of year to conduct
sampling, consider the uses of the water. If you want to know
if the water is safe to swim in, sample in the summer. Also
take into account the ease of field work: Do you need to send
volunteers out in freezing weather?
For lakes, a major consideration is the seasonal "stratifi-
cation" (layering) and "turnover" that takes place as water
temperatures between the surface and the bottom change and
the water layers and mixes accordingly. Year round monitor-
ing will be required to determine when this happens.
F. WHO - Responsibilities for various tasks
Who will collect and analyze the samples? Who will train and
manage the volunteers? Make a list of all the tasks that need
to be done and identify someone to be in charge of each task.
Some of the jobs that need to be done are: volunteer coordi-
nator, field monitor, lab analyst, lab coordinator, sampling
team leader, data manager, quality assurance supervisor, etc.
Conclusion
The last step is to have your study design reviewed by
someone with experience in designing monitoring studies.
Finally, you need to re-evaluate and, if necessary, rework
your study design every year, in light of the results of your
previous year's work.
The study design process may seem like a lot of work. But
the time spent can ultimately save you and your volunteers
-------
Session 1: Designing Your Water Quality Study
many hours of frustration and wasted effort by assuring that
your monitoring matches your goals and resources.
References
American Public Health Association, et al. 1992. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
ISthed.
Dates, Geoff and Byrne, Jack. 1993. Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring Manual. River Watch Network.
Plafkin, James L, et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA 444/4-89-001.
Available from U.S. EPA, 4503F, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. E.P.A. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. 1983. Pb84-128677. Available from NTIS;
telephone 800/553-6847.
U.S. E.P.A. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for
State Managers. 1983. EPA 440/4-90-010. Available
from U.S. EPA, 4503F, 401 M St., SW, Washington,
DC 20460.
10
-------
Session 1: Understanding Biocriteria
Understanding Biocriteria
Moderator: Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League Save
Our Streams
Presenters: GretchenHayslip, U.S. EPA Region 10; Donald
Duff, U.S. Forest Service National Partnership Coordinator;
Dave Penrose, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Gretchen Hayslip
EPA Region 10
Developing Biocriteria—The EPA
Perspective
The ultimate objective of the Clean Water Act is "to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters." Historically, water quality programs
have focused on methods that evaluate the chemical integrity,
and to some extent the physical integrity, of our water bodies
(i.e., ambient measurement of conventional pollutants, toxic-
ity testing). To address our remaining water quality prob-
lems, we need to develop more comprehensive evaluations
that also measure the biological integrity.
EPA has established a national policy that states should
adopt biological criteria (numerical measures or narrative
descriptions of biological integrity) in their water quality
standards to protect aquatic life uses. At a minimum, states
are required to adopt narrative biocriteria during the 1991 -
1993 triennial review period. EPA has developed a number of
national guidance documents to assist states in this first step.
Biological integrity - "The ability of an ecosystem to
support and maintain a balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity, and functional organization
comparable to that of the natural habitats within a
region." (from Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley,
Ecological Perspectives on Water Quality Goals,
Environmental Management 5:55-68, 1981.)
Biological survey (biosurvey) - Collecting, process-
ing, and analyzing a representative portion of the
resident aquatic community to determine the
community structure and function.
Biological assessment - An evaluation of the biologi-
cal condition of a water body using biological
surveys and other direct measurements of resident
biota in surface waters.
Biological criteria - Numerical values or narrative
expressions that describe the reference biological
integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters
of a given designated aquatic life use.
RESULTANT BIOLOGICAL
COMMUNITY PERFORMANCE
"Principal goal of the Clean Water Act"
Habitat structure
Factors that influence and determine biological com-
munity performance:
Biotic interactions such as predation, disease, and re-
production
Chemical variables such as temperature, dissolved oxy-
gen, metals, and pH
Flow regime such as precipitation, runoff, and volume
Energy source such as sunlight, organic matter inputs,
and nutrient availability
Habitat structure such as substrate, riparian vegetation,
and channel width and depth.
To date, 35 states are using biological assessments and are
in the process of developing biocriteria; four states are using
biocriteria in their management or administrative process;
and six states—Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, Delaware
(marine only), Arkansas, and Georgia—have formally adopted
narrative or numeric biocriteria.
The following steps are recommended for developing
biocriteria:
1. Select unimpaired (or least-impacted) reference water
for each surface water body type in the ecoregion and
for each designated use.
2. Characterize the structure and function of resident
communities.
3. Establish a protocol for comparing reference sites to
impacted sites to determine if impairment has occurred.
Biological criteria require dkect measurement (biosurvey s)
of the aquatic community structure and function to determine
the biological integrity. This approach is particularly impor-
tant to assess the cumulative impacts of multiple discharges,
including nonpoint sources, and to detect the impacts of
habitat loss and alteration. Biological criteria supplement
rather than replace chemical and toxicological methods.
States are encouraged to develop water quality standards that
include all three assessment methods.
Some of the benefits of biocriteria are that they:
• directly measure the condition of the resource at risk
• detect problems other methods miss or underestimate
11
-------
Session 1: Understanding Biocriteria
• provide a systematic process for measuring progress
resulting from water quality programs
Biosurveys can detect the impacts of:
• Pollutants difficult to identify chemically or characterize
lexicologically
• Complex or unanticipated exposures (point, nonpoint,
storm events, spills)
• Habitat degradation (channelization, sediment, historical
contamination)
Some limitations of biocriteria are that they:
• do not directly address non-aquatic life uses (agriculture,
industrial, drinking water)
• may not predict impacts from contaminant accumulation
in sediment or tissue
• cannot directly identify the cause of an impact
Donald A. Duff
U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service/Trout
Unlimited
Forest Service Uses of Biocriteria
The USDA Forest Service uses biocriteria to monitor the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of streams on the
nation's 156 National Forests and grasslands. The Forest
Service administers some 128,000 miles of stream and 2.2
million surface acres of lakes and reservoirs on lands within
the National Forest System (NFS).
B iological criteria, such as macroinvertebrates and fish, as
well as habitat, have been developed to assess the relative
health of the aquatic ecosystem, and to demonstrate the
effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) in meet-
ing both federal and state water quality criteria. Some of the
more common bioindicators used by the Forest Service
include macroinvertebrates (stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies,
etc.), fishes (native cutthroats, sculpin, etc.), and plants
(Carex species, Salix species, etc.). These indicators were
selected based on scientific evidence that confirms that
measurable changes in these species or groups would indi-
cate trends in the abundance of other species or conditions of
biological communities, and the general health of watersheds
they were selected to represent.
Over the last 20 years, the Forest Service has been devel-
oping and refining an aquatic monitoring program using
macroinvertebrates as bioindicators. As biota, macro-
invertebrates are more abundant than fish; they may number
up to 80 species in a given stream, and may exceed 3,000
organisms per square foot of streambed. Species have been
categorized by individual tolerances to particular pollutants,
so their presence or absence can provide biological evidence
of habitat and water quality.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates have become preferred as
key bioindicators for a number of reasons. Population dy-
namics of macroinvertebrates are easier to follow than those
of most microorganisms. Another advantage is that these
organisms can repopulate a river section within three months
after a perturbation decimates a population. Thus macroin-
vertebrate populations reflect not only water quality degrada-
tion, but also the stream's recovery after the pollution has
been eliminated. On the other hand, even the briefest pertur-
bation can eliminate particularly sensitive species, and sub-
sequent sampling can provide early detection of impacts.
The Forest Service has developed a reliable index, called
the Biotic Condition Index (BCI), that provides a numerical
value expression of the biotic community condition and
permits a direct comparison, over time, of the condition and
trend of the ecosystem. The BCI has been developed from a
database of some 25,000 samples from over 1,000 waters,
primarily in the 12 Western states, since 1974. It is based
upon general and specific tolerances of species to the variety
of environmental stress conditions that may occur. The BCI
is an indicator of species richness and biomass, as well as
species and taxa dominance, and diversity within the aquatic
community.
Macroinvertebrate data offer a complex set of variables.
Each of the diversity indices developed over the years has its
strengths and weaknesses. None is perfect, not even the BCI,
and thus evaluations may require further interpretation based
upon other macroinvertebrate data and supporting physical
and chemical data. The total number of taxa in the community
has been recognized as an important factor for years, but it is
possible to have excellent diversity in a tolerant community
found in an ecosystem with a history of severe impacts. It is
also important to bear in mind that macroinvertebrate data are
site-specific and therefore average values for large diverse
areas should not be used for decisions.
The BCI is a versatile monitoring tool for evaluating
conditions in aquatic ecosystems and associated drainages
because it:
1. Measures a stream against its own potential, not that of
another stream;
2. Is sensitive to most forms of environmental stress;
3. Is applicable to various types and sizes of streams;
4. Provides a basis for assessment of unstressed condi-
tions;
5. Is independent of sample size, if the sample contains a
representative assemblage of the species in the commu-
nity;
6. Is based upon easily acquired data;
7. Meshes with and supports stream habitat and water
quality data;
8. Is easily understood, like a score on a test;
9. Is particularly useful for monitoring trends;
10. Is based mainly upon tolerances to pollution of benthic
invertebrate taxa in the sampled community.
12
-------
Session 1: Understanding Biocriteria
The BCI uses several additional parameters to help assess
relative conditions of the species and their habitats. These
parameters are: (1) stream gradient; (2) stream bottom sub-
strate; (3) riparian vegetation; (4) sulfate (mg/1); (5) total
alkalinity (mg/1); and (6) specific conductance.
The scale of BCI values listed below can be used as an
indication of the health of a stream ecosystem upon which a
defined management strategy can be based for each stream
reach.
BCI Value
above 90
80 to 90
72 to 79
below 72
Stream Condition
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The BCI is easily understood because it is like a score on
a test. If the score is in the 90s, the condition of the aquatic
ecosystem is close to its natural potential. A BCI in the 80s
indicates that the aquatic ecosystem is in good condition, but
could be better. A BCI score in the 70s indicates some water
and habitat degradation. A score of less than 70 indicates
severe aquatic ecosystem impacts usually requiring long-
term restoration.
Macroinvertebrate data and the BCI have had practical
application for land managers and decision makers. For
example, the BCI has been used to evaluate and recommend
changes in livestock grazing uses.
Each invertebrate species has a specialized niche. When
that niche is damaged, a negative population response will
soon follow. For example, many invertebrate species depend
on the interstitial spaces between rocks to shelter them from
the current velocities common to mountain stream riffles. If
these spaces are filled by sediment, the number of associated
benthic species will decrease. However, there may be a
corresponding increase in species that burrow into sediment.
Thus, a land manager who notes a shift in community
composition from intolerant species (clean water) toward
those species tolerant of sediment can conclude that sediment
is accumulating in the stream substrates in significant quan-
tities over natural conditions. This change in composition is
important to fish populations since it causes a shift in avail-
able food sources. It may also indicate changing conditions of
fish spawning and over-wintering habitat because both are
adversely affected by increased sediment accumulation.
Invertebrates can be used to monitor changes along a
stream as well as in it. One group of taxa are called shredders
because they use deciduous leaves in a stream as food. An
abundance of these taxa can indicate ample streamside veg-
etation, while a scarcity of these taxa may point to a pertur-
bation that has reduced or eliminated streamside plants.
Positive or negative effects from almost every activity that
occurs in a drainage are eventually reflected in the macroin-
vertebrate community composition of the streams that drain
it. This community composition can reveal the health of the
ecosystem, provide a warning system, or reflect the relative
intensity of pollution problems. Macroinvertebrate analysis
often can identify the type(s) of pollution, making it a valu-
able tool for conscientious land managers.
Since the Forest Service began its biological monitoring
programs in the 1970s, all nine Regions of the Forest Service,
involving more than 50 percent of all the National Forests,
have used macroinvertebrates as their bioindicators. They
have utilized the biocriteria developed by the Forest Service
Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Laboratory in Provo, Utah.
These biocriteria and sampling protocols are contained
within a Forest Service handbook, which provides survey
techniques and sampling methodology. (A copy may be
obtained by writing to Donald Duff at USD A Forest Service,
125 S. State St., Salt Lake City, UT 84138.)
The Forest Service will continue to utilize biological
criteria to assess conditions on National Forest System lands.
Many volunteer water quality monitoring opportunities are
available from local National Forest Offices in your area.
This affords a good opportunity for you, the public, to become
involved and participate in the management of land and water
resources on your National Forests.
David Penrose
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
Biocriteria in North Carolina
The design and use of biological criteria, or biocriteria, has
become a priority issue among most state biological monitor-
ing groups and many federal programs. A 1991 EPA docu-
ment noted that 31 state biological monitoring groups are
actively involved in the research, development, or implemen-
tation of biological criteria. In addition, nearly one-half of the
states have adopted the use of rapid bioassessment protocols
for the assessment of biological criteria.
Two types of biocriteria are being generated: narrative and
numeric criteria. Many states, including North Carolina,
have opted to establish narrative biological criteria in their
water quality regulations. Narrative biocriteria are general
statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological
integrity and water quality for a given water quality use
designation. Numeric biocriteria are based on the same
concept as narrative biocriteria, but include discrete quanti-
tative values.
Development of biocriteria in North Carolina
North Carolina has approximately 37,000 miles of freshwa-
ter streams and rivers with 2,700 known point sources of
pollution and myriad sources of nonpoint source runoff.
Before 1974, North Carolina monitored water quality by
13
-------
Session 1: Understanding Biocriteria
collecting data for conventional pollutants in streams receiv-
ing poorly treated wastes bearing large amounts of biochemi-
cal, oxygen-demanding substances. At that time, the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management consisted
entirely of engineers, chemists, and technicians.
In 1974, North Carolina's Division of Environmental
Management hired its first biologist and began to use EPA-
approved methods to gather data on plankton, periphyton,
and benthos. As collection of in-stream biological data was
new to the state, division managers had to be convinced of its
value as a tool in water quality management.
Most of the surveys prior to 1980 were conducted using
either EPA-approved collection techniques such as Hester-
Dendy multiplate samplers or kick net samples from riffles.
Eventually, the biologists within the Division of Environ-
mental Management recognized a need to develop a new
macroinvertebrate sampling methodology. The artificial sub-
strates then being used did not sample the entire benthic
community, required repeated trips to the site, and were often
found missing on return trips because of vandalism or high
flows. Therefore, semiqualitative techniques were devel-
oped (Lenat 1988) that improved ways data were used for
biological assessment and proved to be more cost effective.
As a result, more useful criteria and bioclassifications were
developed. The bioclassifications were developed using data
generated from reference streams in each of the three major
ecoregion types in North Carolina: Mountains, Piedmont,
and Coastal Plain. Biocriteria for additional ecoregion types
are currently being analyzed.
Our collection protocols define two collection techniques:
full scale and EPT. For full scale collections, 10 samples are
collected at each location and all benthic insects are collected
and identified. For EPT collections, only four samples are
collected and only Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera are collected and identified. The full scale method
takes about two hours per site, while the EPT method takes
about one-half hour.
The taxa richness criteria for wadable freshwater streams
in North Carolina are listed in Table 1. These data include
criteria for full scale and EPT investigations.
In addition to taxa richness, biotic index values, which are
based on the pollution tolerances of each individual species,
also are calculated for each sample. Equal weight is given to
each metric, the biotic index and EPT taxa richness, in
assigning bioclassifications. The use of both metrics has
proven to be beneficial, particularly in instances where the
taxa richness values alone are borderline between classifica-
tions.
Biological information is incorporated extensively into
North Carolina's water quality program. The uses of biologi-
cal information range from identifying appropriate classifi-
cations for waters within entire watersheds to determining
compliance of specific discharges with narrative standards
for protecting aquatic life.
Specific biological indices, or numeric biocriteria, and
metrics are not included in North Carolina's water quality
regulations. However, biological data and biocriteria are
intrinsically linked to the use classifications and to standards
that protect these uses. These data and criteria are used
extensively to identify waters of special concern and those
with exceptional water quality.
Sources of variability
The implementation of biological criteria into water qual-
ity regulations will be an efficient regulatory tool if data
variability can be adequately addressed. Some sources of
data variability are discussed below.
1. Seasonality. Taxa richness of benthic macro-
invertebrates has been shown to vary with season (Hynes
1972). Spring and winter peaks in abundance and total taxa
richness values of mayflies and stoneflies have been noted in
several studies in mountain and upper piedmont streams. For
example, 5-6 Isoperla species are often collected from moun-
tain streams in North Carolina only during winter months.
Furthermore, seasonal peaks in productivity likely shift from
one ecoregion to another as the seasons advance. Seasonal
variation is greatest in undisturbed streams, while these
changes are less likely in highly polluted stream systems.
How can biological criteria be adjusted to account for
seasonality? Making proportional adjustments for all loca-
tions by season does not appear to be an accurate method.
Table 1. Biological Criteria (EPT Taxa Richness)3 for Different Ecoregions of North
Carolina Used to Determine Water Quality (WQ) Levels for Specific Use Classificationsb
Full Scale
EPT
WO Rating
Excellent
Good
Good/Fair
Fair
Poor
Mountains
32-41
22-31
12-21
0-11
Piedmont
24-31 '
16-23
8-15
0-7
Coastal
>27
21-27
14-20
7-13
0-6
Mountains
>35
28-35
19-27
• 11-18
0-10
Piedmont
>27
21-27
14-20
7-13
0-6
Coastal
>23
18-23
12-17
6-11
0-5
"EPT Taxa Richness for Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+Trichoptera
14
-------
Session 1: Understanding Biocriteria
Rather, one possible way to correct for the effects of season-
ally is to subtract out the seasonally dominant taxa before the
data are used to assess impacts. However, the critical step in
this type of analysis is knowledge of the ecology, and particu-
larly life cycles, of benthic taxa from ecoregion-specific
reference locations. Biologists in North Carolina are in the
process of producing a list of "spring species" that should be
useful for much of the Southeast. The importance of control
sites, especially ecoregion reference sites, cannot be overem-
phasized in making water quality assessments.
2. Stream size (order) or river continuum. Taxa rich-
ness values tend to increase with stream order from first
through fifth orders (Minshall et al. 1985). This trend is
closely related to habitat diversity; whereas small first-order
streams are often habitat-limited because of size or flow,
larger streams (greater than fifth-order) are often habitat*
limited due to the effects of sedimentation. Midorder streams
are the most diverse.
North Carolina investigations have indicated that taxa
richness values need to be corrected for stream size. Cur-
rently North Carolina is using a correction factor of 1.45 for
streams 1-2 meters in width (< 1 square mile catchment size)
and 1.25 for streams 3-4 meters in width (1-3.5 square mile
catchment size). North Carolina's adjustments to criteria are
applied to multiple-habitat sampling. These patterns may not
be the same for single-habitat or 100-count samples.
3. Defining the reference condition. Most state
biomonitoring groups typically establish several types of
reference locations during monitoring programs. These can
include upstream-downstream, near field-far field and
ecoregion-specific reference locations. The ecoregion con-
cept suggests that streams within a relatively uniform geo-
graphic area will have similar faunas, or at least similar
community structure (Hughes and Larsen 1988).
Examples of the process of reference site selection are
discussed in the EPA Program Guide (EPA 1990) and in the
Stream Regionalization Project (SRP) in Ohio (Larsen et al
1986 and Whittier et al. 1987). Several questions concerning
reference site location are still under investigation. These
include: How large must the reference catchments be, and
should they be standardized? How many reference locations
should there be per ecoregion, and how often should the data
be collected to ensure statistical significance? How well will
the ecoregion concept apply to other surface water types
(wetlands, for example)?
4. Use of multi-metric indices. Several applied indices
are currently available for measuring the biological integrity
of aquatic systems. These include several multi-metric indi-
ces such as the Index of Biotic Integrity or IBI (Karr 1981),
the Invertebrate Community Index or ICI, and the Index of
Well Being or Iwb (Ohio EPA 1988), which incorporate
several taxonomic and functional aspects of community
health into a metric. Other common indices used in Region 4
states include taxa richness, EPT taxa richness, species
pollution tolerance values, and species diversity indices.
There has been considerable discussion dealing with the
choice of metrics for use in biomonitoring programs. The
metrics chosen have historically been tied into the collection
process and how the information will be used in regulation.
Should all states be encouraged to standardize analysis metrics
to permit ecoregional comparisons? Biologists in EPA Re-
gion 4 have encouraged the development of interstate (i.e.,
Mississippi-Alabama), as well as interregional (i.e., North
Carolina- Virginia, Kentucky-Ohio) biological investigations.
5. Habitat analyses. The assessment of habitat quality is
an essential element in biological investigations. Habitat
assessment techniques have been described in the Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol document (Plafkin et al. 1989). All
states and volunteer groups should be encouraged to develop
accurate habitat assessment techniques. However, it should
also be realized that habitat assessment techniques will need
to be tested to assure validity, and regionalized for different
states and ecoregions.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Biological
Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. (EPA 440/5-90-004). Health and Ecological
Criteria Division. Washington, DC.
Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1988. Ecoregions: An
Approach to Surface Water Protection. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1972. The Ecology of Running Waters.
University of Toronto Press, 555 pp.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish
Communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams
using a qualitative collection method for benthic macro-
invertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(3):222-233.
Larsen, D.P., J.M. Omernik, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm,
T.R. Whittier, A.J. Kinney, A.L. Gallant and D.R.
Dudley. 1986. Correspondence Between Spatial
Patterns in Fish Assemblages in Ohio Streams and
Aquatic Ecoregions. Environmental Management
10(6):815-828.
Minshall, G.W., R.C. Peterson, Jr., and C.F. Nimz. 1985.
Species Richness in Streams of Different Size from the
Same Drainage Basin. American Naturalist 125:16- 88.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. The Role of
Biological Data in Water Quality Assessment, Volume
1. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life.
Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment,
Surface Water Section. Columbus, Ohio.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross and
R.M Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
Use in Streams and Rivers. EPA 444/4-89-001.
Whittier, et al. 1987. The Ohio Stream Regionalization
Project: A Compendium of Results. U.S. EPA Freshwa-
ter Research Lab, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-87-025.
15
-------
Session 1: Defining Data Use
Defining Data Use: Are We All Speaking
the Same Language?
Moderator: Abby Markowitz, Maryland Save Our Streams
Presenters: Liz Hoenig, City of Olympia Stream Team;
Patricia Hurley, Alabama Department of Environmental
Management; Abby Markowitz
Abby Markowitz
Maryland Save Our Streams
Patricia Hurley
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Liz Hoenig
City of Olympia Public Works Department
As people involved in volunteer monitoring, we are all
familiar with the term "data use." In our experience as
program coordinators we have increasingly recognized that
there is often a language gap among various program partici-
pants when it comes to defining and understanding data use.
Further, agencies and organizations at the local, state, and
federal levels often define terms differently among them-
selves. Add in the media, and other constituencies that may
have an interest in data, and we have an even larger diver-
gence of understanding.
An experience in Alabama illustrates this dilemma: In
participant evaluations of Alabama Water Watch training
sessions, presenters' terminology consistently received low
marks from volunteers. Patty Hurley, with the DEM, ex-
plained that the language used by presenters was "filled with
acronyms, and referred to organizations and programs too
numerous to mention; words were inaccurately interpreted
and scientific standards misunderstood." This evaluation has
enabled DEM and Water Watch to implement strategies
designed to improve communication among partners.
In order to use data effectively, we all need to speak the
same language. And each of us, to be effective, must be able
to understand and articulate those different ideas. What we
need is a common language and way of articulating how and
why differing entities use data.
Demystifying the world of watershed and water resource
management professionals is a critical step in forging a
shared understanding since it enables communities to under-
stand how agencies work and what their responsibilities are.
Although volunteers become monitors for various reasons,
they almost always have one thing in common: the desire to
protect and/or improve a water body. This means, then, that
monitors want the data they collect to have a positive impact
on water quality.
But because there is a lack of understanding concerning
both what agencies actually do and how they do it, there is
often frustration on the part of volunteers and fear of citizen
anger on the part of agencies. For most volunteers, using data
implies tangible action by someone or some group in a
decision-making position, such as the passage of an ordi-
nance; enforcement of an existing regulation; or implemen-
tation of measures that will correct a problem or ensure
against future problems. Most of us, before we get into this
field, don't really understand the processes that must happen
before any of these actions can be taken. Clarify ing process
is a critical factor in defining data use.
For example, someone who works for a state agency may
say data are being used "to develop a baseline." While this is
certainly a valid use, it has very little meaning to most
volunteers. Therefore, it is not enough to reply to a volunteer's
question, "How are the data I collect being used?" with "to
develop a baseline." The answer must also include an expla-
nation of why baseline data are essential in documenting
conditions and how this documentation relates to water
quality protection.
Similarly, saying data are used in 305(b) reports is mean-
ingless unless one actually knows what the significance of a
305(b) report is. Do most people know that the 305(b) is how
EPA and Congress learn what the "state of the states' waters"
is? Do they also know that often resources are allocated and
programs are implemented based on the results of water
quality assessments like the 305(b) and a variety of other
assessment reports done at the local, state, and federal levels?
These are important concepts for citizen volunteers to under-
stand. Reports, assessments, and databases are the tools of
watershed management and water quality protection. Build-
ing a volunteer monitoring movement requires that we equip
volunteers with a knowledge of how these tools work. Oth-
erwise it is like asking volunteers to measure temperature
without showing them how to read the thermometer.
Engaging in ongoing dialogue about data use can lead the
way to developing new monitoring programs and new uses
for data. For example, Maryland Save Our Streams' Project
Heartbeat, a volunteer biological monitoring program, was
piloted as a program in Baltimore County as a way to collect
data on existing conditions for local land use planning. Now,
due to the County's need to monitor the success of capital
waterway improvement programs, discussions are underway
to adapt Heartbeat to assess the impact of best management
practices in stream restoration programs.
Building a common language also requires us to expand
our vision. According to the latest edition of the National
Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs,
"education" is the number one data use listed by volunteer
programs. However, many participants during this workshop
16
-------
Session 1: Defining Data Use
felt that monitoring for educational purposes implied a "fluffy"
program that didn't really provide "high-quality data." We
educate people in the hopes that this will eventually lead to
behavioral changes. Changing behaviors is more than a
commitment to environmentally friendly products, lawn care,
household disposal, etc. Education and behavioral changes
also include the capacity for all stakeholders to share the
responsibility for setting an agenda, developing strategies,
creating a constituency for those strategies, and implement-
ing appropriate action. While this can be a long and frustrat-
ing process, it is certainly not "fluffy." The creation of an
educated and articulate watershed constituency that includes
all stakeholders would most definitely be a positive behav-
ioral change—and a significant use of data—in most water-
sheds.
The Olympia Stream Team program lists among its data
users "volunteers, City and County environmental staff,
managers and elected officials, community organizations,
state and federal agencies." One data use that each of these
partners shares is the ability of the program to bring them
together as stakeholders. Each entity uses the data to educate
themselves and each other. Data collection and use as a
relationship builder is an educational use that may often be
overlooked.
Another area of our language surrounding data use that
needs some work are the concepts and terms associated with
"red flags" and "watchdogging." These terms are popular
with volunteers because they imply a stewardship ethic;
taking care of that stream, creek, or lake. However, these
same terms often strike fear into the hearts of regulators and
management professionals who know the reah'ty of not being
able to immediately deal with every problem.
As discussed earlier, this problem can be partially allevi-
ated by an understanding of governmental process. It can be
further alleviated by a willingness on the part of agencies and
volunteers to work in partnership to develop methods and
strategies for community reporting that don't start out in a
combative posture and to create systems for more timely
mitigation of problems. We might also alter the terms we use.
For instance, we might substitute problem identification for
watchdogging as the latter term can lead to the idea that there
is a deliberate effort to cover up or ignore problems.
The following terms were listed as uses of volunteer-
collected data in the National Directory:
• education
• problem identification
• local decisions
• research
• nonpoint source assessment
• watershed planning
• habitat restoration
• water classification/standards
• enforcement
• legislation
• 305(b) reporting
Each of these terms could benefit from further definition.
We recommend that each of us take this list and, in the context
of our own programs, learn to articulate them from the
perspectives of various partners and stakeholders such as
local, state, and federal government; volunteers and commu-
nities; the media; businesses; and academia. This ongoing
exercise will help in beginning to develop that common
language. The more specific, accurate, and positive we can be
in describing the uses of data, the better able everyone will be
to develop partnerships and implement environmental im-
provement—which is why we are all here in the first place.
17
-------
Session 1: Business Partnerships
Collaborative Partnerships:
It's Good Business
Moderator: Linda Macpherson, CH2M Hill
Presenters: Sharon Behar, River Watch Network; John
Jackson, Unified Sewerage Agency; Meg Kerr, University
of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center; Jack McGowan,
Stop Oregon Litter and Vandalism (SOLV); Darrell Simms,
City of Portland Environmental Services
Sharon Behar
River Watch Network
Creating Partnerships with
Businesses
Why establish partnerships?
There's a big difference between simply accepting a donation
from a business, and forming a partnership. There are two
reasons why it's important for local monitoring groups to
consider creating partnerships. First, in the design phase of a
project, we encourage River Watch groups to incorporate all
facets of the community. This builds trust, which is especially
important if a controversial issue arises later on. The second
reason is to diversify your funding base.
Volunteer monitoring groups are in a strong position to
form partnerships with businesses right now. River monitor-
ing and water quality are hot issues today. Also, local busi-
nesses are reaffirming the importance of their role in the
community, and most of our groups are local.
Benefits
The benefits businesses get are the marketing, the public
relations, the bridges between the business and the commu-
nity—and also, quite frankly, businesses want to be among
the first to know if a water quality problem is found. If they' ve
been involved in the monitoring project from the beginning,
they don't have to read about it in the newspaper.
For volunteer monitoring groups, the benefits are in-
creased visibility, increased diversity in our members, access
to services that we might not otherwise be able to obtain,
funding that is usually obtained more easily and quickly than
foundation funding, and an increase in our volunteer base.
Drawbacks
There are also drawbacks. For the business, the decision-
making process of a nonprofit volunteer organization can be
very frustrating.
For volunteer monitoring groups, the business partnership
can decrease our viability in some realms. We have to be
careful about the image we project to the community. We
don't want to be seen as "selling out." It's important to be
extremely careful in choosing the language used to describe
the partnership. There may be resistance on the part of our
staff to "sleeping with the enemy." If there is debate in the
volunteer organization over whether to form a partnership
with a particular business, consider two questions: (1) Does
this partnership give us access to people who will change how
the company operates? and (2) If we decide not to form the
partnership, or not to take the money, how does this further
our mission?
Kinds of business donations
There are two basic kinds of donations: funding and noncash
gifts. Funding can be through corporate foundation grants,
corporate giving, matching gift programs, or awards. Corpo-
rate foundation grants tend to be for larger amounts of money,
but the funding is difficult to get. Corporate giving and
matching gifts are easier routes for most volunteer groups.
Many corporations have a variety of award services for
community groups.
Having a business sponsor an event is another very popu-
lar route. But I caution people not to do events to raise money.
The real reason for an event is to build awareness and gain
publicity.
Noncash gifts can include public relations, products, ser-
vices and facilities, employee volunteerism, and program-
related investments.
Elements of a healthy partnership
These are some of the elements that we have found essential
for building healthy partnerships:
1. A contact person—someone in the business who can tell
you the ins and outs, and look out for you.
2. Assessment of the corporate culture. Does their mission
fit your mission? Do they have a centralized or decen-
tralized decision-making process? (You'll have an
easier time if their process is centralized.)
3. Support of top management. The CEO needs to be the
one who goes out and collects the first water sample.
4. Clear wording describing the partnership.
5. Clear expectations. What does the business want? What
do you want?
6. Clear roles. Who will do the PR? Who will write the
press releases? Whose job is it to get the business's
employees out to volunteer?
7. Evaluation. Evaluate regularly to clarify your roles and
expectations.
Steps in creating a partnership
1. Decide if it is right for your group. Talk to your board
and your volunteers before you approach the corpora-
tion or business.
2. Find contact people in the business. Don't make cold
18
-------
Session 1: Business Partnerships
calls. Brainstorm with your board and your volunteers;
find out who knows whom. Put together a list.
3. Design clear materials that will show the business who
you are, what you're doing, and what you want from
them. Don't be afraid to ask for what you want. You
can offer an array: "Here are four things that we need;
what would work for you?"
4. Do your homework. Read their annual report; find out
what kind of giving they've done before. Match your
needs with what you know about the company.
5. Now comes the actual meeting. Don't go alone; bring a
staff member, board member, or volunteer. It helps to
bring someone whose style is different from yours.
6. At the meeting, focus on general agreements before you
get to the specifics.
7. Take the time to work out the details, and put them in
writing. This process can take several months.
8. Evaluate.
Meg Ken-
Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island
Using Business Partnerships to
Enhance Volunteer Monitoring
Current status of corporate funding for
monitoring
Currently, volunteer monitoring groups in the United States
do not receive significant amounts of funding from busi-
nesses. Data compiled for the National Directory of Volun-
teer Environmental Monitoring Programs, Fourth Edition,
show that only 81 of the 517 programs listed in the directory
(15.7%) receive some portion of their budget from corporate
sources. Of these programs, only 22 (4%) receive more than
half of their funding from corporations.
These numbers are disappointing. Volunteer monitoring
programs need to make an effort to develop linkages with
businesses in their community. Monitors need to creatively
evaluate a business's environmental interests, compare these
interests to their own monitoring goals, and create partner-
ships with the business that will benefit both the environment
and the bottom line.
Why should businesses support environmental
causes?
A growing body of research demonstrates a correlation
between socially responsible business practices and good
financial performance. Covenant In vestment Management in
Chicago has compiled a database that compares corporate
social and environmental performance with financial perfor-
mance. The largest companies in the country were evaluated
for their social and environmental records, ranked, and then
evaluated for their financial performance. Covenant's top
200 business stocks increased 100% in value over the last five
years while the bottom 200 were up 76.6%. This compares to
the Standard and Poors 500 which was up 85.4%. According
to Anthony Carfang, President of Covenant, "Essentially the
most important criteria suggest that companies must focus on
long-term factors which increase shareholder value and avoid
business practices which erode shareholder value. Factors
which enhance shareholder value include the organization
and productivity of labor, customer loyalty, employee ben-
efits, training, supplier relations, and access to capital. Fac-
tors identified by the research as eroding shareholder value
include poor labor relations, unsafe workplaces, environ-
mental noncompliance, regulatory difficulties, unsafe prod-
ucts, and unfair competitive practices."
Roger Starch Worldwide conducted a survey for Cone
Communications, a marketing and public relations firm in
Boston, to examine whether Americans favor socially re-
sponsible companies and products. According to the survey,
when given a choice between two products equal in price and
quality, 78 percent of the 1,981 adults surveyed were more
likely to buy a product associated with a cause they cared
about, 66 percent said they would switch brands to support a
cause they care about, and 54 percent would pay more for a
product that supported a cause they cared about.
Linkages between businesses and water
monitoring projects
Volunteer monitoring programs designed to assess water
quality and work toward solutions to pollution problems have
a lot to offer a business partner. Many businesses are depen-
dent on water and have a vested interest in keeping the water
clean. Manufacturing facilities, for example, often need
clean water for their industrial processes and for cooling
machinery. Many times, this process water is directly re-
moved from a nearby river or lake. A volunteer monitoring
program should be able to demonstrate to the industry that
removing pollution above their water withdrawal will save
money. Some of these savings can be invested in the group's
long-range monitoring projects.
Many industries also dispose of their treated wastes in
nearby surface waters. These industries are interested in
maintaining the quality of the water above and below their
plant, since they are liable for water quality violations that
may result from their discharge. These industries are often
required to monitor their effluent and the receiving water
body. Partnerships built with these industries can sometimes
include an exchange of in-kind laboratory services.
Regulated industries rely on a careful work force to
operate pollution control equipment and prevent spills and
accidents on site. Many times, the more the employees know
about the reasons behind control requirements and the impact
of uncontrolled emissions on the local environment, the more
careful they are on the job. Environmental monitoring groups
can easily provide this education in exchange for monetary
support for their monitoring program.
A number of tourism industries are dependent on a clean
environment. The recreational fishing industry is a signifi-
19
-------
Session 1: Business Partnerships
cant part of the local economy in many areas. Bait and tackle
stores, canoe and boat rentals, fishing guides, motels, and
restaurants can be supported by recreational fishermen. Since
these industries are clearly vested in clean water, they are
often open to partnerships with monitoring programs. These
partnerships often include donations of boats and equipment
for monitoring events and joint sponsorships of cleanups and
festivals.
Creating a business partnership
There are any number of reasons why businesses could be
interested in a monitoring partnership. Each partnership is
unique, but there are some general principles that can help
when developing a marketing strategy for your monitoring
program.
1. Identify what the business needs that your program is
uniquely able to provide. Do they need clean water? Do
they need publicity? Are they interested in breaking
into a new marketing niche that your group has access
to?
2. Identify what the business can provide to your organiza-
tion. We all would like financial support, but many
times businesses have other capabilities that can greatly
enhance our programs at little or no cost to the busi-
ness. For example, many businesses have public
relations staff and good media connections, and they
can help with publicity. Businesses often have in-house
publications departments that can assist with layout and
production of brochures and reports. Some businesses
can easily host events, such as lunches and conferences.
3. Identify ways to involve employees in your event or
organization. This can be a selling point for your
partnership.
4. Identify the audience reached by your organization. Are
these individuals potential customers for your business
partner?
5. Identify an individual in the business who is sympa-
thetic to your cause. If possible, look for someone in
upper management who can influence business deci-
sions. Are any of the managers active in local environ-
mental organizations like the Sierra Club or Audubon?
Who are the hikers, boaters, fishers?
6. Develop a carefully crafted presentation on your
partnership that highlights the benefits to the business.
7. Once the partnership is established, be sure you are
giving the business what you promised. If they need
publicity, be sure you mention them in all your press
releases, in your reports, and in your discussions with
the media. If they are interested in clean water, keep
them up-to-date on your monitoring successes and
failures.
8. Maintain an open dialog with the business. Continue to
re-evaluate the needs of both partners as the partnership
develops and grows.
River Rescue: A successful partnership
River Rescue is a volunteer monitoring program focusing on
Rhode Island's urban rivers. It was established in 1990 as a
partnership between Citizens Bank, the University of Rhode
Island (URI), and Rhode Island Sea Grant. Citizens Bank
provides primary financial support for the program with
supplemental funding from RI Sea Grant. URI provides the
technical expertise for the monitoring program.
Citizens Bank initiated River Rescue in an effort to distin-
guish themselves from their competitors. All banks offer the
same services, but few take an active interest in environmen-
tal protection and stewardship. Citizens Bank was also inter-
ested in promoting environmental stewardship to their em-
ployees, and the monitoring program provided an opportu-
nity for Citizens Bank staff to work cooperatively on environ-
mental issues with the local community. The monitoring
program was also a logical extension of the corporate mission
of Citizens Bank's parent company, the Royal Bank of
Scotland. The Royal Bank of Scotland recognizes that envi-
ronmental protection is an important concern of their custom-
ers, and actively encourages environmental protection ef-
forts in their subsidiaries.
The special assets of Citizens Bank and URI are effec-
tively used within the River Rescue partnership. Citizens
Bank public relations staff promote and support River Res-
cue events, Citizens Bank produces River Rescue reports,
and Citizens Bank employees volunteer for the program. URI
provides all the scientific support for the program. In addi-
tion, the program is coordinated by URI staff who recruit and
train volunteers, and work with other environmental pro-
grams to promote stewardship for the rivers.
Darrell Simms
City of Portland Environmental Services
Involving Minority Populations in
Business Partnerships
I'd like to give you some ideas on how you might include
people of color as you go out and build partnerships with
businesses. In fact, that's my job—I'm a Workforce Consult-
ant in Diversity for the City of Portland. I help the City of
Portland involve women, minorities, and youth in business
opportunities.
As you begin to build business partnerships, ask yourself,
How can I involve minority populations? How can I involve
those populations that might seem not to be interested?
Minorities are interested, but they don't necessarily respond
to the "traditional approach." People like to do business with
people who look like them. Coca-Cola, the only Fortune 500
corporation with a minority CEO, has increased its profits
225 percent by being able to focus on minority populations.
Involving minorities in the environmental movement takes
creativity. It takes having consultants come in to work with
20
-------
Session 1: Business Partnerships
you. It takes training. It takes a "major paradigm shift." For
example, I'm going to be addressing a Korean group soon,
and they are going to provide a translator. That's creative.
One of the greatest ways to get minorities involved is
through church ministers. Or go to the Urban League; they
know how to get people out to meetings. In the Asian
community, it's very important to seek out the business
leadership.
Be aware of some of the problems in the business world.
Businesses are being downsized. Show some understanding
and sympathy for their problems.
There's a major competition for partnerships with busi-
nesses. Businesses only have so many resources. Some of
your best champions are the minorities because they haven't
been asked before. That's fresh talent.
_
21
-------
Session 1: Observational Monitoring
Observational Monitoring
Moderator: Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire
Cooperative Extension
Presenters: Tom Murdoch,* Adopt-A-Stream Foundation;
Ivy Frances, City of Portland Environmental Services; Ken
Pritchard,* Adopt-A-Beach
Ivy Frances
City of Portland Environmental Services
Observational Monitoring Using
Streamwalk
There are many citizen monitoring programs, manuals, and
techniques out there. Make sure the one you choose gathers
the data you want, and is a program that can be successful for
you.
Streamwalk is a citizen observational monitoring pro-
gram developed by U.S. EPA, Region 10. The program is
based on a short check-off list of observations made about the
stream and surrounding areas. Streamwalk is geared for
citizens from the sixth grade to adult.
At the City of Portland Environmental Services, we built
a program around Streamwalk to establish two things: con-
sistency in data collection and support for citizen monitors.
Because we had an established program, when citizens wanted
to volunteer, we had the a program ready to put their efforts
into. We did not have to develop a customized program for
each request, which can be time-consuming and costly.
Through communication and feedback built into the program
we provided support to each Streamwalker.
Each new Streamwalker is trained by an experienced
Streamwalker. Training is important, to maintain consis-
tency. Each Streamwalker chooses the site or sites which he
or she will monitor. Training at the Streamwalker's monitor-
ingsiteisoptimal.EachStreamwalkerreceivesaStreamwalk
Kit—a plastic filing box that contains:
• introductory letter
• topographic map on which the monitoring site is marked
• Streamwalk manual
• data collection sheets (enough for one year)
• monitoring schedule
• background information about the stream and watershed
• a list of phone numbers for reporting emergency spills,
fish kills, and hazardous materials
Each Streamwalker is asked to make a one-year commit-
ment. If a volunteer no longer wants to monitor, the box and
its contents are returned and can be used by another volun-
teer. The schedule establishes the months for monitoring:
January, April, July, and October. A Streamwalker can
monitor any day during this month, but the information must
be turned in by the 15th of the next month. This schedule
gives the Streamwalker flexibility while also giving us some
consistency among all the Streamwalkers collecting data.
Establishing the due date also gives a bit more incentive for
Streamwalkers to send the data in.
On the original Streamwalk data sheets designed by Re-
gion 10 EPA, the Streamwalker is asked to send the informa-
tion to the EPA Region 10 office. However, we changed the
address to the City of Portland Environmental Services. This
is important for several reasons. First, we review the informa-
tion and keep a record of it ourselves. Not only are we
gathering information about trends, but we can have an
immediate response to any problems described on the data
sheet. It puts us in direct communication with each
Streamwalker in our area.
Some final tips on observational monitoring:
1. Use observational monitoring as a teaching tool.
2. Always use the same site.
3. Go out with a trainer.
4. Always have the reference manual with you (important
for consistency of data).
5. Be aware of things that are difficult for citizen monitors
and give as much support as possible. For example,
latitude and longitude are difficult for citizens to
determine, so we provide that information.
*no paper submitted
22
-------
Session 2: Data to Action, Part One
Data to Action, Part One:
Volunteers Using Their Own Data
Moderator: Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Part-
nership
Presenters: Mike Herz, San Francisco Baykeeper; Lynn
Kramer, Herring Run Watershed Association; Anne Lyon,
Tennessee Valley Authority; Tom Murdoch,* Adopt-A-
Stream Foundation; David Nolte, BLM Coordinator of Bring
Back the Natives Program
Mike Herz
San Francisco BayKeeper
Monitoring for Compliance
State of the Bay
San Francisco Bay, the largest estuary on the West Coast of
North America, is under unprecedented pressure from oil
spills, filling of wetlands, point and nonpoint source pollu-
tion, dredging, and freshwater diversion. Populations of
salmon and striped bass are as little as lOpercent of what they
were 30-40 years ago. Fish and waterfowl in the Bay often
contain quantities of mercury, selenium, and PCBs that make
them unfit for human consumption.
Who's minding the Bay?
Although existing legislation gives the impression that the
Bay is being adequately monitored and the environmental
laws are being enforced, in fact agency budget cuts and staff
reductions have resulted in a situation where none of the
responsible agencies currently conducts any routine, on-the-
water environmental monitoring, surveillance, or enforce-
ment programs. While the EPA-delegated authority, the
Water Quality Control Board, once maintained a full-time
water sampling patrol boat on the Bay, today the agency no
longer even has a boat. And the U.S. Coast Guard's twice-
daily Bay pollution patrols were discontinued over a decade
ago.
A survey of environmental regulatory agencies conducted
five years ago revealed that staff members openly acknowl-
edge that violations of water quality laws often wentundetec-
ted because their agencies weren't looking, or if they were
detected, prosecution was slow or nonexistent because of
lack of adequate legal staffs. This mandate without man-
power has produced toothless guard dogs.
The San Francisco BayKeeper Program
The San Francisco BayKeeper's mission is to protect, pre-
serve, and enhance the resources and health of the ecosystems
and communities of the Bay region. Its objectives are (1) to
monitor water quality and report pollution incidents; (2) to
serve as an antenna for citizen complaints and as a deterrent
* no paper submitted
to illegal activities on the Bay; (3) to negotiate with and, if
necessary, initiate litigation against violators; (4) to monitor
the performance of agencies charged with enforcing Bay
protection laws; and (5) to create an informed voting con-
stituency which is aware of both the Bay's unique value and
its current plight.
BayKeeper program accomplishments
Rather than conducting routine descriptive water sampling,
the BayKeeper program focuses on detecting, documenting,
and reporting violations of environmental regulations. Al-
though we do no in-house analysis of samples collected by
our staff and volunteers, our field work and sampling have
been the basis for cases resulting in criminal indictments and
jail terms, fines, new regulations to better control stormwater
runoff, and health advisories warning of the toxic effects of
eating contaminated fish.
• BayKeeper field surveillance, detection, and reporting of
illegal, clandestine night dredging of heavy-metal-laden
bottom sediment by a shipyard resulted in the first
federal criminal indictment and jail terms for executives
guilty of a Bay-related environmental crime.
• BayKeeper coliform bacteria sampling at 25 marinas by
40 volunteers led the Water Quality Control Board to
institute its own surveys and regulation after a 10-year
hiatus.
• BayKeeper monitoring of Army storm sewer discharges
to the Bay revealed high levels of bacteria, resulting in
Army contracts to identify sanitary sewer cross-
connections responsible for pollution.
• BayKeeper detection of shipyard sandblast waste in Bay
water samples led to regulatory agency requirement of
$250,000 drapes to prevent discharge to the Bay.
• BayKeeper sampling and bioassay test of a cement
company's discharge to the Bay revealed water quality
violations and resulted in fines and remediation.
• BayKeeper sediment toxicity sampling, fish contamina-
tion study, and survey of fishers pressured state public
health agencies to post multi-lingual health warnings
regarding risks of fish consumption.
• BayKeeper sampling of Golden Gate Bridge District bus
yard discharge to the Bay detected persistent oil
pollution and resulted in cleanup and abatement.
In addition, BayKeeper staff have responded to more than
550 citizen hotline reports and discoveries by staff and
volunteers of spills, illegal dredging, toxic dumping, and
other pollution incidents. Using its own boat, as well as
volunteers' boats and planes, BayKeeper has covered more
than 20,000 miles of San Francisco Bay while patrolling for
23
-------
Session 2: Data to Action, Part One
violations. The program is also directly responsible for stop-
ping ongoing industrial pollution through litigation efforts
and has directed nearly $ 100,000 in mitigation funds to local
environmental restoration projects, including creeks and
wetlands. Finally, Bay Keeper has created heightened public
awareness about the deterioration of the Bay through more
than 100 local and national magazine, newspaper, radio, and
TV stories; distributed our newsletter (BayKeeper Log) to
nearly 10,000 people each year; trained many citizen volun-
teers; and provided technical assistance and advice to poten-
tial and existing "keeper" programs in more than 25 locations
throughout the country.
For more information about our program, our training
manual, training videotapes, or feasibility study, contact us at
Building A, FortMason.SanFrancisco.CA 94123; 415/567-
4401.
Lynn Kramer
Herring Run Watershed Association
Actions Resulting from Herring Run
Stream Survey
I represent the Herring Run Watershed Association. The
formation of this association is itself an example of one of the
many actions that were taken as a result of data collected by
volunteers. This group is a direct outgrowth of a group that,
with the support of Maryland Save Our Streams (SOS),
organized a data-collection project called a stream survey.
Before I talk about the stream survey, let me give you
some quick statistics on the Herring Run. Herring Run is a
tributary of Back River, which flows into Chesapeake Bay.
For two-thirds of its length the stream flows through Balti-
more City, mostly on park land. Herring Run is small enough
to be manageable (25-mile combined stream channel length)
but large enough to be significant (it is one of three major
watersheds in Baltimore City).
The Herring Run stream survey
On October 17,1992,100 volunteers gathered to conduct the
stream survey. Teams walked one-half-mile stretches of the
river to locate the following potential pollution sources:
• exposed sewer lines
• sewage overflow points
• pipe outfalls
• fish migration barriers
• channelized stream sections
• unshaded areas
• heavy trash dumping areas
• in-stream construction
• unusual stream conditions (erosion, sedimentation, etc.)
Actions taken
What resulted from this survey was a document that could be
used as a blueprint for action by citizens as well as govern-
ment agencies. After the stream survey, things have moved
very quickly:
October 17 - Stream surveyed by 100 volunteers.
November 18 - Report presented orally to the public.
Instead of just showing citizens what problems were
discovered, we pointed out all the great opportunities
for action—for really making a difference. I need to
acknowledge SOS here for their excellent advice, which
was to have people move into groups right then and
there to meet each other, talk briefly about the restora-
tion project they would plan, and set a date to meet
again.
January 13 - Meeting held to establish permanent
watershed association (HRWA).
February 10 - Televised City Council hearing. This
hearing was an opportunity not only for us to report on
what we found but also for the Department of Public
Works to report on corrective actions they had begun to
take. Presenting to City Council at a televised hearing
gave legitimacy to the project and visibility to both
SOS and HRWA, and it was the beginning, for HRWA,
of some political connections.
May 4 - Written status report sent by Department of
Public Works.
Now, a year and a half later, the Herring Run Watershed
Association is:
• conducting monthly restoration activities
• making presentations to schools, churches, and commu-
nity associations
• working with the Department of Public Works, exploring
ways in which we can support each other in our mutual
goal of improving water quality
Two challenges
The actions F ve mentioned are the results of doing the stream
survey. In the time that's left, I will briefly address two of the
many challenges we face:
#1 = Involvement by people of all ages and ethnic and
socioeconomic backgrounds
#2 = Formation of partnerships with government
Challenge #1 - Getting people involved. First you've got
to get people to understand that there' s a stream nearby. In the
city, many people don't realize that fact or they don't make
the connection between "stream" and the water they see
running over the channelized sections in their neighborhood.
The information we collected about the geography of the
Herring Run has been very useful as a first step in educating
and motivating people to take action. People are amazed
when they see where the Herring Run begins and ends and
how the tributaries tie into the main stem. Simply communi-
cating these basic geographic facts to people and showing
24
-------
Session 2: Data to Action, Part One
_
them a map brings the whole river system into focus, and
shows how its parts are interconnected and how it ties in to the
Chesapeake Bay. This is very easy to lose sight of in an urban
area. People begin to see how they are apart of a nature-based
watershed community even though they are surrounded by
concrete, brick, and steel. They've got to make this basic
connection first before they can be expected to do anything
with any kind of water quality data we collect.
Challenge #2 - Forming partnerships with government.
We all know that it is important that data collected be as
understandable and credible as possible. One way to make
that happen is to get advice, guidance, and training from those
who have to use the data. Since sewer lines are a large
presence in urban streams, HRWA and SOS are currently
working with Baltimore City Department of Public Works
(DPW), exploring ways to make sure the data we collect is
optimally useful to them. In fact, HRWA will be conducting
a stream workshop in July in which a DPW representative
will participate and answer any questions that come up as we
survey a one-mile stretch of stream. We are also looking at
using DPW's maps when we do the next stream survey.
Finally, HRWA leaders and several City Council mem-
bers will be meeting with DPW representatives on May 5 to
gain a better understanding of the bigger "sewershed" pic-
ture. What is the city-wide picture and how does the Herring
Run fit into that bigger picture?
Predictably, I guess, there is resistance from some mem-
bers of the organization who feel government in general
cannot be trusted, certainly not for advice or training. But that
degree of resistance is minimal. Most people are cautious but
agree that forming partnerships with government is worth
trying to achieve.
Certainly, it would have been a whole lot easier to just turn
the information we collected over to DPW and hope for the
best. After the data are collected, however, is really when the
work begins. It is important to ask for written progress reports
and updates of those reports until everything you've uncov-
ered has been addressed to your satisfaction, or at least until
you feel you've taken it as far as possible. It takes time and
energy to do that, and a commitment to follow through.
Three things we did right
Finally, I'll mention three things about the Stream Survey
that really worked:
1. Moving people into immediate action when presenting
the results.
2. Having a City Councilman involved from the beginning,
who championed our cause and set up the televised City
Council hearing.
3. SUPPORT, SUPPORT, SUPPORT! My acknowledg-
ment and thanks go to Landmark Education Corpora-
tion, Maryland Save Our Streams, Baltimore City
Department of Recreation and Parks and Urban
Resources Initiative, and "TREEmendous Maryland."
Anne E. Lyon
Tennessee Valley Authority
Profiles from TVA's Teacher/Student
Water Quality Monitoring Network
TVA began its Teacher/Student Water Quality Monitoring
Network (T/SWQMN) program in 1986 in response to two
needs—the need to obtain water quality data on small streams
TVA was unable to monitor, and the need to provide teachers
and students with a challenging and meaningful education
program. The program began with eight very dedicated
teachers and evolved into a formal program with its own
training manual. FromFebruary 1986 through October 1994,
93 teachers, 340 students, and 7 guests were trained in the
program. Over 10,000 students have received instruction in
water resources concepts through the classes of these teachers.
In 1993, TVA ended its sponsorship of the T/SWQMN.
We are currently refocusing much of our effort and financial
support on a new project in which interdisciplinary water-
shed teams, called River Action Teams, identify and solve
local water quality problems in Tennessee River sub-
watersheds. But we continue to encourage school systems to
implement the T/SWQMN's approach and adapt it to their
needs. Many of the teachers involved in the network have
already incorporated the program into their curricula and
found alternative sources of funding.
Unlike other water monitoring programs throughout the
United States, the focus of T/SWQMN was to train teachers
and students to conduct actual water quality studies. Instead
of having the participants collect standard information and
supply it back to TVA, they were taught to develop a study
question, select the appropriate measurements to answer the
question, and interpret the data. The result of their work was
a research paper submitted to TVA and shared with others in
a yearbook. Hundreds of water quality studies were con-
ducted and selected studies have been published in year-
books. Teachers and students alike have received numerous
honors and awards, including scholarships and grants, as a
direct result of their participation in the program.
The program was deliberately designed to be very flexible
so that participating teachers could adapt it to their specific
situation and school system needs. The direction the program
took over the years was largely due to the creativity and
imagination of our participants. Even though the program
was not specifically designed with an action component in
mind, many of the teacher/student teams took the program to
this level, with great success. I'd like to share with you some
of their stories.
Protecting Spotfin Chub
Peggy Huscusson joined the program in the first year, 1986.
She and her students from Franklin High School were inter-
ested in protecting the endangered Spotfin Chub which
resides in the Little Tennessee River. At the time, Franklin
25
-------
Session 2: Data to Action, Part One
was the fifth-fastest-growing community in North Carolina,
and Peggy and her class feared that increased erosion from
development was going to seriously impact the local Spotfin
Chub population. They began by conducting turbidity studies
toevaluatetheproblem. They discovered thatwhenNantahala
Power and Light (NP&L) discharged water from Porter Dam,
the turbidity levels would increase significantly. Peggy and
her students decided to educate the local community about
the problem and get them involved. Because the stream
flowed through two counties in two different states—Macon
County, North Carolina, and Rabun County, Georgia—they
decided to expand the project to both counties. They got over
50 people involved in collecting water samples along the
Little Tennessee and over 500 involved in the campaign to
save the Spotfin Chub. Armed with a comprehensive baseline
study, they approached NP&L. NP&L agreed to use their
data and begin their own study of the problem. Working
together, they helped establish a level of 200 JTUs (Jackson
Turbidity Units) as a maximum acceptable level in the river
when water is released from the dam. Today volunteers
continue to monitor water for turbidity. If the turbidity limit
is exceeded, engineers at NP&L are notified and the gates to
the dam are closed so suspended materials can settle in the
lake. As aresult of the project, Spotfin Chub habitat below the
dam has been protected.
A lifeless creek
Barbara Levi joined the program in 1987. She and her
students from Soddy Daisy High School in Soddy Daisy,
Tennessee, chose North Chickamauga Creek to study. To
their surprise, they found no life whatsoever in the creek,
despite water chemistry results showing adequate levels of
dissolved oxygen. Determined to find the source of the
problem, they moved up the watershed to the top of the
mountain, where they found an abandoned coal mine. Over
the course of a year, Barbara and her students worked hard to
publicize the problem with local residents and politicians and
to find funding to reclaim the area. They found a sympathetic
ear in the Tennessee State Legislature and were able to get the
state to allocate funding to reclaim 100 acres. Today seven
species of fish can be found and the land adjacent to one
section of the stream has been turned into the North Chicka-
mauga Greenway with parks and canoe launches. The stu-
dents are currently working to protect a wetland located in the
North Chickamauga watershed, which is slated for develop-
ment, and to get the lower section of the creek, which passes
through Chattanooga, included in the greenways project.
Cleaning up an urban creek
Betty Davis(not the actress !)joined the program in 1990. She
and her students from University School in Johnson City,
Tennessee, noticed their urban creek, Brush Creek, was
nearly dead, littered with trash, and badly eroded—so they
decided to do something about it. They began by approaching
East Tennessee State University (ETSU) and asking them to
help with their studies. Then students presented results of
their studies to the city and community to solicit support to
clean up the creek. Johnson City decided to conduct a formal
study of the problems and invited the students to participate.
Today a partnership has been formed between ETSU, Johnson
City Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the City Stormwater
Management Division to conduct this study. In addition to
collecting data used in the study, students are currently
working to set up a city wide Adopt-a-Stream program and to
develop a greenway and parks along the creek.
Students' recommendations implemented
Orpheus Deaver joined the program in 1991. His students
from Fannin County Comprehensive High School in Blue
Ridge, Georgia, are required to complete an original environ-
mental study as part of their school curriculum. The students
mainly study Weaver, Mineral Springs, Hothouse, and North
Potato creeks, which extend into both North Carolina and
Tennessee. Their studies have ranged from measuring runoff
from shopping centers or industry to conducting fish surveys
or analyzing new methods to reclaim Copper Basin. The
students present their findings in papers to the local alderman
and the community. This information is taken very seriously.
One student's recommendation to the state to improve ero-
sion control along North Potato Creek is being implemented
as part of an ongoing restoration project by the TV A and the
State of Tennessee. The class is currently working with
Fannin County to monitor the effects of constructing a new
middle school, to assure that water quality in the adjacent
creek is not compromised.
Dealing with sewage contamination
Mark Stallings joined the program in 1992. He and his
students from Gilmer High School in Ellijay, Georgia, won
the 1993 Seiko Youth Challenge environmental competition
for their work cleaning up Cox Creek. During months of field
testing and lab analysis, they found high concentrations of
fecal coliform in the creek. Tests indicated the primary source
of the coliforms was from failed septic tanks of homes
adjacent to Cox Creek. Students also identified a separate but
related problem of leachate escaping from an old landfill near
the creek. To clean up the creek, students decided to "set their
sights on the politics of the problem and find a creative
solution." Persistence worked. Enlisting the aid of Georgia
Governor Zell Miller, the students became a part of the
Ellijay/East Ellijay-Gilmer County Comprehensive Plan-
ning Committee and have applied for a Community Develop-
ment Block Grant to fund their proposal to link a new sewage
pipeline to the landfill and houses along Cox Creek so
wastewater will flow to the city' s wastewater treatment plant.
Steps to secure financing are under way.
What works, what doesn't
When asked what made the program work for them, teachers
suggested:
• Use a scientific study approach—it is easier to sell to
administrators and to incorporate into the curricula.
26
-------
Session 2: Data to Action, Part One
Encourage students to form a hypothesis and not to
jump to conclusions. Not all streams are polluted!
• Let students decide what to study. Resist the temptation
to impose your own ideas. If they are working on a
problem they care about, they will follow it to some
resolution.
• Involve other agencies on the front end and ask for their
input. Agencies that have been involved are more apt to
accept results of the study and work to resolve any
problems found.
• When students finish a study, encourage them to temper
their emotions, report their findings as information, and
offer alternatives to resolve the problem. This keeps the
school out of trouble and works better with elected
officials, company presidents, and the community.
When asked what got in their way, teachers cited:
• Lack of time.
• Students graduated, and often interest in the project went
with them.
• Teachers' interests changed and/or they got burned out.
Surprisingly, opposition from school principals, school
boards, or local businesses/industry was not considered a
barrier by most teachers.
Teachers had several words of advice to give others who
are considering monitoring streams and getting the commu-
nity involved:
• START SMALL!
• Use data, not emotion, to introduce the community to
problems.
• Let the community take ownership of the problem and
support any cleanup or protection efforts.
Good training, access to water quality professionals, and
a sound scientific approach enabled these teachers and stu-
dents to reach beyond their schools and really make a differ-
ence.
David A. Nolte
Trout Unlimited/Bring Back the Natives Coordinator
Data to Action with Trout Unlimited
"Data to action—volunteers using their own data" is a theme
found throughout the history of Trout Unlimited (TU). In
1959, a small group of Michigan anglers formed an organi-
zation that would grow to over 70,000 members, with more
than 400 chapters across the nation. Today, Trout Unlimited
serves as a'coldwater fisheries conservation organization.
Because trout and salmon and their habitats are inextricable
parts of larger ecosystems, effective resource advocacy now
must address even greater threats to the integrity of those
ecosystems including waterpollution, hydropower, wetlands
destruction, grazing, and logging.
Some rural perceptions about water quality
Many of our members live and work in predominately rural
areas. Rural perceptions regarding water quality sometimes
differ from an urban resident's concerns. Rural residents are
often concerned about the effects of sediment, water tem-
perature, and quantity of water. For example, drought means
smaller shares of water for users, and native aquatic species
are most often last in line. Farmers and ranchers may not be
as concerned about water temperature but rather water quan-
tity for their crops or cattle. An angler might be concerned
about both water temperature and quantity for the support of
salmon, steelhead, and other salmonids to enjoy recreational
angling or wildlife viewing.
Trout Unlimited programs
Currently, TU's National Fishery Resource Programs in-
clude the Agency/Angler Sport Fish Restoration Program,
Bring Back the Natives, Embrace-A-Stream, Forest Service
Partnership, and Watershed Conservancy. Four of these five
programs often involve professional advocates, scientists,
and grassroots volunteers in projects that directly involve the
collection, analysis, and dissemination of water-quality-
related data.
Embrace-A-Stream
Trout Unlimited annually commits approximately $100,000
of funding to its own chapters under the Embrace-A-Stream
grant program. Through a process of application and evalu-
ation, projects are selected that support fishery resource
research and education projects.
An outstanding example of water quality and watershed
oriented activities can be found in one Embrace-A-Stream
project selected this year, the "Phase in of Budd/Deschutes
Project GREEN" submitted jointly by the Olympia Chapter
of Trout Unlimited and TU Northwest Steelhead and Salmon
Council. This project's mission is "through community-
based watershed studies, to develop a local citizenry with the
knowledge, skills, and motivation to act collaboratively on
local environmental challenges and create globally sustain-
able lifestyles." The project is bringing together schools and
communities to improve water quality, enhance fisheries and
wildlife habitat, study watersheds as ecological systems, link
diverse publics and officials, develop informed citizenry, and
promote empowerment of their volunteers. Key elements of
this project are water quality monitoring (chemical, biologi-
cal, and physical), interdisciplinary investigation of the wa-
tershed, computer communication, community service/ac-
tion projects, and a Student Congress.
During the 1992/93 school year, 27 classes from four
school districts in the Budd/Deschutes watershed monitored
the river system for nine water quality parameters and made
an inventory of physical characteristics. The data collected
permitted comparison from different sites in the watershed.
The monitoring data collected also included information
27
-------
Session 2: Data to Action, Part One
about cultural, economic, and environmental aspects of the
watershed. Students identified and prioritized their issues
and then worked with community members or groups such as
Trout Unlimited to plan and implement a natural resource
"action" project. Action projects include such activities as
revegetating riparian zones, stenciling storm drains, clearing
garbage from streams, devising community awareness pro-
grams for water quality, and making presentations to local
officials.
Bring Back the Natives
In 1992 TU began its involvement with Bring Back the
Natives (BBN). This key national fishery program is the first
national campaign combining two major federal agencies,
the USDA-Forest Service and USDI-Bureau of Land Man-
agement, with partnerships including state agencies, local
organizations, private businesses, citizens and landowners,
and TU. The program focuses on restoring the health of
riverine systems and the repopulation of native freshwater
species. Currently there are 28 BBN projects across the
nation. Each of these projects offers to citizens an opportunity
to be involved with restoration of watersheds and water
quality. Watershed analysis, site surveys, data collection, pre
and post monitoring of restoration projects, scientific re-
search, and public education are all tasks where volunteer
data are used.
As an example, the BLM Prineville District, located in
Prineville, Oregon, is supporting a watershed education
program, CrookedRiverEcosystemEducation Council. This
program is jointly sponsored by BBN and the Ochoco Na-
tional Forest. Volunteer and partnership opportunities in-
clude riparian restoration projects, special status species
monitoring, and recreational fishing enhancement.
Currently in the Prineville District, 65 water temperature
data loggers are deployed in the John Day and Crooked River
watersheds, over 500 river miles. Volunteers have been used
for collection of temperature and fishery-related data with
both BLM and USFS Ochoco National Forest personnel.
However, more support is needed for collection of water
quality data in conjunction with temperature and turbidity
measurements. Citizen-collected data are compiled by both
professionals and citizens, with data analysis and error check-
ing by professional staff. Gifted students from Crook County
High School have been involved with computer program-
ming and database design for data analysis. Water quality
data are used for management planning and strategies for
salmon and trout and to meet Oregon Department of En viron-
mental Quality guidelines.
Changing agency attitudes
I think we are beginning to see changes in the agencies. The
Forest Service is opening up to citizen involvement. In
closing, let me share with you an example of the direction
agencies are heading. A BLM Fish Biologist, David Young,
whom I have the pleasure of working with, told me he
believes that "a national goal for resource management
should include citizens directly involved with all aspects of
resource monitoring, particularly water quality; that citizens
must strongly be involved in defining management goals on
an ecosystem basis (watershed level approach) so that each
and every one of us understands that, for a particular water-
shed, here is the water quality goal."
28
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
Assuring Quality Data
Moderator: Kathleen EHett, Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay
Presenters: Kathleen Ellett; Martha Cheo, Adopt-A Stream
Foundation; Gayla Campbell, Texas Natural Resource Con-
servation Commission; Linda Green, University of Rhode
Island Watershed Watch; Julie Rector, Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology Citizen Lake Monitoring
Kathleen Ellett
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Opening Remarks
The presentations and discussion today are intended to con-
vince you of the importance of carrying out the spirit of your
QAPP (Quality Assurance Project Plan). Naturally, we are
assuming that you have one!—or are planning to prepare
one—especially since it is required for any project generating
data with EPA financial support.
We will not be addressing the step-by-step preparation of
QAPP's but we can provide references to already-prepared
plans. For actual details and written guidance, you should
contact your EPA Regional Quality Assurance folks.
Let's begin with some overall definitions (more defini-
tions will be given by our panelists).
QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) is the overall strategy to
ensure high standards throughout the program. It
includes the planning, implementation, and final
analysis and reporting—in short, everything done by
anyone connected with the project from start to finish!
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) is a piece of quality assur-
ance. It encompasses those procedures used during a
particular analysis which make that analysis more
accurate and precise.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT involves the continuing
evaluation of your QA/QC program.
The process of preparing a QAPP begins the minute you
start planning your monitoring project, and the first step in
planningisidentifyingyour Data Quality Objectives. DQO's,
as they are referred to by the cognoscenti, are specific
integrated statements and goals developed for each data or
information collection activity to ensure that the data are of
the required quantity and quality. They should specify the
desired sensitivity of sampling methods, timing and location
of sampling, and the number of samples to be collected.
When forming the data quality objectives, the planning
committee should closely examine the program budget. While
sophisticated analyses generally yield more accurate and
precise data, they are also more costly and time-consuming.
If the program's main goal is to supplement state-collected
data, the planning committee may determine that this extra
expense is worthwhile. Programs with an educational or
participatory focus can often use less sensitive equipment,
analyses, or methodologies and still meet their data quality
objectives.
Winding up my remarks, I remind you of the overall theme
of this conference—"putting our data to use." We have
convinced most folks that volunteers can collect data that are
of good and known quality, but we are faltering when it
comes to data analysis and reporting. Potential data users,
particularly state agency staff, simply cannot handle the data
overload. They want to see interpretive reports—not just
numbers, or even just graphs and plots. They need to know all
the hairy details of how the data were collected. They want to
be able to read narrative that synthesizes the results and tells
them what the particular water body is like and identifies its
problems. They can then use the plots and figures to docu-
ment the accuracy of our conclusions.
Martha Cheo
Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
Quality Assurance for Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
This presentation will outline the basic quality assurance
points to consider when using macroinvertebrates (hereafter
referred to as "bugs") as a tool for assessing the health of
stream systems. It will not go into detail about bug collection
and analysis methods, as this is the focus of other conference
sessions (seeespecially Session2,"MacroinvertebrateMoni-
toring").
Study coordinator
For any water quality study, it is important to develop the role
of a coordinator who is responsible for the overall manage-
ment of the program. Plan ahead for turnover; take care to
ensure that the coordinator position does not disappear if the
person moves on. The coordinator should oversee the selec-
tion of study sites, to make sure they are comparable and
adequately represent the focal issues of the study. Other roles
of the coordinator may include recruiting and training volun-
teers, ensuring that all are trained in the same methodology
and use the same equipment. The coordinator also should
organize a technical advisory committee that can help guide
the study and provide quality control checks for the program.
Technical advisory committee
The technical advisory committee should be composed of (a)
aquatic biologists familiar with bugs in the region of the study
and (b) the individuals and agencies that will be using the data
to make decisions. This means both landowners (the ultimate
resource managers) and agency staff from the city, county,
29
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
state, and other-jurisdictions through which the stream flows.
If the study is designed in cooperation with the data users, the
chances are much greater that the data can and will indeed be
used. The technical advisory committee can help determine
the goals of the study, review the study design and site
selection, train volunteers, provide quality control checks on
protocols, interpret results, and make recommendations for
action.
Study design
The process of designing a monitoring study using
macroinvertebrates is discussed in detail in the workshop on
"Macroinvertebrate Monitoring" (in Session 2). Following
are a few points about study design that are particularly
critical to quality assurance:
1. Collect the samples at the same time each year.
2. In selecting reference stream sites, "all else being equal"
is a must. This means that each reference site should be
of the same order as its counterpart site on the study
stream and that characteristics such as gradient,
substrate, flow, pool-to-riffle ratio, and riparian
condition should be comparable (unless the impact of
one of these characteristics is the focus of the study).
3. Document site locations in writing and mark them in the
field.
4. Standardize a site evaluation procedure. Ideally sites
should have the following characteristics:
• cobble/gravel riffle
• velocity of 0.4 - 2 feet/second
•depth of 0.5-4 feet
5, Have site selection reviewed and field-checked by the
technical advisory committee.
Field collection methods
Bugs can be collected with a Surber sampler, kick net, or D-
net. Surbers provide the most precision because their frame
standardizes the actual area of the stream bottom that is
sampled. A mesh size of 0.6 mm is recommended for best
results; anything smaller gets clogged, while anything larger
may allow smaller bugs to escape.
After all cobbles and larger gravel pieces are brushed off
carefully and set outside the sampling area, the underlying
substrate should be disturbed thoroughly. Relying on a set
time duration (e.g., 60 seconds) of disturbance does not yield
as consistentresults as simply disturbing the area thoroughly.
Different volunteers with differing leg strengths will disturb
the substrate to different extents within the same time dura-
tion.
For each study site, three replicate samples from three
different riffle areas should be collected. For the best com-
pleteness, make sure the samples are composites of slow and
fast areas in each riffle. Each sample should come from a total
of about one square meter. The exact size is not as important
as consistency; just make sure that all samples come from the
same area of disturbed substrate. The technical advisory
committee can take duplicate samples at the same sampling
sites, analyze them separately, and check the consistency of
the volunteers' results with their own.
Analysis methods
If only a simple presence/absence analysis is required, it can
be conducted in the field and organisms can be released back
to the stream when sorting and counting are completed.
Setting up tables and chairs in the field will help make
volunteers more comfortable, which translates into a higher
level of patience and thus greater precision and accuracy.
Even if bugs are released back to the stream, a representative
specimen of each distinguishable taxon should be preserved
for later verification by the technical advisory committee.
If a more detailed analysis is required, samples should be
preserved with a 90 percent alcohol solution and brought into
a laboratory facility with dissecting scopes. Pre-label sample
jars to reduce the chances of unidentified or misidentified
samples. For each study site, the abundance (density) of each
family group is averaged over the three replicate samples.
One issue that should be considered in a discussion of
quality assurance is the fact that taxa richness increases with
organism density. To control for this, pick a subsample of a
standard size (100-organism subsamples work well). Use the
subsample to determine the density of each family taxon.
Shallow white trays marked with a grid pattern of equal-sized
squares work well for picking a subsample.
Another way to ensure quality in the lab analysis is to have
volunteers give each other quality control checks as they sort
and count samples. For example, after one person has picked
all the organisms from one square in the grid, have a second
person double-check the square to make sure no organisms
were overlooked. Keep a reference "library" collection of
bugs on hand, clearly labeled, so volunteers can use them as
they identify bugs in the samples. The technical advisory
committee can provide a quality control check by reviewing
the completed data forms and preserved samples.
Remember that higher density and even higher taxa rich-
ness does not necessarily mean a stream is in better shape. An
increase in density and richness could result from nutrient
pollution, especially in smaller headwater streams.
Training
Training sessions should occur both in the field and in the lab.
Trainers should give volunteers ample time to practice.
Volunteers can be observed while practicing. Trainers should
also give volunteers time to practice alone, then check their
work when completed. Trainers should set up demonstra-
tions of commonly confused taxa so volunteers can more
easily pick out the subtle differences by viewing them side by
side under the scopes.
.Volunteer roles
Distribute volunteer roles in a way that decreases possibili-
ties for inconsistency. Each type of data should be generated
by the same team of volunteers. For example, have one team
30
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
do the bug sorting and counting for all sites, another team do
the habitat assessment for all sites, and a third team do the
water quality assessment for all sites, if possible. This would
yield more comparable data than having one team generate
all data for one site, another team generate all data for a
second site, etc.
Gayla Campbell
Texas Watch, Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
Some Quality Assurance Pointers
QC exercises
Carrying out QC exercises (often called QC sessions) with
volunteers helps ensure that the data collected are meeting the
precision and accuracy values stated in your data quality
objectives. QC exercises are mandatory for programs using
federal funds. Be sure that the sessions evaluate both the
accuracy of the equipment and the precision of the volunteer
monitors' technique.
Most programs require that volunteers successfully com-
plete two sessions a year. The exercises include both field and
laboratory evaluations of equipment, personnel (i.e., the
volunteers), and procedures. They also include brief written
reports on the results, including any necessary corrective
actions. Some programs carry out both field and laboratory
exercises on the same day; others hold them on separate days.
Field sessions provide an opportunity to check not only
precision and accuracy but also field protocol, safety, and
behavior.
Programs that do not require QC sessions run the risk of
collecting data of unknown quality, which will be of little
value to data users.
Tips
Following are some tips on carrying out QC exercises:
• Schedule the first session three months after volunteers
begin sampling. This allows you to resolve initial
problems early in the program.
• Schedule more sessions than the number volunteers are
required to attend.
• Develop a "user-friendly" session. Don't let volunteers
feel they need to worry about "failing" the tests.
• Choose a location with sufficient light and space, and
areas for preparation and cleanup.
• Make the most of the time together. Invite a speaker or
tour a plant.
• Prepare a list of coordinator tasks to be done before and
during the session.
• The equipment used to determine known values need not
be an expensive multiparametric meter. However, if a
kit is used, it should be one used only by the coordina-
tor and should have fresh reagents.
• Above all, instill in volunteers a sense of the importance
of their participation in these sessions to the overall
success of the program and use of the data.
Examples of classroom exercises
There are two general approaches to classroom sessions:
1. Attendees do the required tests on the same water
sample, using their equipment, the same way they would
carry out tests at their site.
2. Attendees read and record results from pre-set stations
(similar to a laboratory "practical").
In either case, the difference between the volunteers'
measured values and the known value should be within the
acceptable limits for precision and accuracy stated in the
program's DQOs.
If the exercise is conducted like a lab practical, the
following setup is recommended:
Station 1 for equipment check (working order, fresh
reagents) using the volunteers' own equipment.
Station 2 for evaluating the accuracy of the volunteers'
equipment, using known solutions. Station 2 can also include
a place to check Secchi disk line markings.
Station 3 for evaluating both accuracy of equipment and
precision of volunteers' procedures. Volunteers use their
own equipment to complete the required tests on the same
water sample. (A large bucket or cooler of tap or river water
is used. All volunteers test from that container.) The coordi-
nator will either take readings from an electronic instrument
in the bucket or run tests with his or her own test kit to provide
a "known value" from which the volunteers' values will be
checked.
Calibration of kits and electronic equipment
Calibration procedures check equipment results against a
known value. Here are a few general tips on equipment
calibration:
• Check on calibration procedures before purchasing
equipment.
• Document all calibration procedures and the resulting
data.
• Ensure standards are fresh and are appropriate for
equipment ranges.
• Always precalibrate instruments within 24 hours before
use.
Thermometers should be calibrated before their first use
and checked for accuracy at QC sessions. Calibration should
be done both at room temperature and in ice bath waters. The
"standard reading" should be done with a National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified thermometer
or other calibrated meter. Thermometers outside the accepted
range (± 1.0°C) should be discarded.
Hydrometers should be calibrated prior to use. They do
not need to be recalibrated, but should be checked at QC
sessions. Calibration can be done in real or artificial seawater.
Include low, medium, and high readings. Reject those that are
31
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
outside the accepted range.
Meters should be calibrated according to manufacturer's
instructions. In addition, other maintenance and proper stor-
age and handling should be followed to ensure testing accu-
racy and prolong usefulness of the equipment.
QA activities in a large monitoring program
There are some special problems associated with carrying out
quality assurance in a large program like Texas Watch. With
a large program, communication is the key. The pyramid
approach to carrying out activities at the local level is essen-
tial. Recruit and train partners and dedicated volunteers to be
trainers and quality assurance officers, and to provide timely
feedback to volunteers. This process also unites communities
in working toward common goals.
Development of standard letters, reporting forms, testing
and QA procedures, and training session guidelines is ex-
tremely important to gathering high-quality, usable data. In
addition, develop a database program that volunteers can use
to input their data, then send it to the partner, who in turn
sends it to the program office. This allows for use of data at
many levels.
Linda Taylor Green
University of Rhode Island Watershed Watch Program
The "PARCC" Parameters
There are many facets to developing and implementing a
quality assurance program and a quality assurance project
plan. This paper deals with one aspect of that plan—the five
terms, collectively known as "data quality indicators," that
are used to assess quality: precision, accuracy, representa-
tiveness, comparability, and completeness ("PARCC"). These
terms are often confused or misused.
One assumption of this paper is that you as a volunteer
monitor will be making more than one measurement. One
data point is nearly useless, since neither you nor the potential
data user has any idea how close or far that measurement is
from the true value. In general, when multiple measurements
of a parameter are made they will not all be the same. If you
were to create a graph by plotting on the x-axis the results of
your measurements, and on the y-axis how frequently each of
these results occurred, your graph would ideally have the
shape shown in Figure 1. This bell-shaped curve is known as
a "normal" or "Gaussian" distribution. The highest point on
a normal curve is the mean or average occurrence. In the rest
NORMAL
FREQUENCY
~ CURVE -
Figure 1. Normal curve.
of this paper I will use this graph to illustrate some of the
concepts of the five PARCC parameters.
1. Precision
Precision is a measurement of how close data points are to
each other. 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 "stan-
dard deviation." Many hand-held calculators have been pre-
programmed to calculate the standard deviation. The stan-
dard deviation is an indication of the range of variation in the
measurement. If you have fewer than 10 measurements, the
range of the data (the biggest measurement minus the small-
est) is a reasonable estimate of precision.
Even more useful is the calculation of the coefficient of
variation (also known as the relative standard deviation). To
calculate, divide the standard deviation by the average of the
The PARCC Parameters
1. Precision - a measure of how close data points are to each other, usually expressed by standard deviation or
coefficient of variation.
2. Accuracy - a measure of how close data are to the "true value."
3. Representativeness - the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent environmental conditions.
4. Completeness - the amount of valid data obtained compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained;
usually expressed as a percentage.
5. Comparability - expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another.
Two additional terms that are important to any discussion of the above terms are:
Sensitivity - the smallest increment that can be determined with confidence.
Detection limit - the lowest concentration that can be reliably detected.
32
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
data, and multiply by 100. A large coefficient of variation
means that the measurement is less precise, a small one that
it is more precise.
Suppose each of the three members of a monitoring team
makes a certain measurement five times. After the measure-
ments have been made they perform some simple statistics.
The results are shown below:
Monitor A
Mean
Range
Std.Dev.
C.V.
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
0.7
23%
Monitor B
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
1.6
53%
Monitor C
1
2
2
2
8
3
7
2.8
94%
Looking at the range of data, Monitor B's data are twice
as variable as A's, and C's data are almost four times as
variable as A's. As expected, both the standard deviation and
coefficient of variation are the smallest for Monitor A. The
coefficient of variation gives a more meaningful interpreta-
tion of the general results.
Conceptually, as the precision of the data declines the
"bell-curve" becomes lower and flatter. However, all these
measurements say nothing about the accuracy of what is
being measured. The difference between precision and accu-
racy is illustrated in Figure 2.
2. 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." Accuracy is computed statistically by the following
equation:
100 X (true value - actual value) / true value
What if you don't know the true value? This is the case
with the measurements in the above example. The precise
measurements of group A are no more indicative of the
accuracy of the measurements than are the imprecise mea-
surements of Group C. Without any supplementary informa-
tion we have no idea which is the most accurate value.
There are a number of monitoring situations in which it is
difficult to ascertain the true value of a measurement—for
example, using a Secchi disk to measure water clarity. In such
cases, the most practical solution is,to make a number of
measurements, average them, and state that no estimation of
the accuracy can be made. URI's Watershed Watch program
uses experienced volunteers to help assess the quality of new
volunteers. When we compared Secchi disk measurements
on a number of locations and with anumber of differentteams
of mentors and new volunteers (Figure 3), the mentors' and
new volunteers' readings were very closely matched. This
indicates the accuracy of the measurements even though the
"true value" remains unknown.
If volunteers are using a test kit (for example, to measure
dissolved oxygen or pH), there are more options to help
ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The group may
purchase or borrow an analytical or laboratory-grade meter in
order to compare kit results initially and during QC sessions.
An alternative would be to see if a local analytical or univer-
sity laboratory might agree to compare the kit results with
their equipment. If the measurement is being used solely to
detect a trend, using the kit alone might be sufficient. The
choice is dependent on the group's data quality objectives.
3. Representativeness
This data quality indicator addresses the issue of whether the
data accurately and precisely represent the actual environ-
mental conditions. This is not easily determined because
errors can be introduced in any number of places, from choice
of monitoring location to sampling containers to sample
holding to lab errors to data entry errors to calculation errors.
Imprecise and inaccurate
True
Value
Precise but inaccurate
True
Value
Accurate but imprecise
Precise and accurate
Figure 2. Precision versus accuracy.
True
Value
33
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
It is important to provide clear instructions for where and
when to collect samples, how many samples to collect, what
to collect them in, and how they are to be treated once they
have been collected. In general, as the number of samples
increases the amount of bias or inaccuracy decreases. Here
are a few of the ways that a sample can become unrepresen-
tative:
A sample may become unrepresentative by virtue of the
choice of sampling location, also known as the sampling
design or sampling scheme. There are three general types of
sampling schemes: judgmental, systematic, and random.
Judgmental sampling indicates that you may be drawing a
conclusion by selecting where you will monitor, such as in
the deepest part of a lake, or at a site where you suspect a
problem. While this is the least statistically valid scheme, it
is also usually the least expensive. Systematic sampling
involves making a measurement at certain intervals. The
intervals may be in space, such as sampling every 50 feet, or
in time, such as sampling every other Saturday. Random
sampling is the statistically best choice, and may be required
for legal purposes. It usually costs the most. An example of
random sampling would be to set up a grid on a map of your
area of interest, assign a number to each of the squares in the
grid, copy the numbers on pieces of paper, and have someone
select a number of the pieces of paper. The sites monitored
would be sampled solely according to the numbers chosen. If
you are concerned about a particular area, one obvious
drawback with random sampling is that your area of concern
may not even be monitored.
Sampling devices themselves can introduce errors. For
example, if you are interested in measuring the dissolved
oxygen content of a body of water, you must not use a pump
to collect the water, since the turbulence of the pumping can
introduce air into the water. Remember, the possibility of
contamination increases as the concentration of the param-
eter decreases. It is much easier to contaminate something
being measured at the part per billion level than at the part per
million level!
The 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 Examination of
Water and Wastewater provide detailed instructions. Some
pointers: Don't wash with phosphate detergents if you plan to
measure phosphorus, and don't use 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 appar-
ent concentration.
Sample handling and transport can be equally critical.
Certain analyses, such as those for pH and for bacterial
indicators, must be initiated within hours after sampling.
Water samples generally should be kept cool and in the dark
to prevent acceleration of chemical reactions or degradation
of biologically sensitive materials.
4. Completeness
Completeness is the percentage of valid data obtained as
compared to that expected to be obtained under normal
conditions. It is rare for volunteer groups to collect 100
percent of data. Sampling sites may be inaccessible at certain
times of year, there may be equipment failure or breakage, or
samples may be spilled during collection, handling, trans-
port, or analysis. Depending on the group's data quality
objectives it can be acceptable, for example, to expect to
receive 80 - 90 percent of Secchi depth and water tempera-
ture data, since sampling dates may be missed due to illness,
vacations, or even hurricanes!
5. Comparability
Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one
group's measurements can be compared to another. Types of
comparison can include: (1) locations of sampling sites (for
example, if all lake sampling stations are located over the
lake's deep spot, each program has the same probability of
collecting a representative sample); (2) parameters measured
as well as units of measurements used; (3) procedures and
methods for sample collection and analysis; and (4) how data
can be compared (statistically) among programs in terms of
precision and accuracy.
In many ways poor data are worse than no data at all. Every
time a monitoring group makes a measurement and draws a
conclusion from that measurement they are placing their
credibility on the line. As we all know, it is much more
difficult to restore credibility than to maintain it. The time and
effort spent addressing these five data quality indicators will
serve to document not only your procedures, but also the
expectations you have for your monitoring program.
For further information:
American Public Health Association. Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Ameri-
can Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth St. NW,
Washington, DC 20005. The "bible."
Hach Company. "Quality Corners" in Hack News and
Notes for the Analyst. Hach Company, PO Box 369,
Loveland, CO 80539. 1-800-227-4224. This quarterly
publication has very concise explanations of statistical
terminology and how to use it.
Helsel, Dennis. 1990. Less Than Obvious: Statistical
Treatment of Data Below the Detection Limit. Re-
printed from Environmental Science and Technology 24
(12): 1766-1774. Complex but readable.
Keith, Lawrence. Principles of Environmental Sampling.
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1-800-
227-5558. An eight-page summary of 1987 symposium.
Reprinted from Environmental Science and Technology
24: 610-617.
Keith, Lawrence. 1988. Principles of Environmental
Sampling. American Chemical Society, Washington,
34
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
oo
e
a
•i»»
I
I
35
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
DC. 1-800-227-5558. ISBN #0-8412-1173-6.450+
pages.
Kelley, Thomas, et al. Basic Statistics for Laboratories: A
Primer for Laboratory Workers. VanNostrand
Reinhold, New York. ISBN #0-442-00456-7.175+
pages.
U.S. EPA. Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring: A Guide
for State Managers. #EPA440/4/90-/010. USEPA
Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460.
Julie Rector
Washington State Department of Ecology Citizen Lake
Monitoring Program
Quality Assurance Samples
Because monitoring data can be affected by many sources of
sampling and analytical error, quality assurance projectplans
must specify the acceptable range of variability in data
results. In order to be able to evaluate the extent of variability
in our data, we must plan on collecting and analyzing quality
assurance samples.
Quality assurance samples are collected both in the field
and in the lab. Following is a summary of the various types
of samples and the uses of each.
Field quality assurance samples
/. Field replicates
a. For samples: To collect a field replicate for a sample,
you merely repeat the sample collection process, filling a
second sample bottle. Replicate samples should be collected
for all parameters that are analyzed for the program, whether
they are analyzed by a lab or by volunteers. Sample replicates
should be chosen to represent the range of results expected
from a program. For example, if dissolved oxygen samples
are collected from several depths of a stratified lake, replicate
samples should be collected from the bottom of the lake as
well as from the surface.
A general rule is to collect field replicates from at least 10
percent of the sampling sites. However, if relatively few
samples are collected over a season or a year, you can't really
evaluate the variability in the data with only two or three
replicate samples. Therefore, smaller monitoring programs
ideally should replicate at least 20 percent of their samples.
Results from field replicates are among the most impor-
tant data quality indicators, because they give an estimate of
total variability—that is, they include variability in the
water body (such as "slugs" of pollutants moving down-
stream, or algae growing at various depths and areas in alake)
plus variability in both sampling and analytical procedures.
If total variability is high, it is important to have lab quality
control data to determine whether the analytical procedures
are contributing a large amount of variability.
b. For field measurements: Field measurements should
also be replicated on a regular basis. Temperature, pH, and
Secchi disk transparency are easy to duplicate without in-
volving extra analytical costs. For Washington's Citizen
Lake Monitoring Program, volunteers replicate their Secchi
depth measurements every sampling day. Although this is not
a true estimate of precision (since the second measurement is
likely to be biased by knowing the first), the replicate results
do indicate when there is variability—either from the volun-
teer or from field conditions. Thus, we have greater confi-
dence in the measurement when both measurements are very
similar.
Replicate field measurements are also used to evaluate the
precision of field equipment. For example, the Wisconsin
Self-Help lake monitoring program discovered problems
with the precision of a pH pen when replicate measurements
were collected.
2. Field splits
A field split is collected by collecting a water sample, mixing
it (either in the water sampler or in a separate container), then
filling two water sample bottles. The second sample bottle is
usually given a made-up site name, so that lab analysts have
no idea that the sample is a duplicate. As a result, field splits
can be used to get a "blind" assessment of a lab's precision.
Some volunteer programs also use field splits in quality
assurance sessions with volunteers, to compare the results
from a volunteer with results from the program coordinator
or trainer.
Because there are limits to the number of lab quality
control checks that can be run for chlorophyll analysis (for
example, youcan'trun alab duplicate on a chlorophyll filter),
monitoring programs that sample for chlorophyll should
collect field splits in addition to field duplicates to help
evaluate total precision. Because of the wide natural variabil-
ity in chlorophyll results, volunteers with Rhode Island's lake
monitoring program filter three split samples which are then
analyzed for chlorophyll a.
3. Field blanks
A field blank, also known as a transport blank, is made by
filling a sample bottle with distilled deionized water, trans-
porting the bottle and opening it in the field, and then having
the sample analyzed with your batch of collected samples.
Results from field blanks will indicate if there are problems
with contamination introduced in the field or from the sample
container.
Generally, field blanks for analysis by a commercial lab
are prepared only when the parameter requires low detection
limits (such as phosphorus or metals), or when you suspect a
problem with sample contamination. Preparing one or two
field blanks per monitoring season is usually adequate to
screen for possible contamination problems.
When samples are filtered before analysis, filter blanks
should be prepared. Filter blanks are prepared by filtering
distilled water (or, for marine monitoring programs, filtered
36
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
seawater) through the filtering apparatus. At least two filter
blanks should be prepared per monitoring season; one is
prepared before filtering the actual field samples, and the
second is filtered after finishing with the field samples.
Results from the filter blanks indicate whether the filtering
equipment is contaminated, and whether filtering technique
includes adequate rinsing.
Lab quality control samples
Even if an outside lab has a good QC program, that lab's QC
requirements may not always agree with a volunteer monitor-
ing program's QC requirements. Selection of a lab to analyze
samples should be based on whether the lab (1) is familiar
with analyzing the type of samples you are collecting (for
example, marine vs. freshwater samples), (2) can meet your
data quality requirements for detection limits, precision, and
accuracy (based on the method you will use to calculate each
of these; note that not all labs calculate detection limits the
same way!), and (3) uses appropriate analytical and calibra-
tion methods for the range of concentrations you expect in
your samples. After samples are analyzed, lab performance is
usually evaluated using results from lab replicates, lab check
standards, matrix spikes, and blanks. Monitoring programs
may also submit audit samples to augment QC data for their
program.
/. Lab replicates
Lab replicates are "splits," meaning that two portions from a
sample are analyzed separately. For most parameters, labs
will routinely analyze lab replicates. If you have stringent
data quality requirements, you can specify which samples
you want the lab to replicate. For example, when I am
sampling lakes for Washington State's lake assessment pro-
gram, I specify 10 total phosphorus samples that I want the
lab to analyze in replicate—this way, I know that the lab is not
replicating my transport blank samples, and that the repli-
cates analyzed represent a range of low, medium, and high
concentrations.
Results from lab replicates are used to estimate laboratory
precision. Although the results from the split samples may be
expected to be identical, in reality there is usually some
difference between the two values, especially for sample
analysis that involves complex chemical reactions or very
low concentrations of analytes. Ask your prospective lab
what their acceptable lab precision limits are, and make sure
they agree with the limits in your quality assurance project
plan. Then, make sure you get results from lab replicates
analyzed with your batch of samples, and calculate the
precision of that analytical run.
Volunteers who analyze their own samples should repli-
cate at least one sample for each parameter on each sampling
day. Because volunteer programs do not analyze the same
volume of samples as commercial labs, it is necessary to
replicate a higher number of samples in order to evaluate
analytical precision. Also, as most volunteer monitoring
programs are aware, the quality of volunteer-generated data
is frequently questioned. A higher number of replicate mea-
surements allows for a better estimate of precision, which
adds to the credibility of data collected by a volunteer
program.
2. Lab check standards
Lab check standards are solutions of known concentrations
that are analyzed as part of a lab's internal QC program.
Ideally the check standards will be in the same concentration
range as your samples. For example, if you expect your
samples to range from 0 to 100 mg/L, you don't want the lab
check standards to range from 100 to 1,000 mg/L. If the range
of the check standard concentrations is outside the range of
concentrations expected in your samples, you will calculate
an estimate of lab accuracy that won't apply to your batch of
samples. Worse, it is likely that the analytical instrumenta-
tion has not been calibrated correctly to analyze your samples.
3. Matrix spikes
Matrix spikes are lab splits with a known concentration of the
parameter (usually nutrients or metals) added to one of the
splits. The spiked sample is analyzed and the result compared
to the result from the unadulterated sample. The amount of
the spike that was "recovered" is reported as a percent and
gives an estimate of bias due to calibration and interference
effects. Bias is a measure of the difference between the result
for a parameter and the true value. Bias can be due to error
introduced from sample collection, instability of samples,
interference effects, calibration of the analytical instrument,
and contamination.
Ask the lab to provide you with results from matrix spikes
run with your batch of samples. As with lab check standards,
the concentration of the spiked sample should be in the same
range of concentrations as the rest of your samples. For
example, if your sample concentrations range from 0 to 100
mg/L, the spike concentration should not be 200 mg/L.
4. Lab blanks
For most parameters, labs routinely analyze blank samples.
In addition to indicating whether the analytical method
introduced contamination, results are used to calculate detec-
tion limits. Detection limits include estimates of detecting
false positives (probability of detecting an analyte when it is
not present) and false negatives (probability of not detecting
an analyte when it is present). Volunteers who analyze their
own samples should also analyze blanks.
Not all labs calculate detection limits the same way.
Usually, though, the standard deviation of the results of
several lab blanks is used in the calculation. Because there
does not seem to be a standard method used to calculate
detection limits, there are labs that claim low detection limits,
but the "limit" would be much higher if a different calculation
method was used. For your program, decide on a method for
calculating detection limits, and ask the lab to provide you
with the results of the blanks run with your batch of samples.
37
-------
Session 2: Assuring Quality Data
You will have to calculate whether your requirements for
detection limits were met.
5. Audit samples
Audit samples are synthetic samples with known concentra-
tions. They can bepurchased, or they can be prepared by a QA
officer or a volunteer monitoring program coordinator. Audit
samples can be analyzed as part of a lab's routine QC runs, or
they can be poured into a field sampling bottle so that the
audit sample is "disguised" as a regular sample.
Preparing and analyzing audit samples may be a good idea
if monitoringresults may be used to settle an issue (especially
any legal disputes), or if a large number of samples (more
than 100) are collected and analyzed for each parameter, or
if you have unusual or particularly stringent QA/QC require-
ments. If you decide to use audit samples, make sure the
concentrations of the samples are in the range of your sample
results. For example, don't submit an audit sample of 1.00
mg/L for total phosphorus if most of your water samples are
expected to be around 0.050 mg/L.
For Washington State's lake monitoring program, two to
three audit samples for total phosphorus and total nitrogen are
disguised and sent to the lab during each survey. Because
concentrations of total phosphorus are very low in Washing-
ton lakes, concentrations of the total phosphorus audit samples
range from 7.5 (og/L to 150 Hg/L. I have used results from
audit samples (sent in "blind" disguised as lake samples) to
convince a lab that there was a problem with their analytical
method. Although the lab's internal quality control results
were within their acceptable limits, the lab's QC require-
ments were based on analyzing effluent samples (with high
phosphorus levels), as opposed to analyzing water samples
collected from lakes and streams. My QC requirements were
not met, so I had to throw out all the data from that survey.
38
-------
Session 2: Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Moderator: Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Presenters: Geoff Dates; Dave Penrose, North Carolina
Department of Health and Natural Resources
Geoff Dates
River Watch Network
Dave Penrose
North Carolina Department of
Health and Natural Resources
I. Introduction and overview
A. What are benthic macroinvertebrates?
We have two definitions—a biological one and a practical
one:
• Biological: Aquatic animals without backbones that
spend at least a part of their life cycle on the river
bottom.
• Practical: Aquatic animals without backbones that will
not pass through a 0.6-mm mesh.
Benthic macroinvertebrates include aquatic insects—such
as mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, midges, and beetles—as
well as crayfish, worms, clams, and snails. They inhabit all
types of running waters from rushing mountain streams with
rocky bottoms to sluggish, meandering rivers with sand and
mud bottoms. These organisms are important indicators of
the biological integrity or biological health of our rivers and
streams.
Most macroinvertebrates go through a series of changes in
form—from egg to adult—known as metamorphosis. The
length of this cycle ranges from less than 2 weeks for some
midges and mosquitoes to 4 — 5 years for some dobsonflies
and dragonflies. Macroinvertebrates we collect from the
river bottom are primarily in their larval form.
B. What role do they play in the stream ecosystem?
Benthic macroinvertebrates exist in a wide range of locations
in the river:
• Shallow, fast-moving, rocky bottom areas known as
riffles.
• Deeper, slower moving sandy and gravelly bottom areas
known as runs.
• Deep, slow-moving muddy-bottom areas known as
pools.
By far the most diverse community is found in the riffle
areas. This is because riffles contain a variety of bottom
materials that provide an abundance of surfaces and spaces
for living and feeding. The faster current brings food, which
is present in the water column, deposited on the bottom, and
growing on the rocks.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are very important to the
processing of food in the river ecosystem. They can be
separated into four broad functional feeding groups:
Shredders feed on large pieces of organic matter such as
leaves and other plant parts that fall into the river.
Collectors feed on small bits of organic matter (less than
1 mm in size) either by filtering them from the passing water
(filtering collectors) or gathering them from the stream
bottom (gathering collectors).
Scrapers (also called grazers) remove and feed on algae
attached to rocks or log surfaces in the current.
Predators capture and feed on other animals in the river.
The feeding groups present tell us something about the
nature of the food source in the stream. In forested headwa-
ters areas, the food source is primarily large pieces of organic
matter that fall into the rocky-bottomed stream from trees,
shrubs, and other riparian vegetation. The shredders will
make up a large percentage of the community. In the mid-
reaches, riparian trees no longer shade the entire stream and
light may penetrate to the bottom. The resulting plant growth
on the rocks provides food for the scrapers and this group will
be well represented. Also, finer organic material processed
upstream will be in the water column and settled on the
bottom providing food for the filtering and gathering collec-
tors. Because the mid-reaches contain a diversity of food
sources and bottom conditions, a diverse community is
usually present. In larger rivers, the bottom is primarily soft
and sandy or muddy. Food is primarily fine organic matter in
the water column and on the bottom. The filtering and
gathering collectors dominate.
The point is that the community changes naturally from
source to mouth, and you must take these natural changes into
account when you survey the macroinvertebrate community
in a river. Otherwise, you may incorrectly attribute upstream-
to-downstream changes to human impacts, rather than the
natural progression.
C. Why are they used to monitor rivers?
Benthic macroinvertebrates are good indicators of the river's
condition for several reasons:
1. They are a measure of the river's biological integrity.
2. They reflect the physical, chemical, and biological
conditions in the stream.
3. They can't escape pollution; they integrate the effects of
short-term pollution events and long-term water quality.
4. They are a critical part of the river's food web.
5. Some of them are very intolerant to pollution.
6. They are relatively easy to sample.
D. What can they tell us about the condition of the river?
The macroinvertebrate community can be used to compare
conditions upstream to downstream, above and below pollu-
tion sources, and from season to season and year to year. It
39
-------
Session 2: Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
can also be used to evaluate the biological responses to
physical habitat changes (like dams or dredging).
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys measure a number of
characteristics of the macroinvertebrate community, each of
which tells us something about the condition of the river:
Abundance: the number of organisms present. Nutrient-
and food-enriched streams will usually have a greater abun-
dance of benthic macroinvertebrates. Both toxicity and physi-
cal habitat degradation (silt or sand erosion) will usually
decrease the abundance.
Richness: the number of different types of organisms
present. This is a rough measure of the diversity of the
macroinvertebrate community. Usually the greater the num-
ber of taxa, the healthier the stream. However, some pristine
headwater streams may be naturally low in richness, due to a
relative lack of food (quantity and different types) and
generally lower abundance of organisms. In these areas, an
increase in richness may indicate pollution from organic
material (from failing septic systems, for example).
Composition: the types of organisms that make up the
community. In general, the mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies
should be well represented. As a group, stoneflies are the
most sensitive to pollution from sewage and other organic
material. They usually make up a relatively small percentage
of the sample (5-10%) and are usually the first to disappear
from the stream. If they are not present, stream quality may
be moderately degraded. Mayflies contain many taxa that are
sensitive to pollution. They usually make up a significant
percent of the sample (20-40%) and are usually the next to
disappear. If neither mayflies nor stoneflies are present, the
stream is probably moderately to seriously degraded.
Caddisflies contain many taxa that are sensitive to pollution,
but also certain genera (within the family Hydropsychidae)
which are tolerant to pollution. It is very rare to find a sample
with no caddisflies—usually the Hydropsychid caddisflies
will be present even in seriously degraded streams. If the
sample is dominated (>50%) by worms or midges, the stream
is probably seriously degraded.
Functional feeding groups: groups of organisms that
share a common feeding strategy and food source. If all
functional feeding groups are well represented this indicates
a diversity of food sources. If collectors dominate, it may
indicate an overload of organic material in the water column
or settled on the river bottom.
Pollution tolerance: the tolerance of organisms to or-
ganic matter and nutrients. With increases in pollution from
sources of organic material like sewage or animal manure, the
types of organisms in the stream usually shift from intolerant
taxa (like stoneflies) to tolerant taxa (like worms and midges).
II. How to design a benthic macroinvertebrate
study
Designing a benthic macroinvertebrate study involves mak-
ing a number of decisions about what, where, how, and when
you'll monitor.
A. What questions are you trying to answer?
Decide what you want to know about the river. Your deci-
sions about where, how, and when to monitor will depend on
the questions you're asking. Examples of questions include
the following:
• How does the river change from headwaters to mouth?
• Is there any difference in the river between developed
and undeveloped river corridors?
• What is the impact of a wastewater treatment plant on the
river?
• What is the impact of specific residential, commercial, or
industrial developments on the river?
Depending on the question, you select one of two general
types of macroinvertebrate studies:
1. The river biological characterization study is in-
tended to characterize the macroinvertebrate communities in
an entire watershed area in order to evaluate the changes in
these communities within a river system. This type of study
would answer the first and second questions listed above.
2. The impact assessment study evaluates the effect of a
human alteration of the river (pollution discharge, dam, etc.)
on the organisms living there. This type of survey is intended
to identify those changes in the biological community that are
due solely to the alteration. It would help answer the third and
fourth questions listed above.
B. Where will you collect the samples?
Sampling locations for a river characterization survey
should reflect the full range of conditions in a river system.
Some of these include:
• streams and rivers of different orders (sizes) or with
different drainage basin areas
• streams and rivers located at different altitudes
• streams and rivers located in areas of differing predomi-
nant land use (urban, agricultural, forested)
• streams and rivers receiving point source discharges
(wastewater treatment facilities, storm drains)
• streams and rivers receiving nonpoint pollution (e.g.,
cities, towns, large residential developments, inten-
sively logged areas, irrigated land areas, areas treated
with pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers, low-alkalinity
streams sensitive to acid rain inputs)
• a reference site representing the best attainable macroin-
vertebrate habitat conditions in your area.
To select the reference site, consult with an experienced
aquatic biologist who is familiar with the characteristics of
the rivers in your area. The site need not be on your river, but
should have similar habitat characteristics. Many state agen-
cies have already identified these sites.
If you're carrying out an impact assessment, you'll need
three sites:
1. Reference or control site: located immediately
40
-------
Session 2: Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
upstream of any potential impact from the alteration.
2. Impact site: located immediately downstream of the
alteration, at the point where the impact is completely
integrated with the river water. The benthic macroinver-
tebrate community at this site is compared to the
community at the reference site.
3. Recovery site: located downstream from the alteration,
at a point where the river has at least partially recovered
from the impact. The benthic macroinvertebrate
community at this site is compared to the community at
the reference site.
C. How will you collect and analyze the samples?
1. Habitat assessment
The habitat assessment measures a number of characteristics
that are important to the benthic macroinvertebrate commu-
nity. This assessment includes the primary habitat charac-
teristics (those that have the greatest effect on the structure of
the macroinvertebrate community), which are river bottom
composition, percent embeddedness, and current velocity. It
also includes secondary habitat characteristics such as chan-
nel alteration, sediment deposits in pools, riffles characteris-
tics, channel flow status, condition of banks, bank vegetative
protection, riparian vegetative zone width, overhead canopy,
water appearance, water odor, water temperature, water
depth, percent algal growth, and velocity/depth regimes.
2, Collecting macroinvertebrates
Nets are used to catch organisms which are dislodged from
the river bottom immediately upstream. This technique is
best suited for use in riffle habitats.
Advantages of nets: A net enables immediate collection of
a sample, on short notice. The collection technique is
relatively easy for trained volunteers to use. It also
samples the river bottom directly and the organisms
collected are those that are actually living there.
Disadvantages of nets: Nets are not useful in deep, muddy
rivers. They may be difficult to use where the river
bottom is embedded with sand or silt. Sampling
technique may differ among samplers, introducing an
error into the results.
Artificial substrates are devices which are placed on the
river bottom, or suspended in the water column, and provide
a place for the macroinvertebrates to colonize over a period
of time—usually 3-5 weeks. The devices are then retrieved.
Check with your state's aquatic biologist to see what type is
recommended. Two types of artificial substrates are com-
monly used: Multi-plate samplers consist of tiles stacked
with spacers on an aluminum turnbuckle. Rock baskets con-
sist of a wire mesh basket filled with similar-sized rocks (4 to
12 cm in diameter) collected from an exposed area along the
stream.
Advantages of artificial substrates: The use of artificial
substrates helps eliminate variations in sampling
techniques and standardizes the type and area of
macroinvertebrate habitat between sites. This is
particularly important in impact assessment surveys,
where upstream and downstream sites will be com-
pared. Artificial substrates also enable sample collec-
tion in areas that do not lend themselves to the use of
nets—for example, deep rivers or sandy or silty
bottoms.
Disadvantages of artificial substrates: Substrates can be
washed away in high flows, lost, or stolen. They also
require at least a month's lead time to allow the
organisms time to colonize the substrate. They may not
invite colonization from burrowing organisms, such as
worms. Therefore, the sample may not include all the
organisms that are actually living at the site. Further,
Table 1: Field vs. Lab Processing
FIELD PROCESSING
Advantages
Volunteers gain quick feedback on conditions
Techniques relatively simple
Organisms not killed
Work completed on day of collection
Behavior of live critters helps ID
LAB PROCESSING
Disadvantages
Some organisms difficult to ID in field
Limited taxonomic information
Limited sensitivity
Quality assurance is difficult
Field conditions can be difficult
Advantages
ID easier using high magnification
Organisms can be ID'ed to family and beyond
More sensitive; can detect subtle impacts
Quality assurance relatively simple
Disadvantages
Work is time-consuming and intensive
Rigorous training required
Expensive equipment and lab equipment
Involvement of aquatic biologist needed
41
-------
Session 2: Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
they represent an ideal physical habitat, which may not
really exist at the site. Therefore, the organisms that
colonize the substrate might not be able to live at the
site, due to heavy sedimentation, for example.
3. Field or lab processing of samples?
Once the samples are collected, they may be processed either
in the field or in the lab.
Field processing involves picking a subsample and iden-
tifying the organisms to some taxonomic level, usually order
and some families.
Lab processing involves preserving the sample or
subsample and bringing it to a lab for later identification,
usually to family and some genera or species.
Table 1 shows some advantages and disadvantages of
each method.
4. Identification
There are two main considerations in deciding which level of
taxonomic identification to undertake: (1) the identification
skills of you and your volunteers, and (2) the sensitivity
required of the study.
Identification to order can be fairly easily accomplished
by a trained nonbiologist. Family level taxonomy involves
knowledge of some fairly subtle differences in body charac-
teristics, and requires the availability of an aquatic biologist
or entomologist to verify the identification.
The sensitivity of the study refers to its ability to detect
changes in the community from site to site. Sometimes these
changes are subtle. For example, identification to order might
show a predominance of mayflies and caddisflies. Identifica-
tion to family might .show that they are all from pollution-
tolerant families. Family level identification also allows the
identification offunctional feeding groups.
D. When and how frequently will you collect samples?
There are a number of considerations in determining time of
year to collect the samples:
• Avoid periods of heavy emergence: This can affect your
upstream-to-downstream comparisons. Spring and early
summer are heavy emergence periods in the Northeast.
• Do you want best- or worst-case conditions? Best-case
conditions are usually in the spring, worst-case in late
summer and early fall.
• Consider the life cycles and size of the organisms.
Identification of immature larvae can be very difficult.
As the organisms grow, their body characteristics
become more pronounced. Organisms are usually
largest in the spring, before they emerge.
• When does your state agency sample? If you expect them
to use your data, you should sample when they do.
• Avoid high flows. High, fast water is dangerous and
makes it difficult to do quality collection.
Ideally, macroinvertebrate samples should be collected
four times a year (once per season). If this is impractical, we
recommend at least one sampling in the early fall. In the fall,
the community is more stable—fewer organisms emerge
from the water in their adult forms. In addition, the macroin-
vertebrate community in the fall may represent a "worst-case
scenario" because it will reflect the effects of summer high
temperatures and low flows.
If possible, an early spring sampling should also be done.
This is useful to evaluate how the community changes over
the summer.
E. What quality assurance procedures will you use?
We recommend the following quality assurance steps:
Replicate samples: Collecting two or three replicate
samples at each site helps assure the representativeness of the
samples.
Duplicate collection: Another team or, better yet, a pro-
fessional aquatic biologist collects samples at the same site,
at the same time (within a day) as the volunteer team.
Sample preservation: Samples are preserved in 90 percent
ethyl alcohol, archived in labeled vials, and can be re-
processed at any time.
Verification by a professional: Identification of organ-
isms by volunteers is checked by an aquatic biologist.
Habitat assessment by the same people: The same people
should carry out the habitat assessment at all the sampling
sites.
III. How will you manage and interpret the
results?
After you've identified the critters, you've got numbers of
organisms associated with each taxonomic rank (order or
family). These numbers can be summarized using the follow-
ing data analysis techniques known as metrics. These metrics
describe the benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected in
terms of abundance, diversity, pollution tolerance, composi-
tion, how they compare with each other, and how they
compare with a "model community."
A. Density (abundance)
Organism Density per Sample: An estimate of the total
number of individuals in the sample.
B. Richness (diversity)
EPTFamily Richness: The number of mayfly (E), stonefly
(P), and caddisfiy (T) families present. This is an estimate if
organisms are identified only to order.
Total Taxa Family Richness: The number of macroinver-
tebrate families present. This is an estimate if organisms are
identified only to order.
C. Pollution tolerance
Modified Family Biotic Index: This analysis, developed
by Hilsenhoff, assigns each family a pollution tolerance
value from 0 to 10, with 0 being intolerant and 10 being the
most tolerant. Tolerance values should be adjusted for differ-
ent ecoregions.
42
-------
Session 2: Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
D. Community composition
Functional feeding group analyses: The percent compo-
sition of shredders, predators, gathering collectors, filtering
collectors, and scrapers from a site. These numbers can also
be used to calculate ratios—for example, scrapers to filtering
collectors.
% dominance: The percentage of the sample made up of
the dominant order, family, etc.
% community compositions (major groups, families): The
percent of the sample in selected major groups or families.
E. Community comparisons
Pinkham and Pearson Community Similarity Index: This
shows the degree of similarity between two sites, typically a
site upstream of a stream alteration and one downstream of
that alteration.
% Model Affinity: This is ameasure of the similarity of the
sample to a model "non-impacted" community based on the
Percent Composition of Selected Major Groups. It is from the
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation and
can be adjusted by your state's aquatic biologist.
IV. What methods are out there and how can
you choose one that's right for you?
There are three basic approaches to volunteer monitoring
using benthic macroinvertebrates:
Stream Habitat Walk: Identification and assessment of
stream habitat based on visual observation of habitat charac-
teristics, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, plants, and other
attributes of the stream. Some measurements of stream char-
acteristics are involved.
Streamside Bioassessment: The Stream Habitat Walk
plus collecting benthic macroinvertebrates and identifying
orders and some families in the field using standardized
protocols. A stream quality index is calculated based on
estimating abundance of organisms in three pollution sensi-
tivity groups.
Intensive Stream Bioassessment: Collecting benthic
macroinvertebrates, preserving the sample or a subsample,
and identifying families in a lab. Identified organisms are
archived for later verification. Data are analyzed using the
metrics discussed above.
In general, these three approaches represent a successive
increase in sensitivity and complexity, as well as in the time,
expense and skill required. All three are useful for increasing
public awareness and for screening to identify problems. The
intensive stream bioassessment can provide more detailed
and specific information about the severity of impacts and the
effects of improvement actions. Picking the method that's
right for you involves assessing your program goals, data
quality objectives, human and financial resources, and level
of expertise.
References
Bode, Robert, et al. 1991. Methods for Rapid Biological
Assessment of Streams. Stream Biomonitoring Unit,
Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division of
Water, Albany, NY.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
1992. Cumulative Macroinvertebrate Taxa List. Water
Management Bureau.
Dates, Geoff and Byrne, Jack. 1994. Benthic Macroinver-
tebrate Monitoring Manual. River Watch Network,
Montpelier, VT.
McCafferty, W. Patrick. 1981. Aquatic Entomology. Jones
and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Boston MA.
Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W. 1984. An Introduction
to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 2nd Edition.
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, LA.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources. 1992. Standard Operating Proce-
dures Biological Monitoring.
Plafkin, James L, et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Report # EPA/444/4-89-
001. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Smith, Douglas G. 1991. Key to the Freshwater
Macroinvertebrates of Massachusetts. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Common Aquatic Flora and
Fauna of the Tennessee Valley. Water Quality Series
Booklet 4.
43
-------
Session 2: Building Partnerships with Universities
Building Partnerships with Universities
Moderator: Paul Godfrey, Massachusetts Water Watch Part-
nership
Presenters: Paul Godfrey; BUI Davies, Auburn University
Dept. of Fisheries; Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Center; Gail Whitney, Saturday Acad-
emy of Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology
Introduction
Paul Godfrey
There are many reasons why citizen monitoring programs
would want to interact with universities. These might include
the following:
• Access to student help
• Technical advice (e.g., for project design, data interpreta-
tion, taxonomic identification)
• Use of specialized equipment
• Laboratory analysis
• Database management
• Access to existing data
• Library facilities
The question is, How do you make the appropriate and
successful university or college contact?
Finding the university partner
Suffice it to say that no university or college to my knowledge
has an "Office of Citizen Monitoring Project Assistance"
waiting for you to call. It's up to you to identify and target
your potential partners. To do this, it's essential for you to
recognize the reward systems of universities and colleges so
that you may plan a strategy consistent with that system.
We probably all recognize that universities and colleges
usually cite their mission as teaching, research, and public
service. But on this basic mission tripod, not all legs are the
same length. For example:
Community colleges and four-year undergraduate col-
leges place a heavy emphasis on teaching. Research is a low
priority. Community colleges might be an excellent place to
seek student help, particularly since many of the students may
stay in the community after graduation and continue working
with you. You might also gain access to equipment used in
labs. However, sophisticated equipment is unlikely so don't
expectspecial lab analyses or quality control help. If a faculty
member helps, it will be on his or her own already limited
time.
Colleges and universities with graduate programs exem-
plify a complete shift in priorities and rewards. Research
becomes the principal focus, with the attendant need to get
grants, publish results, and become respected among your
peers. Public service always trails. The faculty may be
interested in your project if there is a research angle as well
as a student training opportunity. Lab and computer facilities
will be present. Expertise is usually top-notch. However, the
absolute need to get grants, produce publications, and derive
part of their own salary can create a strong impetus for faculty
not to "waste their time" on efforts that do not contribute in
one of those three areas.
We also need to distinguish between public and private
universities. Public universities are based on the land grant
principle. Consequently, we see at those institutions outreach
programs like Cooperative Extension, 4-H, Water Resources
Research Centers, and many others that generally do not exist
at private institutions. Therefore, the reward system at public
universities is more likely to reward public service and
outreach than at private universities.
On any campus, there will be strong differences between
departments in how they view public outreach. The classic
agricultural departments at public universities view this as a
major role, but they may have a very restricted idea of who
their clients are. Engineering departments are accustomed to
outside consulting—for a fee—and actively discourage pro
bono work.
And finally, there will be strong differences between
faculty. Most notable will be the difference between untenured
faculty and tenured faculty. Untenured faculty must measure
up to rigorous standards of research and publication with
good teaching or face termination after five or so years.
Consequently, few young faculty can afford the risk that
working with citizen monitoring entails. Tenured faculty are
much freer to participate.
At public universities, the best place to start searching for
contacts may be with the Cooperative Extension and Water
Resources Institute offices. These folks are usually very
knowledgeable about faculty interests. If the university has a
news bureau, they often maintain up-to-date files on faculty
interests. Failing these, I would request a university catalog.
This will let you narrow your focus to those who specialize
in your area of interest. A departmental head secretary can
also be helpful.
Convincing the university partner
You should now consider what your program has to offer and
what your university partner will be looking for. That is, what
kind of "selling job" will you have to do to convince some
part of a university to assist you?
Our panel will look at this question from the perspective
of both the university and the citizen monitoring project.
44
-------
Session 2: Building Partnerships with Universities
Bill Davies
Auburn University Department of Fisheries
Cooperative Extension Service
Involvement
The Cooperative Extension Service was founded to be an
educational agency by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. The
intent was for the Service to work between the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture and the land grant universities, diffusing
among the people of the United States useful and practical
information relating to agriculture and home economics.
Clearly the interests of farmers, the public, and agricul-
ture-related business do not always coincide. As a result, it is
difficult, at times, for citizen monitoring groups to develop
cooperative agreements with Colleges of Agriculture, and
particularly with Cooperative Extension Service agents work-
ing at the county level. The availability of local funding is
important in sustaining agent activities, and is influenced to
some extent by large landowners in the county. Agents are
often reluctant to provide support to groups that have not
traditionally backed their programs. Often monitoring groups
are formed because they disagree with, or are offended by,
current land use practices. County agents are caught between
conflicting interests and often choose to support those that
have been providing support.
For citizen monitoring groups to work effectively with
county agents, they need to be aware of and eventually
overcome long-standing traditions. There is usually strong
career and institutional inertia that must be overcome. Agents
must meet certain expectations set at the local, state, and
federal level. In some states, expectations for agents have
been recently revised. For example, in Alabama, their role
has been expanded to include:
1. Regain agricultural/forestry profitability
2. Develop, conserve, and manage natural resources
3. Enhance family and individual well-being
4. Develop human resources
5. Revitalize rural Alabama
This list might not relate to the concerns of some monitor-
ing groups, for whom upgrading water quality standards or
increasing biodiversity of aquatic organisms in streams are
goals.
There are communication barriers that affect the types of
questions asked. For example, instead of asking, How can we
reduce phosphates in streams? a citizen monitoring group
might ask, Why is phosphate high to begin with? The latter
would have social/cultural implications not necessarily im-
plied by the former.
There can be differences in philosophy. When an ecologi-
cal perspective is assumed, rather than the reductionist view
often associated with traditional science, small but cumula-
tive effects may be documented by determining long-term
trends. The value of an ecological perspective and associated
trend analysis will usually have to be justified to those used
to a more traditional view of science.
There is a tradition that for nature to have value, it must be
subdued and conquered. Writing early in the 17th century,
Frances Bacon stated, "Bid her [nature] to your service, and
make her your slave." We have phrases in common use today
such as "battling" weeds and "eradicating" pests. Citizen
monitors often have a different philosophy, one in which the
stability, integrity, and beauty of land-waterscapes should
include "weeds" and "pests."
And finally, there is the problem of objectivity. Tradi-
tional science means only trusting carefully controlled, mea-
surable results. Monitoring data does not necessarily fall into
this category, and is therefore viewed as having less or no
value. Monitors must strive to follow quality control proce-
dures and be systematic in data collection.
The Cooperative Extension Service is an agency in tran-
sition. Rooted in the traditions of the past, it is evolving from
merely extending information to becoming agents of change.
Citizen monitoring groups and the Cooperative Extension
Service can work together to find common ground.
Meg Ken-
Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island
Involving University Students
For the last few years I' ve been working with college students
as volunteers and interns with the River Rescue program.
This has been a bit of eye-opening experience. Students are
not part of the 9-to-5 world, and there are several points you
need_to consider in working with them.
Although students do have coursework and knowledge
that can be very useful to your program, they rarely have
practical experience. Getting them up to speed may take some
time and effort. Consider whether you can get them trained
well enough in the relatively short time available to realize
the benefits of the training effort before their involvement
ends. One solution is to develop contracts with students. The
contract should include the student's beginning and ending
date (usually at least one academic year) and define their
responsibilities as well as what you will provide.
Remember also that students' priorities may not match
yours. For example, you may have a conference coming up
when they have exams. I can guarantee you that your confer-
ence won't be their top priority! Also, students are accus-
tomed to having long vacations in the winter, spring, and
summer. They may not want to give up their vacations to suit
your needs; or the school may require that they leave their
dorm room during vacations, and they may have no place to
live unless they go home.
Transportation and money can also present problems.
Students are often living on a shoestring. They may not have
cars, or if they have a car, they may not have money for gas.
45
-------
Session 2: Building Partnerships with Universities
Students cannot be expected to pay upfront for supplies,
conferences, and transportation, even if they will eventually
be reimbursed.
How to attract students
Students are generally attracted to working with a volunteer
monitoring project for one or more of the following three
basic reasons:
1. They would like to get job experience.
2. They are doing an internship for course credit.
3. They are being paid.
Let's look at some advantages and disadvantages of each
of these reasons, from the point of view of both the citizen
monitoring group and the university.
1. Job experience. College students, especially seniors,
may be willing to volunteer for your organization simply to
gain experience in working with a nonprofit organization and
doing scientific work.
An advantage from your point of view is that students who
are interested in gaining experience are often highly moti-
vated and will do a good job if they see that the work will
assist their careers. The flip side, of course, is that if they
decide this kind of work is not for them, their motivation will
become very low. It is important to assess these students'
interests and assign them to tasks that are compatible with
their future plans. Remember that the arrangement is a two-
way partnership. If they need to maximize job contacts, try to
introduce them to individuals and agencies,that will be
helpful to them.
Another advantage to you is that you design the project
(which might not be the case if they were working for course
credit). On the other hand, you won't have the faculty contact
you would have if they were working for credit. Another
disadvantage is that you have limited control over their hours,
since they are just volunteering their time.
From the university's point of view, having students
volunteer with your organization is desirable because it helps
with future student job placement and it can make coursework
more relevant, making students more likely to stay in school.
A possible disadvantage is that the students' work with your
project may distract them from their schoolwork.
2. Course credit. Students working for credit are often
highly motivated because a final product will result, for
which they will be graded. Another potential advantage to
your organization is that you have the opportunity to help
design a highly technical project for them. A danger, though,
is that while the student's project may be an interesting
research question, it may not be of much practical benefit to
your organization. Also bear in mind that the project must
have a defined beginning and end, and that you will have to
coordinate with faculty (the latter can be either an advantage
or a disadvantage to you, depending on the faculty).
From the university's point of view, having students work
with your program for course credit is advantageous because
it provides students and faculty with the opportunity to do
applied research and it allows the university to expand its
course offerings at no expense. A drawback is that the kinds
of projects you offer may not be scientifically valid enough
for university research.
3. Wages. When you hire students for wages, you have
more control in assigning their duties and work hours. You
also have the potential to hire students who possess specific
skills that you need—for example, knowledge of GIS (geo-
graphic information systems) or macroinvertebrate identifi-
cation. The down side is that these students will most likely
leave when their degree is complete. So you need to decide
whether it would be more cost-effective to hire a regular
employee, who would probably have more experience and
stay longer.
From the university's point of view, advantages are that
your organization is providing students with financial sup-
port and practical job experience.
Paul Godfrey
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Water Resources Research Institute
Involvement
A number of citizen monitoring projects have been initiated,
funded, supported, or encouraged by Water Resources Re-
search Institutes (WRRIs). Immediately coming to mind are
the New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program, the
Acid Rain Monitoring Project in Massachusetts, and Project
WET in Montana. I know that directors of WRRIs in Maine,
New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Idaho have been actively
involved. It's worth knowing a bit about how and why
WRRIs operate.
What are WRRIs?
WRRIs were created in 1965 by the Water Resource Re-
search Act. The program is currently administered by the
U.S. Geological Survey. There are 54 institutes—one at the
land grant university in each state and one each in Guam, the
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC. They all
have the same three goals: to foster water resources research
responsive to state, regional, and national needs; to train
future water resources professionals; and to conduct a cred-
ible information transfer program to bring the research re-
sults to the community. However, each institute finds a
different balance between these goals.
Institute programs are very flexible. Very little falls out-
side the realm of possibility. The major constraint is funding.
Institutes are currently receiving $ 100,000 in federal funds to
run their operations. These must be matched by $200,000 in
nonfederal funds—usually contributed faculty time and over-
head. Many institutes also have state appropriations and/or
contracts with other federal, state, or private sources.
46
-------
Session 2: Building Partnerships with Universities
The federal funds must not be used strictly for monitor-
ing—there must be either a research or information transfer
aspect. So measuring the flow in a stream to produce a table
of flow data would not be acceptable, but measuring the flow
in a stream to evaluate the effect of land use, topography, etc.
on minimum flow would be perfectly acceptable.
Support available from WRRIs
Institutes typically put approximately 60 percent of their
funds into research, most going for student support. They are
required to submit an annual proposal for funding. There is
little opportunity for an institute to provide support from
these funds except within this annual schedule.
Institutes solicit proposals from academic faculty through-
out their state, not just those at the host university. This may
be the single most important difference between WRRIs and
all other university institutes, centers, and programs. The
funds cannot go to nonacademic groups unless someone
there has some kind of academic affiliation such as an adjunct
position. So the interested citizen monitoring program must
find a kindred faculty member somewhere in the state to
submit the proposal. The proposal will be in competition with
other research proposals, so the research aspect must be
strong.
An underutilized part of the program is the information
transfer aspect. Most institutes rarely receive information
transfer proposals. However, this is a very valid part of the
program which would not be hard for a citizen monitoring
program to use.
"Selling points"
Whether you are submitting a research or information-trans-
fer proposal, there are several things to keep in mind. Insti-
tutes are always looking for ways to enhance their role in
coordinating the water resources community, meeting state
water resources needs, enhancing their and their universities'
constituency, and garnering a little political attention in the
statehouse, Congress, and the media. Citizen monitoring
projects offer more of this than almost any other comparable
expenditure. I think in large part as a result of the success of
the Acid Rain Monitoring Project, most directors are very
aware of the potential benefits offered by grassroots citizen
monitoring programs.
Other advantages for a WRRI are: the development of a
potentially useful database for research and teaching, oppor-
tunities for student training, expanded connection with agency
data users, and the chance of leveraging a volunteer monitor-
ing project into complementary research projects.
The difficulties for the institute come from having to deal
with a diverse constituency that includes more lay people
than many academics normally deal with professionally, the
challenge of using the political and media opportunities
effectively, and the possible perception by campus col-
leagues and administration that this is not what institutes
really ought to be doing—i.e., the same uphill battle that most
faculty face with any kind of public service effort. I believe
that, in most cases, you will find WRRIs less hidebound than
other comparable institutions.
If the director is not yet a kindred spirit (and he or she
probably isn't), you should plan on taking time before the
proposal deadline to sell your idea. Include the selling points
mentioned above, and demonstrate to the director that you
have a well-conceived design, top-notch quality control,
plans for information delivery, and ideas on how the institute
can benefit.
Institute directors are a diverse group. When I became a
director 14 years ago, I was one of very few who were not
engineers; now engineers are a distinct minority. Directors'
backgrounds range from solid state physics to law, econom-
ics, and planning.
Pros and cons for the monitoring project
The advantages to your project of an institute partnership
will, I believe, vastly outweigh the effort required to involve
an institute. You will have easier access to the technical
expertise at most colleges and universities in your state. You
will have increased credibility for your project because
scientists will be involved as advisors. You may have access
to lab and computer facilities and equipment that are not
readily available elsewhere. You will have a potential pool of
willing students.
If you are seeking funding, you should expect that an
institute will provide it for only a few years. .Other means of
support should be developed during your brief period of
institute support.
You may not need or be abler to get funding from an
institute but may still be able to obtain the other benefits.
Even having an institute staff in an advisory role may pay
enormous benefits in added credibility. Such services are not
free, so your fund-raising should include covering some of
the expenses of the institute.
Your disadvantages will be in having to accept consider-
ably more scientific rigor in your project, having to deal with
a sometimes monolithic administration that likes to extract
overhead costs as often as possible, having to deal with an
institute director who is probably juggling a dozen things at
once, and having to tone down your advocacy positions and
statements or else make it clear that the university and
institute do not necessarily endorse your views.
For example, the Massachusetts WRRC is providing
technical expertise, coordination, data management, and
training for a number of lake and river associations in
Massachusetts. We tell them all that we do not do advocacy.
. If they want to bring afarmer before the Board of Health, that
is their role—not ours. We will not do it for them or even go
with them. We will, however, assist them in interpreting their
results and developing a presentation so that their advocacy
is well founded and well presented.
47
-------
Session 2: Building Partnerships with Universities
Gail Whitney
Saturday Academy, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science
and Technology
University Support of Pre-College
Monitoring Activities
Saturday Academy is a pre-college program designed to
place middle and high school students, and their teachers,
into direct contact with community expertise and resources.
Based at Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technol-
ogy (OGI), Saturday Academy interacts with the graduate
program in Environmental Sciences and Engineering at OGI,
as well as graduate and undergraduate programs at the other
public and private colleges and universities in the area. This
ability to cut across institutional territorial lines allows Sat-
urday Academy to optimize the support available for volun-
teers to develop skills and knowledge in monitoring urban
natural areas, rivers, and wetlands.
As mentioned in the other presentations, there are pros and
cons involved in interacting with any institution. Our goal is
to engage students in "citizen science"—in feeling that they
can do good science and make meaningful contributions to
their world. Since this is education, it must be done on a
shoestring, and thus we must rely on the kindness of volun-
teers, especially those who relate well to pre-college stu-
dents. Undergraduate and graduate students are made to
order for this; they get to be role models, unlike their usual
rank in the academic food chain.
Saturday Academy has two NSF-funded projects that
engage middle and high school teachers and their students in
monitoring activities: theStudentWatershedResearchProject
(SWRP) and the Green City Data Project. Both involve the
collaboration of higher education, natural resource agencies,
and informal science providers, such as Audubon, in inten-
sive training in the knowledge and technique of water quality
monitoring and natural history inventory. After its second
year, SWRP is turning out classrooms of students who can
produce reliable water quality data (by agency standards) for
a variety of tests. Green City Data teams have been producing
maps and reports for the Portland area's Metro Greenspaces
Project. In both cases, college and university faculty and
student participation in training and quality control have been
essential.
While the faculty have received small stipends, student
participation has been motivated in part through award of
undergraduate or graduate credit. In Green City Data, a
graduate cartography seminar was responsible for training
and supervising 18 middle and high school teams in the field
mapping of 21 urban natural sites being considered for
acquisition or restoration.
Faculty have been expert instructors at training work-
shops, advisors on curriculum development, recruiters of
"student-power," quality control monitors, and campus hosts
for bright, motivated pre-college students, as well as being
resource people and colleagues for high school and middle
school teachers.
Another crucial role of the university is champion of good
science. Students learn the care and effort involved in collect-
ing valid information that is as free from bias or vested
interest as possible. From this base they are encouraged to
evaluate data, examine issues, report their findings, and even
advocate a particular position—but from observation and
analysis.
These interactions are of sufficient value that I predict they
will endure, whatever the fluctuations in all the funding
sources that can vary in so complex a set of relationships,
because students want to and do learn good science in service
of the world they are inheriting. The university is the appro-
priate partner for its "big picture" perspective, the science it
can model, and the human and other resources it can contrib-
ute to this enterprise.
48
-------
Session 2: Increasing Communication
Increasing Communication Among
Volunteer Programs
_
Moderator: Rita Haberman, River Network
Panelists: Andy Aim, GREEN/Econet; Jack Byrne, River
Watch Network; Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch;Rita
Haberman
Andy Aim
Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
(GREEN); EcoNet
Computer Networks
Does the net work?
Networking itself isn't an answer. The net only works if it
catches fish, and the fish in this case are effective strategies
for improving water quality and aquatic resources (including
habitat for real fish). The net works if it empowers all
involved with citizen monitoring efforts to be more effective
in improving water quality and empowers local communities
to be active participants in policy making.
If communication gives us more information, it is
useful... IF the information itself is useful. Too much
information is not a good thing. Likewise, contact with a
broader network of people doing volunteer monitoring can
provide inspiration, new ideas, teamwork to accomplish
tasks too big for any one group or individual, and a sense of
community—even a global community—that provides moral
support and encouragement. But too much interaction, like
too much of any thing no matter how good, is not a good thing.
We can find ourselves swamped with reading and writing, ear
glued to the telephone, eyes glazed from staring too long at a
computer screen.
What we need to share
Citizen monitors need to share the data they collect—with
their communities, with responsible agencies and research
institutions, and with each other. We need to share not only
data, but our human experiences, our successes and failures,
and the social contexts that affect our environments. We need
to understand that there are many paths to the goal of living
as a human race within the planet's ecology, and we need to
learn to understand, in our hearts as well as in our minds, that
in the diversity of our efforts is great strength and hope.
How to communicate
We need to follow a couple of rules in approaching commu-
nication. First, no single communication medium is better
than the others, and each is more effective when integrated
with the others. Second, the most potent communication is
that which empowers all participants as active contributors
and learners rather than as passive receivers. Thus communi-
cation which engenders critical thinking, encourages imagi-
nation, and stimulates action is more powerful than that
which simply informs or entertains. A group discussion is
more potent than a lecture.
Computer networks, global dialogs
A global dialog can help remove the social and structural
barriers to progress, and is essential if we are to resolve
problems that are global in their magnitude, such as the
degradation and destruction of the earth's aquatic ecosys-
tems. It is the vision of globally empowering, interactive
communications—via computer networks—that has caused
the Internet to grow exponentially, with now more than 2
million participants around the planet.
Direct communication between groups and individuals
via computer networks can reduce the bottlenecks and filters
that limit information flow. Editors, those much beloved and
maligned gatekeepers of (and sometimes barriers to) mass
communications, will become in this new vision the facilita-
tors, distilling the river of information that they touch, but not
muddying it or diverting or impeding its flow. More and more
of us will be editors, for better or worse.
Computer networks and citizen monitoring
How can computer networks benefit citizen monitoring ef-
forts? They can open new possibilities for collaboration, for
access to human and information resources, for sharing
human experience across what once were rigid barriers of
gender, culture, geography, and wealth. These networks must
not be superhighways accessible to some and bypassing
others; they need to be more like the clouds, the rain, the
rivers, and the seas: moving and recirculating information,
allowing all to drink and to ride the currents, then moving on.
Computer bulletin boards, such as EPA's NFS Bulletin
Board, and computer systems accessible via the global Internet,
such as EcoNet, EcoGopher at the University of Virginia, and
the EELink Gopher at the University of Michigan, provide
forums for information-sharing and community-building
among volunteer monitoring groups. GREEN is an example
of how these networks can be used to cross-link a diverse
array of groups that share the goal of community watershed
education and stewardship.
There are barriers, rocks in the stream, that limit adoption
of this new medium. There are too few vessels to dip into it
or float upon it. There are vast deserts where it does not flow,
places where its cost is too dear or its quality unsuitable.
There are many, many who have not learned to swim or are
afraid to try. But its waters are spreading, and more and more,
they will touch us all.
Sample it. Test it. Share your results.
49
-------
Session 2: Increasing Communication
Jack Byrne
River Watch Network
Creating Dialog
One of the barriers to communication is that often we don't
know what is going on in the other person's mind. For
example, River Watch Network recently spent two weeks in
Hungary working on a pilot project on the Danube River. The
Hungarians we were working with were very fluent in En-
glish. Nevertheless, after two or three days we realized that a
lot of the things that we thought we had agreed on beforehand
were very different from the things they were now talking
about doing. Even though we were speaking the same lan-
guage, the meanings we intended to give to words were very
different from what they were understanding. So we got into
this convention of saying, "Now you tell me what I just said."
We did that the whole time we were there.
It's important to be really clear about what you're saying,
and not to be shy about asking people, "What do you mean by
that?" or saying "I don't understand."
Dialog vs. discussion
A goal for this workshop is to find ways to create and sustain
dialog among people in this movement. Here's a definition of
dialog from a book called The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice oj'the Learning Organization.: "Dialog is a free flow
of meaning between people in the sense of a stream flowing
between two banks." That's different from discussion. Dis-
cussion is more like a ping-pong game—you're throwing
your views back and forth and the goal is to try to get the other
person to accept your view. We do a lot of discussion and we
don't do a lot of dialog.
We've got 300 people here at the conference; we've got
15,000 people who read The Volunteer Monitor; and from the
survey done for the most recent national volunteer monitor-
ing directory, a good guess would be about 250,000 people
involved in the volunteer monitoring movement. That's a lot
of potential either for a lot of noise, or for some real collective
wisdom. We want to reduce the noise.
Thinking vs. thoughts
In order to have dialog, I think we have to see the difference
between thinking as a process, and the results of that process,
which are thoughts. I'd like to end with another quote from
The Fifth Discipline: "Through dialog, people begin to ob-
serve the difference between thinking as an ongoing process
distinct from thoughts, the result of that process. Through
dialog, people can help each other become aware of the
incoherence in each other's thoughts, and in this way collec-
tive thought becomes more and more coherent."
Group Discussion
The rest of the"Increasing Communication" workshop was
conducted as an interactive group discussion of four ques-
tions. Discussion was focused specifically on increasing
communication among volunteer monitoring programs, as
opposed to increasing communication between volunteer
programs and other entities (the public, goverment, the
media, etc.). The ideas and recommendations that came out
of the session are summarized below.
1. WHY do we need to increase communication among
volunteer programs?
• To learn from each other's experience and mistakes
• To make connections and learn about new opportunities
• To be inspired by each other; to share a larger vision
• To organize watershed-wide monitoring efforts and
planning
• To respond to issues in a timely fashion
• To increase volunteer monitoring's credibility by
speaking with a unified voice
• To be able to send a coordinated message to government
• To bring more people into the movement
2. WHAT do we need to communicate with each other
about?
• Our success stories—measurable, tangible victories and
results
• Our failures
• Our data
• Legislative initiatives, especially the Clean Water Act
• Monitoring methods
• Volunteer program management techniques
• Outreach techniques
• Ideas for fundraising
• Volunteer monitoring's "agenda"
• Enforcement strategies
• Model programs
3. What avenues and means of communication are avail-
able to us?
• Various EPA-supported resources
- The Volunteer Monitor newsletter
- National directory
- Conferences and conference proceedings
- Guidance documents
- Electronic bulletin board (NFS-BBS)
• Partnerships and coalitions
• Committees and advisory groups
• Computer networking; data-sharing software
• Telephone; conference calls
• Videos
• Regional meetings
• Individual programs' newsletters
4. How can we improve our communication with each
other?
• Publish regional or watershed-wide newsletters
50
-------
Session 2: Increasing Communication
• Establish a National Monitoring Day
- one-day sampling across nation (Secchi Disk Dip-in?)
1 Publish The Volunteer Monitor more frequently
1 Use interactive, visual computer communication
1 Establish community electronic bulletin boards
p Exchange individual program newsletters
1 Share mailing lists (with caution!)
• Establish a volunteer monitoring referral service/
information clearinghouse
1 Avoid information overload
_
51
-------
Session 2: Fundraising, Part One
Fundraising, Part One:
Developing a Fundraising Plan
Moderator: Susan Handley, U.S. EPA Region 10
Presenters: Elizabeth Heath, Morgan Heath Consulting;
Jacqueline Jackson, Oregon Community Foundation Com-
munications Coordinator
Elizabeth M. Heath
Morgan Heath Consulting
There are four keys to fund development:
1. Plan
2. Just tell the story
3. Personalize
4. Cultivate
But before we get to those, it will be helpful to cover some
definitions and common fund development practices.
Fund development vs. fundraising
You may have already noticed that I say "fund development,"
not "fundraising." I can be, and have been, accused of
semantic hair-splitting, but I believe the difference is critical
to our mind-set about generating support.
When we speak of fundraising, we are talking about
activities that raise money. Of course. Isn't that what we're
about? Yes, but it is much more than that. Fund development
is the practice of articulating your cause, communicating that
information to prospective donors, linking your cause with
their priorities, asking for their contribution, thanking them,
and keeping them informed about what you're doing.
The difference is developing relationships with people,
The Donor Pyramid
Donors making planned
gifts such as bequests
Donors contributing
to major building &
equipment projects
Donors making
significant annual gifts
the outcome of which is increased financial support for your
cause, often year after year. In fundraising, you're just doing
something that brings in money—there's no commitment on
the part of those who give you their money, and there's no
assurance that those same people will give you money again.
Another difference is that of timing. Depending on what
you are doing, fundraising might be the right strategy for you.
While fundraising activities are time- and labor-intensive,
they can be put together in a relatively short period of time.
Fund development is for the long-term. It may cost you
everything you receive in contributions to bring in your
donors the first time on a cause-related basis, but over the
years you can reap the benefits of their increased support for
what you are doing.
Donor pyramid
Another fundamental concept is often called the "Donor
Pyramid." You begin with all of your prospects (and you
should remember that a 2 percent response to an appeal is
considered standard) and then move up to those you have
interested enough for them to make a contribution. When you
go back to these people for a second gift (usually a year later),
you have them hooked. Then your job is to thank and
communicate with them—to keep them part of your organi-
zation. The upper categories include donors who make major
gifts, who contribute significantly to building and equipment
projects (capital campaigns) and who make what are called
"planned" gifts (bequests, trusts, etc.).
Corporations and foundations
What I have presented so far has been focused on generating
support from individuals. (After all, most private philan-
thropic support comes from individuals.) However, almost
all of the above applies to corporations and foundations as
well. You must start by doing your research and targeting:
• Which grantmakers have priorities that match your
cause?
• Which give in your geographic area?
• How do they want their proposals submitted, and when?
• How much is an appropriate amount to request?
• Who are the decision makers and do any of your volun-
teer leaders have any connections with any of them?
For example, in Tacoma two local foundations differ
greatly in how they want to be approached. For one, it is
important to speak with their program officer first and discuss
your project. If your project falls within their guidelines, the
program officer will then help you refine your project, and the
result will be a formal inquiry letter which will be submitted
to the foundation's board. The second foundation publishes
52
-------
Session 2: Fundraising, Part One
the information that it wants you to include in your request
letter, as well as the timing and address for submittal. After
you submit your request, you hear nothing for some time,
until their board takes action. Calling to talk with the program
officer is not acceptable.
Corporations are different from foundations in that they
are usually much more approachable. As in any other fund
development activity, peer-to-peer contact is vitally impor-
tant. Again, advance research is essential, especially in how
to approach the decision maker and how well your request
will match the corporation's priorities for giving.
Another example: In the great bank shuffle of the past few
years, one of the new banks that came to town did so with a
strong sense of corporate responsibility, which they backed
up with major contributions. Naturally it didn' t take very long
for folks to figure that out, and when they did, the bank was
besieged with requests.
The organization I was with figured that what the bank
staff probably wanted more than anything was planning and
predictability. So when we submitted our proposal it included
this promise: If the bank would sponsor an event at the
$10,000 level, we would not ask them to support anything
else for the rest of the year. It worked, and both they and we
won. They focused their contribution for maximum visibility
to them, and got the predictability of knowing that they didn't
have to make a number of decisions throughout the year on
smaller requests. We won because their contribution to our
organization was increased by 35 percent and we had our
major sponsor for next year's auction. It's the old marketing
adage: Know Your Customer!
The four keys
Now let's get back to the four keys to fund development that
I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. We'll wrap
up with the actual creation of your plan, but first let's look at
the other three keys: telling the story, personalizing, and
cultivating.
Telling the story
You may hear fund development people talk about case
statements. A case statement is the articulation of why you
are seeking funds.
F ve often found the term "case statement" to be somewhat
intimidating. When communicating to your prospects, I
encourage you to "just tell the story."
Let me give you an example. When I was working with an
organization that serves youth at risk, our development
program included direct mail solicitation. We had had aver-
age success with previous solicitations, which had been
letters that described the organization and the services we
provided. Last year we "just told the story": With the permis-
sion of his parents, we told Antonio's story. This story was a
clear example of what we did, why we did it, and how it
worked. The result? We more than doubled our average gift
size and our total revenue from this solicitation.
Just tell your story—not in terms of what funding will do
for your organization or how many positions you will be able
to fill, but in terms of what financial support will mean in the
end.
In your case it might be a cleaner river. But even that isn' t
the end. What does a cleaner river mean? More fishing? More
public access? More clean water for a town? Find the end
benefit, and just tell that story.
Personalizing
The second key is personalization. In his book, Achieving
Excellence in Fund Raising, Henry Rosso points out the
value of the old axiom: "People do not give to causes. They
give to people with causes." (By the way, if you want a good
resource book and you can only get one, this is the one to get.)
They give to people with causes. And they give to people
who ask them, especially when those people are peers or
individuals they respect for one reason or another. How does
this fit into your program?
If you are going to seek funds through direct mail, there are
a number of personalization techniques that work. Let me go
back to the "Antonio" letter. We personalized it in three ways.
First, all 2,200 pieces were personally addressed, both in the
letter and on the envelope, through our laser printer. This was
time- and labor-intensive, but it was worth it. Secondly, each
letter was signed by our key volunteer—our board president,
a man well respected in the community. Finally, we attached
a "from the desk of.. ."note to many of the letters. Our board
members had reviewed the list and indicated those they knew.
In those cases, the note was "from the desk of that board
member. This level of personalization had an impact on the
success of this solicitation.
Personalization of corporate solicitations comes prima-
rily in the form of involvement of your volunteer leadership.
This is frequently a member of your board, but it might also
be a community leader who supports your cause and is
willing to help. In the best of all possible worlds, you want to
match your volunteer with the corporate decision maker. You
want your volunteer, George, to be able to call Mary, the CEO
of Company Z, on a peer-to-peer basis, get an appointment,
make the presentation, and ask for the contribution.
Personalization of foundation requests is sometimes a
little harder, depending on the receptivity of the foundation to
calls. If you can identify who is on the board of the founda-
tion, and if you have in your leadership or support group a
friend of one of those board members, then that's the channel
to use.
Cultivating
The third key is cultivation. (That isn't my favorite word, but
it's better than one many use—"nurturing." Someday I'm
going to find exactly the right word for this process.) If you
think of it in gardening terms, the process is just what the
words say. The seed has been planted (the donor has made a
first contribution), and you want to make sure that donor stays
53
-------
Session 2: Fundraising, Part One
healthy and grows.
Do you talk to your plants? You'd better "talk" to your
donors. Keep them informed. Let them know what is happen-
ing as a result of their gift. Keep telling the story. Donors have
varying needs beyond knowing what is going on with your
organization. All need a thank you. Some need more visible
recognition—a plaque to hang on the office wall, member-
ship in a special giving club, invitation to an event. Others are
adamant about not wanting you to spend any money on that
sort of stuff. Whatever their needs, it is important to discover
them and supply them.
Planning
Finally we come to the topic that was the title of this
workshop—fund development planning. Everything I've
discussed so far can be part of your plan—just pick which
components are right for your organization. First, though,
there is a checklist to complete. Your organization needs to
have, at the very least:
• A mission statement
• A Board of Directors
• Tax-exempt status
• The ability to do what you tell donors you are going to
do
With these in hand, you are ready to begin your fund
development planning. You will start with your overall plan;
then each component will need its own plan. Finally, you
need to mesh the timelines and budgets of each component so
that you know you can do it all.
Planning can be intimidating. But it doesn't need to be.
Your plan can be as simple as a listing of your goals and the
activities that you will undertake to reach those goals. Just
keep the SMAAC principle in mind: The goals and activities
must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Acceptable, and
Compatible.
So, decide how much you need to raise, and which
strategies you are going to use to raise that money. That's
your plan.
Here's an example:
Goals:
• To increase funding, over two years, enough to add a
development director
• To increase contributions by $15,000 by the end of the
year
Strategies:
• To conduct a 1994 direct mail campaign for donor
acquisition
• To present a special event (dinner and auction) in
October to raise community awareness and generate
cash influx
• To seek four new corporate sponsors for programs by
October
• To submit scheduled requests for ongoing funding to
foundations currently supporting the organization
Sponsorship Plan:
• Identify potential sponsors
- Research which local corporations support our cause
- Research who the decision makers are for each
• Match Board members with potential sponsors
• Prepare all collateral materials by (date)
• Prepare Board members for presentations
• Obtain appointments for presentations
- Send letter to corporate decision maker by (date)
- Have follow-up calls made within a week of letter
• Make presentations
• Report results
This is a very simple plan. Yours will need to have more
detail in it. Don't resent the time that it takes to do a plan
because for every hour that you spend planning a program,
you've saved yourself at least two in the actual execution.
54
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Geographic Information Systems and
Volunteer Monitoring Data
Moderator: Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire
Cooperative Extension
Presenters: Dave Drescher and Rosemary Furfey, Portland
Metro; Liz Hoenig, Stream Team; Steve Johnson,* PSU
Community Research Center; Jim Stimson, Montana Natu-
ral Resource Information Systems
Dave Drescher
Rosemary Furfey
Portland Metro
Geographic Information Systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) blend several ele-
ments: hardware (computer), software, and data. GIS tech-
nology, which is only about 20 years old, is a tool to visualize
and analyze data. Just as a word processor allows you to
utilize tools such as a spellchecker and a thesaurus in writing
a letter, GIS allows you to utilize a set of tools to look at data
and make maps. The power of GIS is in being able to take .
data, visually display it, and look at relationships that exist
among layers of data.
A distinction should be made between CADD and GIS,
two similar technologies. CADD stands for Computer Aided
Drafting and Design and may apply to a wide range of
software/hardware configurations that can generate maps or
schematics. CADD is useful at designing computer chips or
blueprints for a house, or creating a sewer line schematic.
You can change line widths or colors, easily update features,
or calculate area—but it would be difficult to ask questions of
*no paper submitted
the data. For example, in GIS a sewer line map tied to a soil
map could tell you where breaks in a line might occur due to
shifts of unstable soils. However, this type of spatial relation-
ship (soil types to sewer lines) does not exist in most CADD
systems.
Aerial photos and satellite imagery help us understand the
connections between communities, both human and environ-
mental. When we see the flow of rivers and location of
mountains, it is usually obvious why cities evolved where
they did. On a satellite image, Portland is seen nestled in
between a steep ridge and a river, the river providing a cheap
mode of transportation. These very informative hard-copy
products can used as layers in a GIS. Many images are
"smart"—each digital square, or pixel, in the image has a
unique number, or spectral signature. Using GIS, the number
combination can tell us if a stand of trees is hardwood or
deciduous, healthy or stressed.
How GIS is used
Here are several examples of uses for GIS technology. The
first is a map that links election results to a precinct map.
Looking through sheet after sheet of a hardcopy output of
"yeas" and "nays" means little, unless you are looking for just
one or two precincts. But when you link the data to the map
in GIS, patterns emerge, creating an immediate visual tool
that could be used for many purposes, including focusing
energies on educational opportunities.
Another use of GIS is for flow modeling, which looks at
three-dimensional space. The St. Johns Landfill is closing
down after some 40 years of use, and there is some concern
about flow of leachates into surrounding areas. By taking data
Figure 1. Undeveloped land.
55
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
from test holes drilled throughout the project site, continuous
surfaces for sand, silt, gravel, etc., can be generated for input
to a model. The different types of surfaces are important to
delineate becauseleachates will travel at varying rates through
different surfaces. When a slug of liquid is released in the
landfill, you can track how far, how long, and how much the
slug would disperse.
The next example uses GIS to help make land use planning
decisions. Many layers of data can be combined to model
urban growth planning. They include data on land use, tax
lots, undeveloped land (see Figure 1), floodplain, steep slope,
ease of access, and vacant land. Some of the layers were made
using GIS tools, like steep slope and ease of access, while
others were simply digitized or scanned, like tax lots and land
use. The power of GIS here is in creating an interface that
allows weighting the layers. For example, in trying to allocate
population growth, you may need to consider that 100 percent
of floodplain land is unavailable for development. In reality
floodplains are built in all the tune, with mitigation. By
entering a new percentage, the model can be rerun to reflect
changes based on new criteria.
GIS has taken the "black box" problem out of many
decision-making conflicts. A developer and an environmen-
talist are usually at odds in terms of what should or could be
developed. By making it possible to visualize data in map
form, weight layers as to their importance, and run models
depicting different scenarios, GIS helps concerned parties
reach consensus more easily.
Another example of GIS creating good visual information
is its ability to make shaded relief maps. Starting with USGS
line and point data from digital quad maps, a "TIN" (triangu-
lar irregular network) is generated. The TIN is then converted
to a lattice (file of regularly spaced points) and a hill-shading
algorithm is applied to the lattice surface (see Figure 2). If a
three-dimensional effect is desired, then the hill-shaded file
can be draped over the tilted lattice. These products are very
powerful in getting people to better understand where they
live, work, and play.
GIS is great at cranking out numbers and data. For ex-
ample, if you are interested in forming a watershed group,
you could use GIS to generate maps and calculate acreages by
steep slope, land use types, floodplain, etc. But if the water-
shed covers thousands of acres and has thousands of people,
it can be overwhelming trying to get information out to
potential members and supporters. Because GIS can easily
calculate the distance from a person's address to a given
geographic feature, such as a stream, you could create a
mailing list including owners, addresses, and distance of
property from the stream. Then for your first mailing you
could select from the list just those people who live within
500 feet of the stream. The next time, you might mail to those
that are 501 to 1,000 feet away.
GIS and volunteer monitoring
Here are two examples of how GIS might help the volunteer
monitoring process. The first deals with site selection. When
sites are chosen for testing, they are usually at an easy access
point. Let's say that site number 1 is at a bridge. GIS can
calculate, for all land upstream of the site, percentages of
residential, commercial, industrial, and park/open space.
You can then identify a downstream site that has similar
percentages for your site number 2. Because the sites have
similar characteristics, comparisons of collected data may
pinpoint problems more quickly. Also, the precise calculated
location for site 2 may not be very accessible. But by calling
up information in the GIS on ownership, a map can be made
to show best possible access spots.
Figure 2. Shaded relief map.
56
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Temporal change, or change over time, can very useful in
monitoring water quality. If, over several years, water quality
at site 1 does not change much, but site 2 has some major
change, calculating new percentages of land use for the
contributing area for site 2 may help pinpoint the source.
Collecting water quality information generates ahuge amount
of data. GIS can easily manipulate and track all the informa-
tion necessary to help make smart decisions. The best use of
GIS is when data are collected more than once, or when
observations are being compared.
The good, the bad, and the ugly of GIS
The "good" of GIS is that it helps to educate, and acts as a
facilitator in the decision-making process. The "bad" is that
data can be misrepresented and used incorrectly. The "ugly"
is the monetary cost, which can range from a few thousand
dollars to a million dollars. GIS in the volunteer monitoring
process is not useful for everyone, but it is an essential part of
the process.
Jim Stimson
Montana Natural Resource Information System (NRIS)
Using GIS to Support Volunteer
Water Monitoring Projects
The Montana Natural Resource Information
System
The Montana Natural Resource Information System (NRIS)
was established by the Montana Legislature to simplify
access to information on Montana's natural resources. NRIS
is located in the Montana State Library and has three primary
components: the Natural Heritage Program that focuses on
rare and endangered plants and animals; the Water Informa-
tion System that provides access to all kinds of information
about surface and ground water; and the Geographic Infor-
mation System (GIS) which focuses on using natural re-
source data in a spatial context. NRIS develops data manage-
ment techniques and software to increase the accessibility of
information and data. NRIS also specializes in applying the
GIS technology to natural resource applications, especially
in the area of water resources.
The primary goal for using the GIS is to make it easier to
examine, evaluate, interpret, and display natural resource
information. The following three examples show how NRIS
uses GIS:
1. NRIS operates an information and data clearinghouse
providing access to important sources of water information
for Montana. When data users make a request, one of the first
steps for NRIS staff is to determine if data exists in the area
of interest to the users. To streamline this first step, NRIS
maintains a number of statewide GIS layers showing the
locations of data collection sites maintained by state and
federal sources. The GIS layers include sites that are cur-
rently active and those that are not. Statewide maps can be
accessed quickly and queried using desktop computers (Per-
sonal Computers or PCs) to determine if data are available to
meet the users' request.
2. Maps of drought indices and streamflow were devel-
oped by NRIS to support Montana's drought monitoring and
mitigation efforts. The maps can be used to quickly assess
surface water supply and soil moisture conditions on a
statewide basis. Figure 1 shows one of the drought monitor-
ing maps.
3. NRIS is using the GIS to produce a groundwater atlas
for the state. Atlas maps will show the distribution of impor-
Surface Water Supply index (SWSI) Values:
May 1, 1994
KDTC: SW5J nluM pmurUy IncEkat* waw fuwrfy oxidfelor* lor Ifrf&atorf lands wfisin «icb
batffl. ft* waluti ifcawn tniy tM bund on pffivtixmit -ditt Hid tubjoct to eMfifi*.
Figure 1. Sample Montana drought monitoring map.
51
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
tant alluvial and bedrock aquifers, general water quality, and
potential threats to groundwater quality. Figure 2 shows one
of the atlas maps.
4. The GIS has been used to map lands and water bodies
that have special management status. These areas possess
unique physical characteristics, and may also have rare and
endangered animal and plant species and communities.
How NRIS uses the GIS to support citizen
monitoring programs
Volunteer water monitoring groups are often interested in
finding base-level, or background, information on their wa-
tershed or stream of interest. GIS is used to help volunteer
groups gain an accurate perspective of their watershed. Maps
are provided showing the location of the watershed and its
hydrography, physiography, and general geology. Land- and
water-use data are provided, when available, to help the
groups assess the influence of human activities on water
resources within the basin. The locations of existing monitor-
ing activities are also useful to help prevent duplication of
effort and create opportunities for cooperating with other
agency and volunteer monitoring groups.
Advice for volunteer groups wanting to use a
GIS
Several issues arise for groups interested in using a GIS to
support volunteer monitoring efforts. First, Do you really
need a GIS, or do you simply need access to one? GIS
hardware and software are quite expensive. While prices for
computer equipment and software have been declining for
some time now, the cost of acquiring a GIS can still be a
formidable obstacle. This is especially true for small citizen
groups and most schools. Another issue to consider is the
learning curve for GIS software. It requires a substantial
commitment of time, effort, and funding to learn how to use
a GIS proficiently. Not all volunteer groups have access to
individuals who want to make this level of commitment to
learn to use a GIS, or the funding to pay for training. In
addition, acquiring and building GIS data sets can be very
time-consuming and expensive. These costs can be, and often
are, much larger than the combined costs for acquiring
hardware and software, and training personnel. In light of
these considerations, it makes sense for most volunteer
groups not to own and operate a GIS. It's more feasible to
look for apartner, or sponsor, to help provide GIS services for
the volunteer monitoring project. Potential partners could
include corporations, nonprofit groups, and state universi-
ties. Support could also be obtained from federal, state, or
local agencies or programs that manage natural resources.
Clarifying how a volunteer group intends to use the GIS is
important and helps determine if the group really needs a full-
featured GIS. For instance, most people want to use a GIS to
produce a map or a series of maps. It is important to keep in
mind that a GIS is a very powerful data management and
spatial analysis tool. Much of this power is unnecessary and
wasted if all you need is a map. Don't misunderstand this
statement. I am not dismissing or making light of the impor-
tance of maps for any project or group effort. Maps are very
useful and powerful tools for communication. However, if
map-making is your primary need, there are less expensive
and less complicated PC-based GIS packages available.
Some of these products provide the ability to enter and
County
Surficial Aquifer System
Data provided by MBMG
Geology
•• Late Tertiary - Early Quaternary Sand and Gravel
Geology
I I Alluvium
Figure 2. Sample Montana groundwater atlas map.
58
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
manipulate data, display map images and GIS layers on a
computer screen, conduct data query and spatial analysis, and
print maps. If you use one of these PC-based systems, you
may still need access to a more powerful GIS to provide some
functions or data layers, but you will not have to depend on
it to serve the bulk of your GIS needs.
If a volunteer group is collecting data to input to a GIS, it
is very important to consider how the location of data collec-
tion sites will be determined and recorded. In most states,
geographic locations, such as land ownership boundaries, are
recorded using the Public Land Survey System. Areas and
points are recorded as Section, Township, and Range. These
locations are really geographical areas and not points. When
they are converted to a point coordinate system like Latitude-
Longitude, Universal Trans Mercator (UTM), or State Plane,
there is often significant error. Furthermore, a GIS cannot
directly use Public Land Survey locations; it can only use a
true point coordinate system location. Therefore, to save time
and effort, volunteer groups should use one of the point
coordinate system locations. Latitude-Longitude is very com-
monly used. The EPA River Reach numbering system will be
available for use in the future and could be used to link
monitoring data to a stream GIS layer. Instead of locating a
data collection site by a point location, the River Reach
system links sites to stream reaches that have been mapped
and stored in a GIS format. For groups interested in using a
GIS, the issue of which coordinate system to use is of
paramount importance. Groups should prepare from the start
to train volunteers to record locations using a true point
coordinate system.
In summary, it is important for volunteer groups to deter-
mine how they will use the GIS to support the monitoring
effort. Establishing a relationship with a partner or finding a
sponsor to help provide GIS services is often the most cost-
effective and time-efficient way for a volunteer group to
utilize GIS. Finding a partner or sponsor should be done early
in the life of a monitoring project, preferably before data
collection is started. Less expensive and less complicated
GIS systems are available for PC computers and can serve
most of the GIS needs for a volunteer group. It is very
important that locations for data collection sites are recorded
in a coordinate system that is usable and supported by GIS.
Latitude-Longitude is commonly used for this purpose.
Jeff Schloss
UNH Cooperative Extension-Lakes Lay Monitoring
Program
GIS Applications for Volunteer
Monitoring Programs: A Case Study
Earlier speakers have provided an excellent overview of what
Geographic Information Systems are, where you may access
the technology, and some discussion of limitations and costs.
As GIS technology is relatively new, they also suggest some
ways for volunteer monitoring groups to use the technology.
What I would like to add to this workshop discussion is a real-
life example of how citizen-derived monitoring data were
actually used in a GIS watershed study. As you will see, GIS
has a great potential for utilizing volunteer monitoring data.
In turn, GIS can provide back important information that can
both be used to improve volunteer monitoring strategy and be
given to decision-makers.
The Squam Lakes study
As part of a model watershed study under the direction of the
NH Office of State Planning, a multi-agency task force
worked to create a GIS-based resource inventory of the
Squam Lakes Watershed. The state's GIS system, GRANIT
(Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Trans-
fer), is housed at the University of New Hampshire but linked
to state agencies and regional planning commissions. Data
"layers" input into the GIS included bedrock geology, hy-
drology (streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, and aquifers), soils,
elevation, land use zoning, land cover (from aerial photo-
graphs and satellite images), and wildlife habitat, in addition
to abase map of roads and political boundaries. Also included
was ten years of water quality data collected weekly during
the ice-free season throughout the lake by volunteer monitors
of the Squam Lakes Association under the direction of the
NH Lakes Lay Monitoring Program. It was the availability of
this water quality database that influenced the decision to
conduct the model study on the Squam Lakes watershed.
Conventional GIS analysis—Land capability
GIS can be used to draw land buffer zones around streams,
wetlands, and shoreline areas (with the size of the buffers
depending upon local and state regulations). Thus a new GIS
"layer" or map is produced containing all land that is re-
stricted from development due to its proximity to a water
body. The same can be done to show areas in the watershed
with land that is too steep to build or that contains poorly
drained soils inappropriate for septic systems. If you take
these two layers of restricted land areas and combine them
with layers containing the location of protected lands (parks,
easements, conservation trusts, etc.) and land already devel-
oped, you now have a map of non-developable land. Super-
impose this information over a map of the whole watershed
and you are left with a map that displays all of the developable
area remaining in the watershed. The GIS can also take
information provided into its database on zoning (i.e., land
area required for each house lot) by town and provide a "build
out" scenario that can estimate the number of new houses the
watershed could potentially have, as well as the increase in
population!
When the above analysis was carried out for the Squam
Lakes project, it was found that about 12 percent of the
watershed was currently developed or protected and about 52
percent was constrained or restricted to development, leaving
almost 37 percent of the watershed to be developed. While,
59
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
as a whole, the lake displays excellent water quality and is
relatively pristine, there are areas within the lake with less
desirable water quality conditions.
With this analysis complete, the problem was defined:
Even though some areas of the lake are already showing signs
of water quality degradation, current laws and regulations
would allow development within the watershed to expand
over three times the area of what is already developed. Based
on this finding, the project recommendations included sug-
gestions on taking into account land-based resources such as
productive forest and agricultural soils and aquifer recharge
areas. What was still needed was a method to locate critical
lake areas and produce additional GIS products to assist
decision makers concerned with water quality and watershed
resource protection.
Geographic display of data and visualization
When the GIS was used to display volunteer monitor data of
water transparency and algae bloom events on a map of the
lake, it became apparent that many of the small coves and
embayments were areas of more degraded water quality. The
data suggested that the lake did not react uniformly to
watershed inputs; that it was not just one big reaction vessel
or "bathtub," as is commonly assumed for many large sys-
tems. This concept was further enhanced by taking the
bathymetric map (depth contour plot) of the lake and using
the GIS to create a 3-D model of the lake bottom (see Figure
1). No experience in topographic readings was necessary to
be able to see how the lake was really made up of multiple
basins connected together and that each of these basins had
high sills around them. Many of these sills reached up to
shallow water depth, well above the basin thermocline,
effectively separating the bottom waters of the lake basins for
most of the year. Thus the GIS allowed for the definition of
lake basins within the lake system. Of the 18 lake basins
defined, 17 had been monitored through the volunteer pro-
gram, so further GIS analysis could be done.
Geographic referencing and spatial analysis
Now that the basins were defined, each basin could be linked
through the GIS with its abutting subwatersheds. This al-
lowed for analysis of what characteristics of the land around
the basins had an influence on the basin's water quality.
While we had the luxury of an extensive GIS database of land
cover (down to the type of tree stand, from aerial photogra-
phy!), we started with some basic GIS analysis using infor-
mation that would be available in a more limited database.
For each basin we found a good correlation between water
clarity and the mean depth (derived from the GIS by dividing
the surface area of the basin by the volume of the basin), and
between algae levels and a combination of mean depth and
the ratio of the basin surface area to the area of land that
drained into it (abutting subwatersheds). This explained
much of the data variation in all basins except for one (which
we will get to later). Thus with some relatively simple data
analyses we could define which areas of the lake react more
critically to nutrient loading. Our preliminary land cover
analysis revealed that land cover in the shoreland zone (a
zone created by GIS at an arbitrarily chosen 250-foot distance
from the shore) explains less water quality variation than the
total subwatershed land cover. This implies that although
shoreline regulations are important for the Squam Lakes (and
most likely our other pristine lakes), activities throughout the
watershed also have a significant impact.
In-lake resource inventories
Although water quality was one value that Squam Lake
communities felt was important to protect, other aspects of
the lake held equal if not greater importance. Squam Lake
currently has the healthiest cold-water fishery in the state. It
also has excellent small-mouth bass habitat. Moreover, the
common loon plays an important part in the aesthetics of the
area (the movie "On Golden Pond" was shot on location at
Squam), and a great deal of support can be drummed up to
protect this very charismatic species—even in a state with the
Figure 1. Model of Squam Lake bathymetry.
60
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
motto "Live Free or Die." To that end, a GIS layer of loon
habitat (provided by volunteers of the NH Loon Preservation
Society), bass nesting areas, cold water fish reefs and holes,
and smelt brooks (from NH Fish & Game and volunteer
surveying) was created. The GIS could then reference the
various in-lake and shoreline wildlife extent contained in
each of the basins.
Integration of the data layers
Now the GIS was complete with information on in-lake water
quality conditions and wildlife resources. From this informa-
tion the GIS was used to locate the lake's most critical areas.
This was done by assigning a point value to each of the
following basin or subwatershed criteria: mean depth,
subwatershed-to-basin area, existing water quality, cold-
water fishery habitat, warm-water fishery habitat, and loon
habitat. For our study an equal weighting was used (based on
a score of 0 to 4 for each of the above criteria), but the
weighting can be modified to favor any criteria of greatest
concern. For each basin and adj oining sub watersheds the GIS
simply averaged together all of the criteria scores. The
resulting integration was best visualized by draping a color
(light or "cold" for less critical areas, reddish or "hot" for
most critical areas) over the 3-D plot of the lake basins.
GIS products
Color slides such as those used throughout this presentation
do the best job of visualizing the procedures and concepts of
this study. However, the materials produced for the monitors
PRINTED TABLE
and the decision makers have to be more functional because
towns and most citizens still do not have easy access to GIS
systems. Therefore a more "low tech" set of products was
developed. For the town decision makers a map of the
watershed area was provided, delineating the various
subwatersheds and basins of the lake labeled by number.
These numbers then are referenced to a printed table which
contains the water quality and resource information of both
the basins and the abutting subwatersheds (see Figure 2).
Thus, instead of having to decide on the approval of a project
based solely on information provided by the applicant, the
decision maker can look up the subwatershed where the
project is being proposed, check on the important lake re-
sources that may be impacted, and have the applicant address
specifically how they will minimize loss or impacts to that
resource. (I have seen many development proposals with
impact statements pertaining to wood-duck habitat or some
other species that simply was not present or at risk; this
system precludes that from happening.) The tabled informa-
tion could also be captured to a spreadsheet or a database
system if the town or monitoring group has one, and digital
maps could also be provided to those with GIS display
systems. To date, however, there have been no requests for
products at this level of sophistication.
Using the information
Information gained from this study has benefited the lake
association, the surrounding towns, and state agencies. The
lake monitoring group utilized the GIS study to reevaluate its
HARD COPY MAP
Subshed= 13 Impacts: BASIN 10 (Deep Haven Site)
Basin Area: 962.65 Acres
Basin Volume: 112.4 E+7 cubic ft
Water Quality: Not as Critical(2 of 4); Algae Blooms=RARE
Loon Habitat: 6463.84 ft Score = 2 of 4 => Moderate
Bass Reef: 75.92 Acres =>High Value
Smelt Brooks: 3 => High Value
Whitefish Reef: 1 => High Value
Trout Reefs: 25.65 Acres=> 2nd Highest Value
Salmon Holes: 2 => High Value
Warm Water Fish Pts: 3 of 4 => High Habitat Value
Cold Water Fish Points: 3 of 4 => High Habitat Value
LOW TECH GIS PRODUCT:
SUB-WATERSHEDS on map
are linked to SUB-BASINS
and the corresponding
IN-LAKE RESOURCES are
listed on a Printed Table,
Spreadsheet or Database.
Figure 2. Low-tech GIS products provided to local government.
61
-------
Session 2: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
monitoring strategy; now the monitors conduct more fre-
quent sampling at the "hot spot" sites. The lake association
used the information produced to call for better enforcement
of boat speed rules for the more critical areas defined by the
GIS. One of the towns is reevaluating its zoning and planning
laws in light of the results of this study. Information from the
GIS study was used by our state environmental enforcement
agency to evaluate their permitting of a development project
in the watershed. As for the one basin that did not follow the
expected outcome of the analysis, we later learned from
investigation that a significant amount of fill used to cover
over a wetlands area at the end of this bay impeded the flow
of a tributary that acted to flush the bay out during the spring
melt (wet) season. This was the only embayed basin with a
restricted tributary.
Summary
The volunteer-collected data were critical for the majority of
GIS analyses: for evaluating water quality throughout vari-
ous areas of the lake, linking subwatershed and lake basin
characteristics to water quality, and investigating relation-
ships between land cover (or land use) and water quality.
While GIS can be a powerful analysis tool, a great deal of
information is necessary to take advantage of this power.
Volunteer monitoring provides a very cost-effective way to
provide the necessary data.
In turn, the GIS provided a land capability analysis for the
watershed that defined the problem at hand. It allowed for the
visualization of the watershed character, important in-lake
resources, and water quality data. It also allowed for the
determination of watershed-to-lake relationships and inte-
grated all of the important data layers to delineate critical lake
basins.
The results of the study were used to improve the sampling
strategy of the volunteer monitoring program and address
local concerns. Low-tech products from the GIS provided to
local boards and commissions allowed for informed decision
making, taking into account water quality and important in-
lake resources. The usefulness of the study was also recog-
nized by our state environmental enforcement agency.
A slide program of this model study has been developed
to effectively present the approach and results to other
communities in the state. It has been successful in motivating
other watershed communities to conduct resource invento-
ries and seek GIS support from state and federal agencies or
regional planning commissions. Finally, and perhaps more
importantly, participants in our volunteer monitoring pro-
gram now better understand the importance of their data
collection and the potential of their ever-growing database.
62
-------
Plenary Session, Day Two
Plenary Session, Day Two
Deborah Alex-Saunders
Minority Environmental Association
Sandusky, OH
Diversity: A Special Challenge
Looking at the definition of the word diversity, the word
different is the first word that comes to mind. However, the
word variety stands out even more. Here in Portland, I've
been very impressed with the natural diversity around us.
Envision a field of roses, of many colors, with some elks
grazing, and a bunny rabbit. This vision is pleasurable. Now
let's change that vision to fields of people—old, young,
handicapped, blind, black, white, and yellow. Does the pic-
ture still remain pleasurable?
Now let's envision a group involved in water monitoring.
What will it look like? Chances are that the makeup of that
group will look like the people sitting in this audience. There
are few persons of color.
This brings us to the question, Why do we need diversity
anyway?
The concepts of endangered species and endangered habi-
tat are generally applied to animals—the eagle, the whale.
But the African-American community suffers serious health
ills from disproportionate exposure to environmental prob-
lems. The Commission for Racial Injustice 1987 study,
"Toxic Waste and Race in the United States," reports that
three out of four blacks and Hispanics live in communities
with uncontrolled toxic waste sites.
This brings us to reason #1 for diversity: With their
survival threatened, these people have the right to be part of
the solution, not part of the problem. They have the right to
be trained and used to monitor environmental problems in
their community. An urban environmental program should
be inclusive of urban dwellers.
Reason #2: There is a desperate need for key data. Unin-
formed and isolated minorities in such communities are not
aware of these environmental emergencies. To address this
issue, I am writing a book entitled Violence: A Symptom of
Chemical Contamination.
Reason #3: Funding. The Federal Clean Water Act passed
20 years ago. Today, new laws and policies are focusing on
U-R-B-A-N. This redirection to urban issues is more inclu-
sive of people, not just plants and animals. Requirements for
funding may include community action and citizen involve-
ment—that is, targeting the diverse populations within the
urban environment. Sustainability is an additional operations
request. Funding amounts are connected to urban reuse and
recycle.
Obstacles to be overcome
What are the obstacles that need to be overcome in order for
us to diversify?
1. Perception. The biggest obstacle is perception. There is a
story about two sisters who both fought for hours over an
orange. Finally they cut it in half. But it turned out that one
wanted to eat the fruit, and the other wanted the rind for
cooking. Each failed to understand what the real desire of the
other one was.
Who here does not want clean air and clean water? Please
stand up. Who here will not share the orange?
There is a perception among the general public that people
of color have not expressed concern for the environment.
This gross misconception has been rooted in the narrow
definition of environmental issues that has been advanced by
traditional environmental organizations andthe media. People
of color have taken on environmental issues in the terms of
human behavior. The artificial conditions of urban life have
diverted their attention from animals and plants and concerns
about pristine areas. But don't deceive yourselves that the
underserved neighborhoods haven't asked, Why does every-
body else's neighborhood seem to look better? Why are the
streets cleaner? Why is the garbage picked up more often?
Why is there more police service? For communities of color,
environment is a question of the quality of life.
2. Communication. Communication is more than words. It
is understanding culture. Tunes when people of color have
cried out about the abuse of the land, the power structure has
not respected our needs. African-American people have been
made to feel they have no claim to the land. Where does the
fault rest? It rests with the government, and also with main-
stream environmental groups.
Most environmental legislation affects those areas that are
the most polluted and generate the most concentrated forms
of pollution—i.e., urban areas. However, the rhetoric and
national strategy of the environmental movement often hide
the fact that its true targets are cities. National environmental
organizations often use wilderness areas, endangered spe-
cies, lakes and streams to promote their political viewpoints.
This contradiction is one of the major issues that must be
faced by anyone putting forth an environmental agenda that
seeks to bring diversity within their programs. There is a
fundamental disparity between mainstream environmental
ideology and urban reality for people of color. How do we
interpret and send the message of urban environmental policy
within the community itself? It's a major challenge.
Meeting the challenges
How can we overcome the obstacles? The first step is to
accept diversity. Acceptance will overcome stereotyping and
misconceptions.
I recently conducted a workshop in Boston. One partici-
pant was a young woman who was taking part in a stream
restoration project with some inner-city youth. She admitted
she was uncomfortable. "I tried to talk with them," she said,
63
-------
Plenary Session, Day Two
"and in class we had some lovely discussions about diversity,
but it just wasn' t there. The white students sat on one side, and
the blacks on the other. I just couldn't be one of them." My
question to her was, "Do you really want to be one of them?
Did you like the way they looked? talked? Would you trade
places with them?" Her answer was, "No! " As we talked, she
began to see that the way to feeling more comfortable was to
realize that the information that they were about to share was
the key—not the lifestyle, not the looks. "Accept the differ-
ences, embrace the data."
Other strategies for meeting the challenge of diversity:
• Tie your data in with human, urban issues. For instance,
how does monitoring the upstream part of the river
relate to downstream combined sewer overflow
problems? Ask different community groups to review
your material and comment on how it may be con-
nected to what is happening in that community.
• Use intermediaries. If you are walking into unfamiliar
territory, admit it. Get help from a group of people who
can deliver your message. Countries do this all the time:
They send in ambassadors. Organizations such as the
Minority Environmental Association can support and
assist you in communicating your programs. Call us.
• Don't make the mistake of hiring one sole person who is
black and then expecting him or her to represent a
whole community. Meaningful participation is the only
way to achieve diversity.
In closing:
The wolf will chase the rabbit, the rabbit will flee the wolf,
but neither wants the forest to bum down.
64
-------
Session 3: Data to Action, Part Two
From Data to Action, Part Two:
Working Together for Change
Moderator: Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Part-
nership
Presenters: Jack Byrne, River Watch Network; Jerry
Schoen; Marie-Francoise Walk, Massachusetts Water
Watch Partnership; Ginny Barnes, Audubon Naturalist So-
ciety
Jack Byrne
River Watch Network
Working Together for Change
Good water quality data is a very valuable resource, and you
have a potentially powerful tool in your hands for affecting
decisions. EPA's 1990 National Water Quality Inventory
indicates that only 36 percent of the 1.8 million river miles in
the U.S. were assessed by the states. That leaves 64 percent,
or approximately 1.15 million miles, that did not get as-
sessed.
That means that a lot of significant decisions about how to
use land or waterways are made in the absence of any data
about the conditions of streams and how the decisions might
change those conditions. Volunteer monitoring data can help
fill this gap. The information that you collect is more than
likely the only information available, and it gives you a great
advantage, if you use it properly.
Let me give you an example of how decisions are made
with no data. Piney Brook, in Maryland, was a high quality
stream whose water quality and habitat far exceeded the use
classification assigned it by the Maryland water quality
agency. However, this was not known or documented until
after the land around it was developed for high density
residential and commercial use, including the construction of
maj or roads and a sewer line running 5 miles along the stream
banks. Had there been data available they could have been
used to document the exceptional character of Piney Brook
and to assure that any development would have minimal
impact on the stream.
Our goal is to improve or protect water quality. That
means we either want to restore degraded waters or keep high
quality waters in good shape. Through the Clean Water Act
we have set a national goal of restoring and maintaining the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters. In order to reach this goal we have to know what the
gap is between the current water quality and our desired water
quality. Action for clean water is taken when people under-
stand that there is a gap, or that there is a threat that a gap will
be created, and are concerned enough to act.
These actions happen both collectively and individually.
Collectively, we pass legislation and regulations to improve
and protect water quality. Individually, we are guided by
those rules, or, when they do not apply, we take our own
individual actions. We should be using our volunteer data to
help people see the gap, or the threat of a gap, between desired
water quality and the way it really is—and doing it in such a
way that they act to close the gap.
Volunteer data have many possible avenues for use. In the
regulatory area, volunteer data can be used to affect legisla-
tion, to shape the way standards are developed, to influence
permit decisions, and perhaps as evidence in court cases. This
can happen at the federal, state, and local level, but for most
groups the data are going to be most effective at the state and
local levels. On the individual level, data can be used to
educate people, to make them aware of the issues and what
needs to be done to address them.
Let me give an example of ho w data have been used in both
the regulatory area and to affect the actions of individuals.
Data collected by volunteers on the Ottauquechee River
were initially used in a public relations campaign to get
people to vote for bond money to build treatment plants and
to get them to voluntarily repair failing septic systems. Then
the data were used again 15 years later, in Water Resources
Board hearings and in court, to oppose the classification of
the river for treated waste discharge.
In the rest of this workshop, the panelists will talk about
how to ensure that your data get used. Here are a few
suggestions that I believe will put you in a better position for
getting action:
• Clearly identify the issue you are trying to address and
make sure your data are relevant to it. For example, if
you are trying to restore or protect drinking water, what
kinds of data would be most useful? (Fecal coliform or
toxics would be very useful; temperature and dissolved
oxygen would not be so relevant.)
• Define your desired outcome. Figure out how big the gap
is between what you desire and what the water quality
is. Highlight the gap and get people to start focusing on
how to close it.
• Decide if you are the group to be the advocates or
whether you want some other organization to use your
data for you.
• Find out if you have laws and regulations to work with or
whether you will have to use education and public
opinion to get your views accepted. Learn the laws and
regulations and how they have been applied in the past.
Talk to others who have used the process if you are not
familiar with it. Can these regulatory provisions be used
to get you your desired outcome?
• Figure out who else you need to involve in your cam-
65
-------
Session 3: Data to Action, Part Two
paign. Get them together and ask for their support,
cooperation, funding, ideas.
• Have a realistic expectation about how long it will take
to close the gap. If you want to get a fanner to change
his management practices, that can happen in a shorter
time frame than if you are trying to get an outstanding
resource water designation for your stream.
Jerry Schoen,
Marie-Frangoise Walk
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Ginny Barnes
Audubon Naturalist Society
Data-to-Action Exercise
Water quality monitoring is an important tool in water
resources management, but it's useful only if the results get
to the appropriate decision makers. Many volunteer pro-
grams do not fully realize their potential because they devote
too few of their energies to using the data they collect.
In this session, we will step through the choices a group
typically confronts when using its data to influence water
quality decisions.
Here's how the exercise works: We'll build a matrix that
illustrates the path you take from having data to having a safe
and sound aquatic ecosystem.
(Please note this is an exercise in data use, not data
interpretation. We are assuming you've successfully col-
lected, managed, and analyzed your data.)
In the matrix that we've developed, we've broken the
data-to-action process down into five distinct "decision ar-
eas," each of which requires some choices, some action, and
some expertise.
1. Law/policy/practice. We start off with defining the
decision-making framework. In general, what is the process
for resolving water resource problems in your watershed?
More specifically, what laws, policies, and practices are
relevant to the issue you are targeting?
2. Decision makers. Whom do you want to influence?
(the players). For the laws and policies you have identified as
relevant to your issue, who are the decision makers? A federal
or state agency? A local board? A watershed group? An
individual?
3. Remedy. What does it take to actually fix the problem
you've identified? Remedies can be structural (e.g., fix a
sewer leak), regulatory (pass a septic system maintenance
ordinance), or behavioral (encourage landowners to refrain
from cutting down streamside vegetation).
4. Action to take. Once you've identified the players and
the remedies, your activist campaign really begins. Here's
where you hold a press conference or present your data at a
public hearing. Which you do depends on what kind of
organization you are, and who your audience is. Try for a
convivial solution, but prepare for combat if you must.
5. Presentation strategies. For each audience that you
target, make sure you present your information in a style
which they can appreciate. Consider data as "infotainment,"
and decide how much information or entertainment works
best for each audience. Professional skeptics might want your
raw data, with supporting statistical analysis, QA/QC re-
ports, etc. Joe Q. Sixpack would rather catch it on the evening
news, in the form of a colored map of the watershed showing
pollution hot spots.
For all of the above steps, you shouldn't feel your group
needs to have all the answers. At each step, consider sources
of help that exist to help you find answers you need. Sources
of help can range from like-minded organizations that you
form coalitions with to an electronic bulletin board that gives
you access to information on best management practices to
control farm runoff.
Case Study #1: Eagleville Pond Association
Let's put this data-to-action process to the test, by using real-
life examples. We will first go through two simple case
studies to get familiar with how this exercise works, and then
we will open up to the audience for your examples, which
may or may not be as straightforward.
Our first example comes from the Eagleville Pond Asso-
ciation, one of the groups that Massachusetts Water Watch
Partnership works with. This group had a typical problem—
excessive aquatic vegetation due to very high levels of
nutrients. The pond association had monitored for pH, alka-
linity, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, and nitrates. Their
Law/policy/practice
Decision makers
Remedy
Action to Take
Presentation Strategy
From data to action: A step-by-step matrix
66
-------
Session 3: Data to Action, Part Two
results indicated very low dissolved oxygen levels and un-
usually high levels of nitrates. Their monitoring efforts
pointed to a farm runoff problem on one of the pond's
tributaries. Let's go through the matrix steps and see how this
group approached the problem.
Step 1. Law/Policy/Practice
The Clean Water Act deals with water quality problems,
including eutrophication. In Massachusetts, wetlands, in-
cluding streams and ponds, also fall under the auspices of the
Wetlands Protection Act. Eagleville chose to use the Wet-
lands Protection Act as part of their strategy.
If a group is unaware of the laws and policies in their area,
whom can they go to for help? In Massachusetts, Riverways,
a branch of the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is a
good resource, as are Massachusetts Audubon, the Congress
of Lake and Pond Associations (COLAP), which exists in
other states, the Massachusetts Association of Conservation
Commissions (chockfull of volunteer lawyers!), andNALMS
(North American Lake Management Society).
Step 2. Decision makers
People or agencies who have direct influence in this matter
include the fanner himself, the local Conservation Commis-
sion (which administers the Wetlands Protection Act), and
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Step 3. Remedy
What could be done to improve the lake's water quality? (1)
Stop the enriched runoff from the farm from reaching the
tributary through best management practices (BMPs); (2)
Devise a lake management plan (most likely chemical treat-
ment to kill the weeds).
To get help in finding a remedy, various groups and
documents are available: County Conservation Districts can
help with BMPs, as can SCS and the Megamanual (a docu-
ment produced by Massachusetts DEP). County foresters are
also available if the problem is in a forested area. Electronic
Bulletin Board Systems are a growing resource for people
with access to a computer and modem to communicate with
colleagues and interest groups and obtain information.
Step 4. Action to take
The pond association went for the logical, if not the easiest,
option to reduce the farm runoff. They could have gone
directly to the fanner with the information they had gathered,
but knowing that he was uncooperative, they went to their
local Conservation Commission for redress. They also could
have chosen a less direct way, such as alerting the media,
educating the general public about the situation, or talking at
the Town Meeting, but they were prepared to make a good
case to the Conservation Commission.
If a group needs help in determining what action to take,
COLAP andMWC (Massachusetts Watershed Coalition) are
two good resources.
Step 5. Presentation strategies
What presentation techniques are best to use in the present
situation? Eagleville did an oral presentation to the Commis-
sion, bringing their data in the shape of simple graphs. They
also brought a support letter from the Massachusetts Water
Watch Partnership (MassWWP), and documentation show-
ing results from an external professional lab, which had
sampled at the same time as the volunteer group, keeping an
official chain of custody. This helped validate the volunteer
data.
Was this a success story? The Conservation Commission did
mandate the farmer to install some BMPs on his property as
a result of Eagleville Pond Association's presentation.
Case study f 2: Herring Run
A second case study is one that was presented in "Data to
Action, Part One" (Session Two): the Herring Run project in
Maryland. Herring Run is an urban stream with degraded
water quality. Its problems are more complex than Eagleville
Pond's because they are multiple. The monitoring group has
done a shore survey (as opposed to water quality monitoring
per se) and found pipe outfalls, exposed sewer lines, over-
flowing sewer lines, fish migration barriers, erosion, trash,
and unshaded stream sections.
For this exercise we will concentrate on their finding
stretches of unvegetated streambanks. Even without water
quality data, we know that an unshaded stream can support
little aquatic life, due to increased temperatures and de-
creased dissolved oxygen levels.
Step 1. Law/Policy/Practice
This type of degradation is regulated by the Clean Water Act.
Law/policy/practice
• Clean Water Act
• Wetlands Protec-
tion Act
Decision makers
• Farmer
• Conservation
Commission
•DEP
• Lake association
Remedy
• Best management
practices
• Lake management
practices
Action to Take
• Public testimony to
Conservation
Commission
• Educate lake
residents
• Educate public
• Appeal to DEP
• Town meeting
Presentation Strategy
• Supporting letter
from MassWWP
• Data graph
• External lab QC
check
Case Study # 1: Eagleville Pond Association
67
-------
Session 3: Data to Action, Part Two
Case Study #2: Herring Run
Law/policy/practice
• Clean Water Act
Decision makers
• Agencies: City of
Baltimore DPW;
county DPW; city
Dept. of Rec. and
Parks; state
agencies
• Abutting land-
owners
Remedy
• Tree planting plan
• River cleanups
Action to Take
• Present data to
state agencies,
DPWs, and City
Council
• Present data to
landowners
• Raise public
awareness
Presentation Strategy
• Report sent to
agencies
• Slide presentation
to City Council
(televised)
• Slides, overheads,
maps for public
meeting
Step 2. Decision makers
A lot of the stream corridor is owned by the city of Baltimore,
and the rest is privately owned, so the decision makers
include the City of Baltimore Department of Public Works
(DPW), the county DPW, the Baltimore City Department of
Recreation and Parks, and state agencies for the publicly
owned stretches. Obviously, for theprivately owned stretches,
the landowners are the decision makers. A resource for help
was Maryland Save Our Streams.
Step 3. Remedy
Two remedies that the group has targeted so far are tree
planting plans and river cleanups. A great resource for tree
planting in this case was TREEmendous Maryland, a state
organization that provides seedlings, volunteers, and money
to plant the trees. In other states, I would start by contacting
the Soil and Water Conservation District, who can help with
advice, maybe some money, and by donating seedlings.
Step 4. Action to take
Actions that the group took include data presentation to state
agencies and to the DPWs, and an oral presentation to City
Council (executive branch of government). They also tar-
geted the private landowners by holding a public meeting and
organizing a storm drain painting event.
Step 5. Presentation strategies
The data presentations to state agencies were in the form of
a report. The presentation to City Council was a slide presen-
tation, which was filmed by the local television station. At the
open meeting for landowners, slides, overheads, and maps
were used to illustrate their findings.
Using the matrix
In applying the step-by-step matrix that we have presented
here, remember that it may be necessary to redefine the
problem several times or divide the problem up into compo-
nents. A solution may take years, and may not be the one you
imagine. The matrix ought to operate with time loops going
back again.
The potential value of this matrix is that it gets you to
articulate. The remedy is rarely straightforward. It is more
likely convoluted and complex. There may be short-term
solutions, long-term solutions, or no solutions. You may
learn that what you are engaged in is basically consciousness
raising. You may have to engage in a lot of that before
solutions are possible.
68
-------
Session 3: Committing to Diversity, Part One
Committing to Diversity, Part One
Moderator: Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Center
Presenters: BUI Stapp, GREEN; Deborah Alex-Saunders,*
Minority Environmental Association; Elizabeth Waters,
Waters Consulting Group
Dr. William B. Stapp
Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
(GREEN)
Working with Diversity in Project
GREEN
We as a society need to respect and value differences, be they
based on age, class, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or other
difference. Recognizing and honoring diversity is a key to
success. It's not a burden to be borne, but an opportunity to
be pursued. One of the values of diversity is to bring in
different perspectives. This gives you a much more holistic
view of an issue. When you bring different groups of people
together and really listen to their different experiences and
thoughts, this increases perspective-taking. It increases curi-
osity about that issue. It increases creativity. It increases
valuing. It increases problem solving.
It was the concept of diversity that first attracted me to the
concept of watershed monitoring with school programs.
Watersheds—all watersheds—start out with small tributar-
ies, in a rural area; then the tributaries come together and
begin to have enough water to support small communities;
then pretty soon we find ourselves in suburbia; and eventu-
ally we come to the city, where there is adequate water for
industry and for meeting the needs of a variety of people in a
large community. Almost without exception, every major
city in the world is in the lower parts of a watershed.
The Rouge River watershed, in the Detroit area, is only 20
miles by 30 miles—a relatively small watershed—but in it
live 2 million people. In the rural areas of this watershed,
average income levels are around $30,000 per year. Then in
the suburbs, average family incomes are about $200,000 per
year. In certain pockets of the inner-city community, average
family incomes are about $8,000 per year. The rural areas are
mostly white; the suburbs are mixed; and the inner city is
mostly black. So you have a tremendous diversity within the
watershed.
In Project GREEN, we try to maximize the opportunity to
work with that diversity by linking together schools in
different parts of the watershed. And with the use of computer
networking, we can bring in other watershed groups beyond
the schools—governmental agencies, citizen organizations.
*Note: Deborah Alex-Saunders participated as a panelist
but did not make a formal presentation.
[Editor's note: For a full description of Project GREEN,
please refer to William Stapp's presentation in "Committing
to Diversity, Part Two: Success Stories" (Session 4).]
Here are some techniques that Project GREEN has used
successfully to incorporate diversity in our programs:
Step 1: Start with a high degree of diversity. When GREEN
starts a monitoring project in a watershed, we try to include
in the initial planning group all the diversity that we have in
the watershed—rural, suburban, and city; range of income
levels; the various ethnic communities; elementary, second-
ary, and tertiary schools; the general public; major decision
makers; and environmental managers.
Step 2: Use computers to link students at different schools.
Step 3: Bring all the schools in a watershed together physi-
cally in a Student Congress. At the Student Congress, the
students break into smaller groups, each one including stu-
dents from schools in different parts of the watershed, with no
adults present. They talk in their own way about how they feel
about what is happening in their part of the watershed.
Step 4: Take action. Action is the problem-solving process
that pulls everything together. Students work together to
weigh different alternatives as they develop the action plan.
Elizabeth Waters
Waters Consulting Group
Overcoming Obstacles to Diversity
Why is diversity essential for all environ-
mental groups?
Environmental issues are universal. Diverse groups of
people—people of color, the disabled, lesbians and gays,
poor people—are members of the universe. Everyone is
impacted by environmental issues.
Individuals who have made the choice to champion envi-
ronmental issues have assumed a leadership position. It is the
responsibility of leaders to educate and involve a diverse
group of individuals in the solution to save the universe.
Without that diverse participation, the efforts of environmen-
talists will be meaningless.
In terms of people of color, historically we have seen the
devastating impact in those communities where dumping,
hazardous wastes, and so on have occurred. As Malcolm
stated, "When white America gets a cold, black people get
pneumonia." We can substitute Hispanic/Latinos, Asians,
Native Americans. The bottom line is that without addressing
the issue of diversity, the universe/planet will not and cannot
be saved.
69
-------
Session 3: Committing to Diversity, Part One
What are the obstacles to overcome to
diversify successfully ?
The primary obstacle to overcome in addressing the issue of
diversity is the inability to acknowledge that unless environ-
mental groups diversity, the battles and wars to preserve the
environment will be lost.
Intellectually many will say "But of course." However,
when you look at the makeup of environmental groups you
can see that the need for diversity has not been internalized to
the level it needs to be. I ask you to take a look at environmen-
tal groups locally and nationally and count on more than one
hand—maybe two—how many people of color, lesbians and
gays, disabled are integrally involved at every level of the
organization. A common response to this is, "It's not a
priority issue for them because..." The "because" has to do
with many of the obstacles the organizations fail to address,
such as:
• Language barriers - When I worked for different
governmental agencies, one of the ways we alienated
people was to talk "bureaucratese" (i.e., use initials and
terms familiar only to those who were a part of the
system). Mind you, we did not get up in the morning
and say, "Let's alienate the people we come into
contact with." However, the impact was the same.
• Lack of diversity in key leadership positions - If I don't
see someone who looks like me as a part of the deci-
sion-making process, why would I trust that the group
will or can address my issue?
• Intolerance -1 don't have to be a member of a radical
political party or a registered Democrat in order to
champion the cause of environmental issues. A big
obstacle for groups to overcome is the need to have
people look alike, think alike, and act alike. Imagine an
environmental group (particularly alternative) that
allowed members who were anti-choice and registered
Republican! I have several family members who fall
into that category. They believe in recycling and are
committed to saving the universe in their own way. If
we are being intolerant, we are not going to educate. If
we judge and condemn people, they won't work with
us.
• Low wages - Poor and working people, in spite of their
desire to work for grassroots environmental causes,
don't have that luxury with the wages that are paid.
Single heads of households who don't have inherited
wealth cannot live off the wages.
• Informal networks - If decisions are made outside of
meeting processes, newcomers will be excluded. It's
alienating to a new member to come to a meeting and
find that all the decisions were made before the
meeting.
• Recruiting one or two people of color to serve on
boards - Diversity is not about getting one or two and
saying "We're done." I have been the only woman of
color on some boards, and somehow the responsibility
of addressing the diversity issue becomes my responsi-
bility. If the commitment to diversity is there, address-
ing it will become a shared responsibility.
Methods program managers could employ to
overcome obstacles
1. Develop a five-year plan with timelines, monitors, and
indicators identifying how the organization will
diversify. Keep it simple and be realistic. A good
starting point is to review your literature and the art in
your office and make sure they represent diversity.
2. Develop linkages with diverse organizations, identify-
ing efforts you can work on collaboratively.
3. Develop culturally based, family-focused outreach and
educational programs. For example, if the Urban
League has a youth program, your organization can
develop an environmental education and outreach
program for youths. Let people see that you care about
their concerns.
4. Formalize the hiring process, increase wages, and use
outside people to assist in the hiring and recruitment
process. Don't just hire people you already know.
5. Diversify management and board of directors.
6. Ask questions and take risks. Don't assume you know
what others want or need.
7. Continue attending sessions such as this one. Never
decide that you know, and are doing, enough to address
the issue of diversity—because even if you have
achieved the goals within your organization, until other
organizations have achieved similar goals, you have
work to do.
8. Formalize your meeting process.
9. Develop a mentor/buddy program for new board
members to increase diversity on the board.
10. Have fun. Make your organization something people
want to be part of!
70
-------
Session 3: Building Partnerships with Local Government
Building Partnerships with Local
Government
Moderator: EricMendelman, Partnership Coordinator, Texas
Watch Program
Presenters: Alice Blatt,Friends of Wetlands; Anna Dunbar,
City of Sugar Land; Ivy Frances, City of Portland Environ-
mental Services; Dr. Jeffery Gottfried, Fans of Fanno Creek
Eric Mendelman
Texas Watch Program
Alice Blatt
Friends of Wetlands
Anna Dunbar
City of Sugar Land
Ivy Frances
City of Portland Environmental Services
Dr. Jeff ery Gottfried
Fans of Fanno Creek
The session on "Building Partnerships with Local Govern-
ment" was structured as an interactive workshop with the
following three goals:
1. to understand the benefits of partnering
2. to clarify the types and characteristics of partnerships
3. to provide tools for improving partnerships
Role play
A role play between an "activist" and a "city official"
illustrated ihat failure to partner successfully results from:
• not listening
• defensiveness
• drawing conclusions prior to meeting
• not seeing the other person's point of view
• not offering solutions
The role play was resolved successfully when both parties:
• agreed that an environmental problem existed
• used inclusive language (e.g., "our" problem)
• came to the meeting prepared with information and
resources
• came to the meeting with open minds
• showed respect for each other
Presentations
Following the role play, the panelists gave brief presentations
focusing on the characteristics of partnerships.
Ivy Frances discussed formal versus informal partner-
ships. In a formal partnership between an agency and a citizen
group, the agreement is put in writing and expectations are
clear. Typically, a formal partnership results when an agency
has one or more established programs already in place. When
citizens approach the agency, they can be included in one of
these existing programs.
Formal partnerships may lack flexibility and may not be
able to respond to an immediate need as well as an informal
partnership. Ivy gave the following example of an informal
relationship: A local school was building a jogging trail and
planned to put the dirt into an adjacent wetland. One of the
teachers called Ivy. Ivy's agency was able to provide re-
sources to get a dumpster to the school and get the sod
recycled. This informal relationship successfully solved the
immediate problem. A drawback to informal partnerships is
that they may last only as long as the individual with whom
the citizens have the relationship stays with the agency.
Jeff Gottfried discussed the benefits of one-on-one part-
nerships. Often an activist can help a well-intentioned gov-
ernment employee by applying public pressure on the agency
when the staff person does not have the influence to stop a bad
decision. Citizens can also help agencies by speaking about
them in public meetings.
Alice Blatt discussed how important it is for partnering
organizations to give something up in order to gain the
broader benefits of partnership. When organizations are not
willing to give something up in the partnership, they end up
in a lose-lose relationship. Giving something up will more
likely bring about a win-win. Alice described the watershed
council that her organization is developing as a win-win for
all participants. She emphasized that an important key to a
wuvwin partnership is to get everyone who has a stake
together in the same room at the same time.
Anna Dunbar discussed how partnerships can deal with
pollution problems when both partners do not have the power
to solve the problem. Drawing in additional organizations in
the watershed can bring more resources to solving the prob-
lem. Action protocols can include these additional partners.
Elements of successful partnerships
Participants identified these elements of successful partner-
ships:
• mutual respect
• use of inclusive language
• incorporation of citizens in existing programs
• clear, well-timed communication around urgent issues
• use of public input on important environmental decisions
• clearly defined roles and responsibilities
• scheduling forums in which all partners get the same
message at the same time
• developing protocols for dealing with problems that
neither partner has the power to solve
71
-------
Session 3: Managing Your Data
Managing Your Data: Some Basic
Principles
Moderator: Jay West, Izaak Walton League
Presenters: Ken Cooke,* Kentucky Water Watch; Janice
Miller, Unified Sewerage Agency; Trey Murff,* Texas
Watch Program
Janice Miller
Unified Sewerage Agency
Data Handling Procedures
What should be on the data sheet?
A few important items that should be included on volunteer
data sheets are:
• The exact location of the site. (If nothing else, at least
have the volunteer provide precise instructions on how
to drive to the site.)
• Recent weather conditions. A recent storm can have a
major effect on the data.
• Actual readings from the equipment, and any formulas
used in calculation—not just the final answer.
• Anything unusual that was seen—spills, new construc-
tion, a dead animal, etc.
Reporting results
Don't report values of zero. Report "less than.
_" (fill
in theblank with the smallest value). For example, if the range
of a test is 0 - 1 mg/1, the smallest increment is 0.02 mg/1, and
the test result is zero, report as "less than 0.02 mg/1" (or
"< 0.02 mg/1").
Calculations
Significant figures: Report the answer using only the appro-
priate number of digits. Remember the following:
• Constants do not impact on the number of significant
figures.
• If you perform a series of calculations, carry two extra
digits inside the calculations.
• When working with a series of values, each with a
different number of significant figures:
- for addition and subtraction, round to the least number of
decimal places in the series
- for multiplication and division, round to the least number
of significant figures in the series
Rounding: Round your final answer. Use only one digit past
the significant digit to determine how to round the last
significant digit.
Reporting units
Watch your reporting units and write down conversion fac-
*No paper submitted
tors: "1,000 ml/liter," not just "1,000."
Be sure to report the correct chemical constituent. For
example, if you require results for phosphorus but the test kit
you use gives results as phosphate, it is important to convert
the test kit value to phosphorus.
Atomic weight of oxygen = 15.9994
Atomic weight of phosphorus = 30.9738
Molecular weight of phosphate (PO4) = 94.9714
To convert phosphate results to phosphorus results:
(Atomic weight of P/Molecular weight of PO4) X (value of
PO4) = value of P
How much variability can you expect in a test?
When you select a test method, try to find one in which the
results that you expect, or that are important to your program,
are in the middle of the test range.
Example:
Smallest
Range increment Translation
0 -100 1 The smallest measurement differ-
ence you can measure is 1
0-10 0.1 The smallest measurement differ-
ence you can measure is 0.1
0-1 0.01 The smallest measurement differ-
ence you can measure is 0.01
Your best quality control will be achieved on samples with
values in the middle of the range.
Example: You analyze 6 samples in duplicate using a test
method with a range of 0 - 100 and for which the smallest
increment is 1:
Readings 1 & 2
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 5
Sample 6
3
5
10
20
50
80
4
6
11
21
51
81
Differ-
ence
1
1
1
1
1
1
Relative %
difference
28%
18%
10%
5%
2%
1%
For each sample, the actual difference between reading 1
and reading 2 is 1 (the smallest increment you can get with
this test). But at the low range this is a large relative differ-
ence. The same quality of work will give you lower quality
values at the low end of any test range. The apparently higher
quality work at the upper range of the test is not in fact higher
quality data.
In general, good quality data will be reproducible within
72
-------
Session 3: Managing Your Data
± 5% to 10% when done by the same person (or ± 10% to 20%
between labs).
Role of the coordinator
The coordinator should oversee the work, and collect all the
field sheets and check them for completeness before the
volunteers leave. Missing information should be added (or an
explanation of why it is missing written on the sheet).
Volunteers in the field should get used to doing all their
own calculations. There should be enough information on the
field data sheet to allow them to do this.
It is very important for the coordinator to check all the
calculations before transferring the information to any data-
base or spreadsheet. You would be surprised how many
errors are caught at this point! The sooner after the field work
you do this, the more likely you will be to resolve any
problems.
How to store the data
Enter as much information as you can into a database or
spreadsheet. Set up comment fields for text. Organize the
database so it is self-explanatory, or document it well.
If your budget allows, try to use a database or spreadsheet
that is commonly used by both the professionals and the
volunteers-so that the data can be shared. If that is not
possible, use one that allows you to transfer data out of your
system in a comma-delimited form.
Don't throw away any field data sheets. Someone needs to
be willing to be the keeper of the data. These sheets are the
primary records, and anyone genuinely interested in the
quality of the data may want to see them.
Check for accuracy
Print out the data and then, if possible, have someone else
check it against the original paperwork. Basically they are
looking for keypunch errors. If no one else is available,
checking it yourself is better than not checking it.
It's worth taking the time to ensure accuracy, because
once data gets into a database, it has a life of its own. People
believe data that's in a database.
Screen for outliers
Screen the data for outliers by comparing it to past data from
the same site or similar sites. Visually scan the data, looking
for values that are off by a factor of 10 or 100. Look at the
minimums and maximums and see if anything jumps out at
you. Calculate a mean and median. If they are very different,
you probably have an outlier. Graphing data points is an
excellent way to spot outliers.
Screen for consistency
You should check for consistency between similar param-
eters. For example:
• Total solids should be greater than suspended solids.
• Total phosphorus should be greater than ortho-
phosphorus
• Total dissolved solids and conductivity should track
together (i.e., go up or down together). If one goes up
and the other goes down, something is probably wrong.
• Total solids and turbidity should track together.
• The chemistry should match what was visually seen in
the field (construction, recent storm, etc.).
Also check to make sure that data values are possible
values for that test, and that they make sense. For example:
• pH greater than 14 is not possible.
• Check that temperature range is appropriate for reported
scale (Celsius or Fahrenheit).
• Dissolved oxygen should not be greater than 20. Any
value over 12 should be checked (a value over 12 is
possible if there is a great deal of algal growth).
Fix the problem
If the data shows inconsistencies or doesn't make sense,
follow up on the problem. If you can track down and correct
the error, fix it and note that you fixed it on the field data sheet.
If you really suspect the data is incorrect but you can't figure
out the correct result, remove it from the database and note on
the field data sheet that you did so. But don't take data out
simply because you don't like it. We use a "Q" code in the
database to flag data that is questionable but not demonstra-
bly wrong.
If you correct an error, alert others to whom you have
given the data so they can fix it too. Again, remember that
data in a database has enhanced credibility and "a life of its
own."
_
73
-------
Session 3: Fundraising, Part Two
Fundraising, Part Two: Training Fundraisers
Abby Markowitz
Maryland Save Our Streams
Sooner or later, most of us have to deal with the frightening
and sometimes distasteful subjects of money and fundraising.
Unfortunately, money to initiate and maintain programs
doesn't fall from the sky or wash up on the shoreline or
streambanks simply because our work is important. In addi-
tion, most of our programs cannot rely on foundation or
government grants for complete funding.
This means, then, that we have to actually get up our nerve
and ask individualpeopleformoney. It also means that unless
we want to do everything ourselves, we have to ask other
people to ask for money on behalf of the program or organi-
zation. Further, if we want to be successful, we have to train
people to ask for money and design campaigns that provide
a forum for asking.
This intimidating process is known as grassroots
fundraising and is the subject of this session. Generally, the
term "grassroots fundraising" is defined as ongoing or spo-
radic small-donor ($500 or less) campaigns in which the
donors are individuals, families, or small groups with a
potential or known interest in the objectives and work of the
group asking for money.
So, you've decided to wade into the waters of organizing
a grassroots fundraising campaign. Contrary to certain ideas,
this is an admirable endeavor. You are not selling encyclope-
dias or vacuum cleaners, nor are you a bill collector. You are
working to implement and maintain programs that will bring
about positive environmental change. In short, your organi-
zation is working to protect and restore our waterways and the
watersheds that sustain them. This work requires resources,
one of which is money. It is important to keep these ideas in
mind—and communicate them to others—throughout the
process of organizing and implementing fundraising cam-
paigns.
Before you can train fundraisers, you have to recruit them.
Everyone connected to the organization or program should
be asked to participate in some kind offundraising event or
campaign. Assemble a committee of people—volunteers,
board members, staff, friends, etc.—who have the responsi-
bility to decide what type of campaign to implement. Set
Note: Tliis talk is based in part on Abby Markowitz's article
"Ask (Skillfully) and You Will Receive " in the Fall 1993 issue
o/The Volunteer Monitor newsletter. The newsletter article
provides additional ideas about grassroots and other types of
fundraising. To obtain a copy, send a self-addressed enve-
lope with 75$ postage to The Volunteer Monitor, 1318
Masonic Ave., San Francisco, CA 94117. (Be sure to specify
that you want the Fall 1993 issue.)
reasonable goals for money raised and numbers of volunteers
needed to reach the goals.
The table on the following two pages lists some common
types of grassroots campaigns along with important consid-
erations and some of the pros and cons associated with each
type.
Remember that regardless of what type of campaign you
choose, people will be asking for money in one form or
another—whether they go to the local grocery store to solicit
an ad, talk to a stranger over the phone, or chat with co-
workers about creative holiday gift-giving opportunities.
However, different people are more comfortable with differ-
ent types of asking. Some like asking people they know and
others prefer asking strangers. Your potential volunteer
fundraiser base may be a consideration in choosing one
campaign over another. Also keep in mind that in many ways
asking is asking, whether you are asking someone for a
contribution or asking someone to ask others for a contribu-
tion. The skills used are often interchangeable.
Part of recruiting and training fundraisers is understand-
ing that grassroots support plays a critical role in the life of
most organizations through:
• providing a major source of unrestricted funds (important
for advocacy work or indirect expenses that may not be
an appropriate or allowable component of a grant or
contract "deliverable")
• building the base of support for the organization and
program
• developing ownership of program and leadership skills
among volunteers
In addition, successful fundraisers learn to articulate the
organization' s objectives and the resources needed to achieve
them in a variety of ways. Some people are attracted to the
micro, tangible needs such as monitoring equipment, publi-
cations, slide shows, postage, printing, salaries, etc. Others
are more interested in the "big picture," and are motivated by
ideas. When I was a canvasser and we talked about monies
needed to fulfill the mission of the organization, we called it
the "concept rap." A good group training exercise is to ask
committee members and all volunteer fundraisers to briefly
list responses to the question Why is the money I'm asking for
important?
Some fundraising activities, like phone-a-thons and can-
vasses, lend themselves to group training sessions since the
volunteers are fundraising together or at least assembling
together. Others, like selling tickets or ads, are more individu-
alized. If at all possible, schedule at least one time when all
fundraisers can meet for an hour or two to go through a brief
training session. Obviously, certain training issues will vary
depending on the type offundraising you are doing. But some
74
-------
Session 3: Fundraising, Part Two
Table 1. Pros and cons of common types of grassroots fundraising campaigns
Type of Campaign
Some Pros
Some Cons
Door-to-Door Canvass
(contributions usually
between $10 and $50)
Phone-A-Thon
(pledges usually
between $20 and $100
each)
Adbook (or newsletter
w/advertisements)
(usually $50-$500/ad
depending on size)
House Parties, Cock-
tail Parties, "Corpo-
rate Breakfasts"
(usually $25-$500per
contribution)
• canvassers can raise over $100 in an
evening or afternoon
1 direct contact w/community—can be a
great education tool
1 volunteers can work in their own neigh-
borhoods
• funds are available immediately
• very low costs for printing, postage, etc.
1 far more lucrative than direct mail
solicitations—phone-a-thons can gener-
ate thousands of dollars in 3-4 nights of
phoning.
1 phoners, without too much training, can
generally raise $125-250 in pledges per
session
1 good tool for building comfort levels,
confidence, and skill among volunteers
• can phone from organization's mailing
list—i.e., people who have connection to
organization
1 volunteers can all work in one place—
often less stressful than isolated asking
• adbook can serve as communication and
PR tool—such as an annual report
1 supporters get something tangible for
their contribution—ad space
1 builds relationship with business commu-
nity
• relatively large donations
1 some volunteers have easier time selling
ads than asking directly for a contribu-
tion—can go to businesses they patronize
• with a newsletter, ads can eventually pay
for printing and postage of newsletter on
a permanent basis
• volunteers can hold house parties and
invite friends, colleagues
1 house parties can be done for little cost—
coffee, tea, snacks
1 receptions and "breakfasts" attract larger
donors—builds relationships with
business community
1 requires a good deal of training
1 often difficult to get people to volunteer to
go door knocking
1 safety issues
• legal issues in some states, i.e., may need
permits, etc.
1 pledge return rate variable (50% is consid-
ered very good)
1 significant outlay for postage, printing
1 labor intensive follow-up—reminders for
pledges, etc.
1 longer-term project—generally 4-5 months
from first solicitation to printing
1 labor-intensive, direct follow-up required
• skills in layout required
• adbooks can be costly to print, unless
printing exchanged or discounted for ad
space. Can also be costly to distribute (and
advertisers want to see book as widely
distributed as possible) •
• adbook may only net $2,000-$4,000 in first
and second year
• newsletter w/ads requires ongoing solicita-
tion and follow-up
1 labor-intensive recruitment and follow-up
1 parties can be expensive—hiring a caterer,
renting a facility, etc.
• often requires formal presentations
continued on next page
75
-------
Session 3: Fundraising, Part Two
Table 1, cont'd.
Type of Campaign
Some Pros
Some Cons
Holiday Solicitations—
"Give the gift of clean
water for the holidays"
(usually $20-$50 per
gift, depending on
yearly membership
dues)
Benefits/Concerts
(usually $10-$20/ticket
plus sales of food,
beverages, T-shirts,
etc.)
• easier to ask people to give a membership
to folks on their holiday list—removes
some of the commercialism of Christmas,
etc.
• contributors may make more than one
donation—give several "gifts"
1 can be done through a combination of
mail, phone and one-on-one contact—
through the workplace, etc.
1 can greatly increase membership base—
every "gift" adds another potential
volunteer, supporter, and membership
renewal
• great for PR and media coverage—can get
sponsorship of local radio or TV station
• involves volunteers and supporters in fun
project—also provides a social occasion
for volunteers
• can get vendors involved—charge per
table or booth rented
• great committee project for volunteers
1 limited to certain time of the year—must be
timed correctly
1 will require especially efficient follow-up—
people will need to give their "gifts" by a
certain date
• may need to have some sort of merchan-
dise—mugs, T-shirts—to give to recipients
1 labor-intensive—requires several months of
planning and time in getting donations of
food, beverages, entertainment, venue, etc.
• potentially large initial outlay in printing,
postage, rent, food, etc.
1 will require entertainment
• may only net $2,000-$4,000 in first year—
sometimes only break even in first year
are pretty universal and should always be addressed:
• Anticipate, acknowledge, and intercept fear. Almost
everyone is wary—or even downright afraid—of asking
people for money. Don't try to minimize or gloss over
people's concerns. Every training should include a discus-
sion of fears. A good way to address this is to ask everyone
to say one thing they are afraid of. Keep a running list on
newsprint or a blackboard. This activity goes a long way
toward breaking the ice and relieving tension. The trainer
should begin in order get things going. Most likely, the
majority of things listed will relate to rejection in some form.
After the list is complete, discuss concrete ways of dealing
with objections or potential objections that fundraisers may
encounter. If there are volunteers present who have fundraised
before, make sure they have the opportunity to offer tips and
share some of their own experiences in dealing with objec-
tions or handling situations.
Probably the most important thing you can say during the
course of any training is "'No' is not the end of the world." If
someone won't make a contribution or buy a ticket or an ad,
it doesn't mean the fundraiser is a terrible person. Also, if
someone saysno, that doesn'tmean they will be rude or nasty.
This may seem obvious, but saying it works wonders in
putting people at ease.
• Know your "turf" and your audience. Teach your
volunteers ways that they can gauge the level of support of the
people they are asking. If fundraisers are targeting a specific
population (a neighborhood, co-workers, friends, local busi-
nesses, organizational members or supporters, etc.) try to
determine what types of information will interest them. What
will motivate them to give—tangibles, or concepts? Is this
person from ahigh-, middle-, or low-income community? Do
they live in a waterfront community or one that has had
specific water quality problems? Does your organization's
monitoring program sample water in this community?
The answers to these questions will help the fundraiser
decide what points to highlight and what amount to ask for.
If the fundraiser personally knows the potential supporters,
this task is relatively easy. If members of the target audience
are not personally familiar, the fundraiser needs to "read"
each individual. Asking questions such as "Are you familiar
with this program?" and "Are you aware of any local water
quality problems?" will help gauge a prospective donor's
level of support. Emphasize the need to engage in dialogue,
not monologue and to make, and maintain, direct eye contact
(unless you are asking over the phone).
• Keep It Short and Simple ("KISS"). Teach fundraisers
to have, like Emily Dickinson's poetry, "an economy of
76
-------
Session 3: Fundraising, Part Two
language." "Asks" should be brief and concise: WHO (we
are), WHAT (we want—contribution, ad, membership, etc.),
WHAT (the organization does—in 100 words or less, men-
tioning one or two successes), and WHY (it is important to
give). Provide fundraisers with a short script or "rap" as a
guide, but emphasize that they should not memorize it. The
written script should be no more than one side of a page and
should outline a couple of program successes that the
fundraisers can emphasize when they talk to people.
• Give people a reason to give. The fundraisers are
promoting both an idea and a product. The idea is the
importance of achieving the organization's goals. The prod-
uct is a successful program with positive results. Make sure
that your fundraisers can tell people what their support will do
and that they can be specific. For example: "A $50 donation
will pay for equipment maintenance for an entire year."
Provide fundraisers with a "shopping list" of what different
support levels will enable the organization to do.
• Avoid qualifiers like "try" and "maybe." A common
mistake new fundraisers make is using qualifiers that weaken
the "rap." You aren't "trying" to make a difference in water
quality—you ARE making a difference. People aren't
"maybe" helping out with a contribution, ad, etc.—they ARE
SUPPORTING THIS WORK WITH A DONATION. If the
fundraiser is not confident, don't expect the prospect to be
supportive.
• Ask more than once, but listen for three Nos. Talk
about the nuances of Nos. Instruct volunteers to watch/listen
for three objections, then politely end the discussion. A no
can be disguised in a number of ways: not a good time to talk
(response: When might be a better time?), don't have my
checkbook (response: Can we set up a time for me to follow
up?), unemployed (response: Folks on a fixed income are
supporting us with a smaller amount), not familiar with
organization (response: Neither was I; can I take a minute to
tell you more about the work we do?). It is important to
reassure volunteers that they have control—they can always
-end the discussion. You'd be surprised how many people
think they have to keep talking no matter what.
• Ask for a specific amount. If you don't name a specific
amount, you are likely to get $5 or $10. Also remember that
it is easier to go down than to come up. For example, if you
ask for $25 and the person says, "Sure, no problem," you
can't really say, "Well, in that case, can you make it $50?"
However, if you ask for $50, and the person says, "I can't
afford that," you can say, "Folks that can't afford that are
shooting for $25 for the year." One of the hardest—but most
important—things to teach fundraisers is, Wait for a response
before coming down. Sometimes our fear of asking tells us to
immediately come down before the person has a chance to
respond.
Lastly, volunteer fundraisers need to understand that their
commitment is the strongest "selling point" the organization
has. When engaged in fundraising, volunteers should always
talk about why they themselves are involved in this work.
Only someone who really believed in the organization would
volunteer to go around asking people for money. Volunteers
should be encouraged to use the terms "we" and "us" when
referring to the organization and to always incorporate their
own volunteer experiences as specific examples of the
organization's work.
77
-------
Session 4: Committing to Diversity, Part Two
Committing to Diversity, Part Two:
Moderator: Wenley Ferguson, Rhode Island Save the Bay
Presenters: Bill Stapp, GREEN; Cliff Jones, Technical
Assistance for Community Services; Jane Hardy,
Chautauqua Northwest
Dr. William B. Stapp
Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
(GREEN)
Project GREEN Success Stories
Two of the more interesting success stories that I have been
personally involved with over the past few years were GREEN
(Global Rivers Environmental Education Network) projects
with Walpole First Nation People in Canada and Arab-Israeli
and Jewish-Israeli students in the Na' aman River Program in
Israel. Before I describe those programs in detail, let me
briefly outline the basic GREEN approach.
GREEN programs throughout North America and the
global community introduce students to water monitoring as
part of a hands-on, action-oriented approach to solving envi-
ronmental problems. Computer networking links participat-
ing schools across the U.S. and around the world. Program
goals include:
• Students become empowered to help protect their local
water resources.
• Students learn about both natural science (ecological
cycles, food chains, water chemistry, aquatic biology,
and the interaction of land use and water quality) and
social science (the geography of the watershed, the
history of land and water use in the area, the economics
of the local use of natural resources, and the govern-
ment processes involved in managing natural re-
sources).
• Students develop interpersonal, communication, and
problem-solving skills by working in teams to test the
water, interpret the results, identify problems, and
search for solutions.
The Walpole First Nation People
The Walpole Island First Nation Reserve is in Southeastern
Ontario, located on a freshwater delta at the mouth of the St.
Clair River. Totaling 58,000 acres, Walpole Island contains
a rich mosaic of ecosystems.
Walpole Island has been inhabited by native peoples for
more than 10,000 years. Today, Walpole Island First Nation
is governed by an elected Chief and 12 Councilors. Its
population of approximately 2,200 Ojibwa, Ottawa, and
Potawatomi people have joined together in a political and
cultural confederacy called the Council of Three Fires. Al-
though Walpole Island First Nation has had much contact
with surrounding communities, its members have retained an
Indian identity at the level of their deepest values and ways
of living.
Relationship to the environment
Through the years the bands have practiced careful steward-
ship of the land. To Walpole Island First Nation, "the land"
includes not only dry land, but air, water, plants, animals,
humans, and a corresponding responsibility to protect these
elements. For Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi, the land has
social, cultural, and spiritual significance, as well as eco-
nomic importance. The people of Walpole have a very close
relationship with the land, and they have traditionally relied
to a significant extent on local resources. The health of the
Walpole community and culture is therefore closely tied to
the health of the local environment.
The band has defined sustainable development as "the
process of equitable economic, social, cultural, and techno-
logical betterment in a way that does not pollute ecosystems
and irrevocably deplete resources." A guiding concept for
Walpole Island First Nation is that the land and its resources
are to be preserved for the benefit of past, present, and future
generations.
Program background
In May 1992 a student in the Black River Water Quality
Monitoring Program (in Michigan) went to Walpole Island to
personally invite the Walpole Community to attend the Black
River Student Congress. During the Student Congress, mem-
bers from Walpole Island participated fully in student and
community presentations, took extra time to learn how to
monitor for water quality, and participated in computer
training sessions. In exchange, Walpole representatives pro-
vided the opportunity for students at the Black River Con-
gress to attend the Annual Indian Ceremonial Celebration on
Walpole Island.
In the fall of 1992, GREEN contacted Dean Jacobs,
Director of the Walpole Island Heritage Centre and member
of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy,
to determine their interest in involving their Walpole Island
School in a water quality educational program. The mission
of the Heritage Centre is to preserve, interpret, and promote
the natural and cultural heritage of the Walpole Island First
Nation Community. GREEN was asked to provide a presen-
tation on the purpose and structure of a water quality moni-
toring program to the Chief, members of the Council, elders,
residents, students and teachers, and members of the Walpole
Island Heritage Centre.
78
-------
Session 4: Committing to Diversity, Part Two
Following this workshop, the staff of the Walpole Island
Heritage Centre informed GREEN that they would be inter-
ested in involving their community in a school-wide water
quality monitoring program. The program was developed in
cooperation with the Walpole First Nation People and incor-
porated the basic components of GREEN projects throughout
the world. During the second year the program expanded its
computer telecommunication linkage to include indigenous
and non-indigenous schools throughout the Great Lakes
region and elsewhere in Canada and the United States.
Responding to local concerns and to the water quality data
gathered in the first year, the program also began to focus its
attention on heavy metal monitoring.
The Na'aman River Program in Israel
GREEN and the Nature Reserve Authority (NRA) of Israel
embarked on a new project in November 1993. This program
was designed to bring together Jewish and Arab Israeli
students within the same watershed to work cooperatively to
improve the quality and quantity of their water and their
cultural relationship.
The first phase of the program established a common
water monitoring program, involving 15 secondary school
classes from both Arab and Jewish schools in the watershed
of the Na'aman River, north of Haifa, Israel. The second
phase was designed to improve critical water issues on the
Na'aman River.
The Nature Reserve Authority is a governmental organi-
zation that manages the entire nature reserve system of Israel
(approximately 400 reserves). Seven guiding centers located
in specific reserves are currently in operation, each one
responsible for a specific region, such as the En Afeq Guiding
Center in western Galilee.
The En Afeq Center, located in an 800-year-old Crusader
watermill, provides field activities for classes of all ages.
Students enjoying the Center include local schools with
Moslem, Druse, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish populations.
The En Afeq GREEN Program provides the opportunity for
students from both Arab and Jewish high schools to monitor
the waters of the Na'aman River, resulting in the establish-
ment of database information and watershed management
and protection strategies. This cooperative effort is enhanced
by working in English, the second language common to both
groups.
Environmental protection and wise use of natural re-
sources are critical in every corner of the world. In the Middle
East, the scarcity of water resources, increased pollution, and
depletion of available water are leading to a grave water crisis
that must be addressed by all citizens, regardless of ethnic,
religious, or cultural group. Citizen effort to protect and
conserve precious water at the local level is a critical element
of any water management strategy.
Educating students about water quality and quantity and
involving them in relevant problem-solving strategies are
excellent steps toward achieving this goal. In addition, such
local efforts require cooperation between the diverse cultural
and religious groups that share water resources. A program
that brings students from such groups together to address a
mutual problem provides a foundation for continued coop-
eration in the future.
Bibliography
Mitchell, M. and W.B. Stapp. 1994. Field Manual For
Water Quality Monitoring: An Environmental Educa-
tion Program for Schools. 8th Edition: Thomson-Shore,
Dexter, Michigan.
Stapp, William B. and Dorothy A. Cox. 1981. Environ-
mental Education Activities Manual. Thomson-Shore,
Dexter, Michigan.
Cliff Jones
Technical Assistance for Community Services
Tools for Diversity
There are three key ongoing functions that organizations
need to do to successfully address exclusion. (Note that we
are talking here not about exclusion of people based on
philosophical differences but on oppression—i.e., racism,
sexism, ageism, socioeconomic class oppression.)
1. Make a collective decision. If you want to include people
who have been excluded, you need to make a collective
decision to do so. Otherwise, organizationally, one foot will
be moving forward while the other is moving backward.
2. CoUect information. Do a self-assessment of your orga-
nization. Who is excluded, and how and why are they
excluded? How does your organization relate to the excluded
community or group? How competent are you as an organi-
zation to deal with other communities and groups?
3. Take action. You need to have some goals and a plan so
that you continue to move forward.
The following are six key strategies that have worked in
helpingjOrganizations address these issues of exclusion:
1. Set up a diversify committee. The purpose of the commit-
tee is to think collectively about inclusion, to institutionalize
the process. The committee will undertake ongoing thinking,
planning, and action-taking regarding organizational change,
and will bring together strategic sectors of the organization
necessary to achieve desired change.
2. Conduct diversity training. There's no sense in bringing
diverse people in if members of the organization don't know
how to interact with them and are not struggling to commu-
nicate and reach out. The diversity training will educate the
organization regarding institutional and personal bias and
will facilitate information gathering, action taking, and prob-
lem solving.
79
-------
Session 4: Committing to Diversity, Part Two
3. Set up a multicultural advisory group. This is a way of
bringing voices to the table that have not been at the table. The
multicultural advisory group should not be assigned to work
only on "minority issues" but should have input into the
organization as a whole.
4. Alliance-based problem solving. Functioning from an
alliance-based problem-solving perspective means moving
away from being "one-up/one-down" to being "different but
equal." Alliance-based problem solving seeks real solutions
that address the structural inequality inherent in oppressive
models. If we have privilege, involving other groups is not
about "helping" them; we are helping ourselves. We will gain
creative solutions that we haven't been able to think of
because of our limited experience.
5. Ongoing organizational goals. Make sure the organiza-
tion always has an agenda of inclusion.
6. Policy review/changing and interrupting institutional-
ized oppression and prejudice. If you really want to include
people, you need to look at how your organizational policies
may be excluding people. It may have to do with how people
get promoted to leadership or how people get access to
resources for training. Do the men control, do the white
people control, do the urban people control? Then you need
to interrupt these exclusionary policies.
Question-and-answer session
The remainder of Cliff Jones' presentation consisted of a
question-and-answer session with workshop participants.
Question: How can our group work with indigenous people
to encourage them to extract resources in environmentally
sound ways?
CJ: The first thing that pops into my mind is acknowledging
a history of oppression—acknowledging that those practices
probably would work if those folks had had control of the
resources. It seems unfair: They haven't had power over the
resources, and now, because of what other people have done,
they are being asked to change, and their livelihood is being
threatened. Often people think that history is irrelevant. But
if you can come to the table showing a full and deep respect
for why the situation is the way it is, people will be more
willing to problem-solve.
I would suggest going to the table and listening for a long
time before you make any suggestions. Follow the model of
alliance-based problem solving; work on the problem from
the vantage point of "different but equal."
Question: We were given money to conduct training for
tribal groups. I'm an ex-Peace Corps volunteer, and I know
that you can't help people without a request for assistance,
but I'm now caught in this position of offering a service when
they haven't requested it.
CJ: This sounds like institutionalized racism to me—"We're
going to help these people." The risk to your group is that you
will be seen as patronizing. My first suggestion is, if it's
possible, turn over that money to the tribal groups to do
whatever they want with.
Question: We have the same problem. We got a huge grant
to work in the inner city, but it has to be used to plant trees.
CJ: I believe there's a way to get the trees planted and to do
it in a way that people become advocates. Maybe it means
spending more of the money that the grantors wanted to spend
on figuring out how to involve community people. Give
people in the community the power to make decisions. They
will come up with some new ways.
Question: What can you do if you have groups of people of
color that are conflicting with each other?
CJ: People of color have learned the same stereotypes about
their group and other groups as everyone else has learned, and
we've been pitted against each other to some extent. You can
help if you can function as an ally to both groups. You can
mediate, problem solve, be rational. You can hold out to both
groups complete alliance and complete reality about their
goodness, about their rights to participate, and about their
ability to cooperate.
Jane V. L. Hardy
Chautauqua Northwest
Senior Participation in
Environmental Monitoring
My assignment today is to discuss the possibilities and
pitfalls of senior participation in environmental monitoring,
based on our own operating experience. In theatrical terms,
we have known a combination of high drama and low
comedy, and even tinges of tragedy in the form of lost
potential. To set the stage, let me sketch the players and the
play.
Project background
In November 1989, Chautauqua Northwest created "Seniors
for the Sound." This was America's first retiree-based volun-
teer program for environmental service. Chautauqua North-
west is a nonprofit partnership of business and seniors which
promotes innovation and leadership in aging through civic
projects, research, and mature market consulting. Our envi-
ronmental project was initiated in cooperation with the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, a Washington State agency
responsible for the cleanup and protection of Puget Sound.
This major estuary, shared by Washington and British Co-
lumbia, is comparable to the Chesapeake Bay for environ-
mental and economic significance.
For four years, as "Seniors for the Sound," our trained
retired volunteers helped state scientists and planners meet
80
-------
Session 4: Committing to Diversity, Part Two
legal mandates for environmental monitoring. Seniors sampled
shellfish for chemical and bacteriological testing, monitored
fish runs, mapped water permits by computer, and designed
educational surveys. Altogether, 44 individuals logged a
combined 2,390 hours of volunteer service. The cost savings
due to their efforts were significant.
The first step in mobilizing seniors for environmental
service is peer-based environmental education. This is the
current focus of our project, now named "Seniors for the
Environment" to reflect broader environmental interests.
With mini-grants from King County Surface Water Manage-
ment Division and EPA Region 10 and technical support
from BIOMED and UNICO Properties, Inc., our older volun-
teers have developed a traveling display and presentation to
take to senior audiences regionwide. The goal is to recruit
new retired volunteers for public or private environmental
agencies working in such areas as water quality testing,
gardening and recycling plants, protecting fish and shellfish,
and restoring streams and wetlands. The theme is, "What can
one person do?" The answer, "PLENTY!" With that in mind,
I would like to turn to the questions posed to the panel. These
are: (1) What were your successes? (2) What obstacles or
failures did you experience? (3) What lessons were learned?
Project successes
Originally, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority ap-
proached Chautauqua Northwest to start a senior environ-
mental service program because of our reputation as a "can
do" civic organization for retired people. The idea was to
create a senior "strike force" that would be on call to do
legwork and provide support services to state and certain
EPA regional staff. Our trained retired volunteers would be
prepared to go anywhere, do anything to assist professional
staff of the Authority and related state agencies in their work
to clean up and protect Puget Sound. Our team was first
nicknamed "The Anti-Dirty Dozen" and was even featured
on CNN.
Our great success and source of pride is that we completed
every single assignment except one. In that case, a park
ranger denied volunteers access to a state beach for shellfish
sampling due to gale force winds. Also, we repeated two
assignments when the Public Health Laboratory accidentally
destroyed the first samples.
Obstacles or failures
Ageism—without question—has been the greatest obstacle
to success in our senior environmental project. Our project
volunteers were healthy, active men and women aged 60- or
70-something. Most were retired business or professional
people who enjoyed outdoor recreation and/or owned vaca-
tion property.
Even so, as project manager, I will never forget the call I
got from the state staff person who was escorting our volun-
teer team to their first moonlight clam dig in late November.
He called from a phone booth out on Interstate 5 just to go on
record that he was not going to be personally responsible
for—and this is a direct quote—"a bunch of goddammed
elderly people out on the beach at night." It was pretty clear
to him that the ones who did not have heart attacks would just
die of hypothermia!
Of course, none of that happened. But the fact that they all
went, did a good job, and had a good time did not really erase
the underlying attitude. Ageism is based on persistent nega-
tive stereotypes. Our volunteers, now all great chums of this
fellow, were seen as exceptions to the rule. But no one
questioned the validity of that devastatingly negative "rule."
Granted, this was an extreme example. But ageist attitudes
among some other professional staff ranged from patronizing
to overly solicitous to sarcastic or contemptuous. Ironically,
both state staff and retired volunteers saw themselves as
helping the other out. Senior volunteers thought they were
generously helping environmental staff do a better job. Envi-
ronmental staff thought they were kindly giving the old folks
something to do. What's wrong with this picture?
Naively, I thought the solution to the attitudinal problem
was outstanding performance. I thought if we were just well-
organized, brought a wealth of project management experi-
ence to bear, and did an excellent job, the environmental
agency staff would appreciate our work and see our senior
team as a real asset. Wrong.
Any time a volunteer group can step in, analyze a task, and
perform it as well as, or better than, the paid professionals for
a fraction of the cost, they are not an asset; they are a threat.
Again, what's wrong with this picture?
Lessons learned
Chautauqua Northwest is not an "environmental organiza-
tion" per se. But that is not to say we do not care about our
natural heritage. Older people care deeply about the natural
legacy they will leave their children, and especially their
grandchildren. That caring can and should be translated into
constructive, extensive environmental service.
Looking across America, we see that retired people repre-
sent a tremendous, underutilized resource for meeting na-
tional goals to protect, restore, and enhance our natural
environment. Older people are an increasingly potent force in
American life. People age 55+ comprise nearly one-fourth of
the total population, one-third of the eligible voters, and one-
half of the actual voters. Consequently, any effort to create
popular consensus on environmental matters simply must
involve .older citizens. Investing environmental education
and program dollars in children is great... for a long-term
payoff. But investing in older people who have no time to
waste can generate more immediate benefits.
In my view, the lesson to be learned from our experience
in "Seniors for the Environment" is to try harder. Older
volunteers can and should be integrated into serious environ-
mental protection and enhancement work across the nation.
It would be a fundamental mistake to let stereotypes block
their way.
81
-------
Session 4: Building Partnerships with State Governments
Building Partnerships with State
Governments
Moderator: Robbi Savage, Association of State & Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
Presenters: Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch; Italo
Carcich, NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation; Rich-
ard Kepler,* Oregon DEQ, Groundwater Section; Eric
Mendelman,* Texas Watch; Mr. Lynn Singleton, DOE
Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services
Ken Cooke
Kentucky Water Watch
Tips on Working with State
Agencies
In any agency you're going to find three basic types of people:
good people, bad people, and j ust people (see figure at right).
The point is that when volunteer monitoring groups approach
a state agency, we have to speak a bit of their language. You
may want a clean stream that you can fish and swim in, but the
agency will translate that into some sort of wastewater
allocation formula.
It'snothard to learn someof their language; justreadafew
of their reports. And recognize that no matter what you say or
do, some people in the agency still won't agree with you. You
need to identify who your friends are.
Agency job classifications
Now let's look at some of the different job classifications you
may be dealing with at a state agency: political appointees,
supervisory managers, administrative staff, technical staff,
common laborers, field staff. Each category has something to
offer you, and each has certain needs and wants that you
should bear in mind when working with them.
I've always found that political appointees are really
good at getting the ball rolling, setting the tone, providing the
authorization. In our state it was a political appointee who
said, "I want a citizen component." What political appointees
need is good press and low-cost options that imply action.
Then come the people who actually implement programs:
the supervisory managers. These people will assign staff
and resources to the program. They usually need to know,
How much is this going to cost? How much of my staffs time
is this going to take? and Who do we hang if it explodes?
Usually volunteer monitoring groups have to do some "sell-
ing" at this level.
You'll be dealing with the administrative staff if you
have a financial relationship with the agency. They are skilled
at getting the bills paid, taking care of printing and mailing,
etc. What they need is for you to fill out Form 70DQA-4 and
*No paper submitted
Types of people you will encounter in a
typical state agency
GOOD
people
People who
think
like 1 do
| BAD
I people
1
| People who
| don't think
1 like 1 do
1
Just
people
People who
don't
think at all
provide all the proper account information.
The technical staff are usually the people with whom we
will interface the most. They will be working with us in the
field, helping with program design, training, etc. One thing
they need is to be assured of their technical superiority. Some
of our technical staff were threatened by the monitoring
project—they were afraid that we would take away their jobs
or their funding. It's also important not to overload the
technical staff.
Common agency activities
When you set up a relationship with a state agency, find out
exactly what projects they are doing so you can figure out
where you fit in. Some activities that most state water
agencies are involved in are:
• ambient monitoring
• stream use designations
• 319 assessments
• NPDES permitting
• field inspections
• technical assistance
• 205-208 infrastructure planning
• enforcement
• water quantity/resources management
• dam safety
• public participation requirements
• planning
Finding common ground
When we started our program, we conducted a survey of both
volunteers and agency staff. We asked volunteers what they
wanted to do, and we asked the agency staff what they wanted
done. We then identified the "common ground" where the
two lists meshed. We found that volunteers did not want to
stuff envelopes or do data entry. Our agency staff did not want
volunteers initiating enforcement cases, and they didn't want
them to do stream use designation assessments because that
involved collecting a complicated set of data. (In fact, how-
82
-------
Session 4: Building Partnerships with State Governments
ever, some of the data our volunteers collect do go into stream
use designation assessments.)
Fortunately, we did find many areas of overlap. Volunteer
activities that were accepted by both groups included:
• 319 stream assessments
• background monitoring
• compliance monitoring
• streamside trash cleanups
• serving on advisory groups
Contract with volunteers
We set up an informal contract with our volunteers. The
contract spells out the program's goals, each side's responsi-
bilities and expectations, and what kind of support volunteers
can expect.
It's important to incorporate a "bail-out option" in the
contract. How many of you have had volunteers who work
really hard for a year, then drop out—and feel so guilty that
the next time they see you they look at you as if you're a bill
collector? You want to make sure they can retire with
accolades. Let them know that after a year, they are free to
move on.
Italo G. Carcich, RE.
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Agency-Citizen Partnerships in
New York State
New York State contains more than 7,000 lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs, and countless miles of streams and rivers. The
public has expressed a great desire to expand the recreational
opportunities afforded by these natural resources. However,
the large number of lakes and ponds and the many miles of
rivers and streams present the state of New York with
difficult management problems.
Agency/citizen partnerships
How can these management problems be solved? The only
alternative identified early in our efforts was the creation of
a partnership with the citizens of the state. The best way to
describe this partnership is to identify the types of activities
that have been undertaken.
The Division of Water publishes a Water Bulletin and
actively promotes "Water Week." We initiated a highly
successful Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program.
Together with the Federation of Lake Associations of New
York we published Diet for a Small Lake: A New Yorker's
Guide to Lake Management. And, most importantly, we have
made public participation a high priority in all of our pro-
grams.
The Division of Water's involvement with the Federation
of Lake Associations of New York is key to our success. The
Federation, which consists of lake associations, government
and academic professionals, corporations, environmental
groups, and individual citizens, serves as a clearinghouse for
disseminating information, providing technical advice, and
promoting citizen action to preserve, protect, and restore the
surface waters of New York.
Likewise, we have been very active with the County
Water Quality Coordinating Committees. A number of agen-
cies, such as the Soil Conservation Service, the Cooperative
Extension Program, and the Environmental Management
Committee, are all working with lake associations, local
organizations, and private citizens in order to develop envi-
ronmental strategies. Working together we identify and set
local priorities to prevent nonpoint source pollution and
increase interagency cooperation.
The Division of Water is also building a water stewardship
program with over 225 groups and individuals of all ages
across the state. It is a campaign to spur voluntary action at the
local level and to recognize achievements. Recruitment is
accomplished by distributing stewardship brochures and
Water Week packets to schools, conferences, fairs, and local
offices. Groups adopt water bodies or streams and these are
added to the database of the state. Also, groups conduct action
projects, such as cleanups, testing, lobbying, etc., with our
assistance. We recognize their achievements and present
certificates to them during Water Week (first full week in
May).
CSLAP
One of our strongest partnerships is our Citizen Statewide
Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP), started in 1986. We
now have close to 500 volunteers who are fully instructed in
the collection and interpretation of reliable water quality
data, lake ecology, and best management practices.
When CSLAP started, the State of New York was the sole
funder. Now we have built an even greater partnership by
having federal and county governments and lake associations
become partners with the state in funding this program.
Uses of CSLAP data
CSLAP depends on the gathering of reliable data. We place
special emphasis on quality control/quality assurance. Be-
cause we have demonstrated the accuracy of the data set
generated by CSLAP, it is being used to assess lake status,
determine long-term trends, calibrate water quality models,
and develop eutrophication standards. The water quality data
can be used to characterize the lake by establishing the
trophic status, water hardness, acidity status, and limiting
nutrient. The data can also determine the critical factors that
are affecting the use of the lake, and can provide an indication
of temporal changes over the periodof data collection (weekly,
seasonally, annually, or multi-year).
Of particular importance in this partnership is the fact that
the data are used to develop lake management plans. The
water quality data set serves as the cornerstone for all of our
lake management plans. This in turn allows the individual
lake association to develop lake management objectives and
83
-------
Session 4: Building Partnerships with State Governments
to identify the important user groups and critical users.
Volunteer data can identify problems and provide tools for
proper problem diagnosis. The monitoring data can link
symptoms to the causes and in turn to the sources of the
problems.
The volunteer data can also serve as the basis for further
studies. The data may indicate the need to explore other
media than just the water column (such as sediments, fish,
etc.) or to investigate sources of pollution beyond the bound-
aries of the lake (e.g., tributaries or the surrounding water-
shed).
Even after the lake management plans are completed,
there will be a continuing need to collect volunteer data to
evaluate the impacts of management activities. Together, the
state and the citizens can determine the effectiveness of
nutrient abatement strategies through the continuation of in-
lake measurements.
As can be seen, not only has CSLAP provided the basis for
building a lasting partnership between the state and its
citizens, but also we are now further expanding the initial
concept and building a stewardship program that will allow
an even greater participation by citizens. CSLAP opened the
way for these new initiatives.
Mr. Lynn R. Singleton
Washington State Department of Ecology
Volunteer Monitoring Partnerships:
Some Agency Considerations
There are a number of volunteer monitoring efforts going on
in Washington, conducted by many different agencies for
several purposes. The Department of Ecology has had a
Citizen's Lake Monitoring Program for five years now. It has
resulted from citizen efforts and state and federal funding.
Our modest program has been successful for a number of
reasons and I would like to expand our volunteer efforts. I'm
in favor of volunteer monitoring, but I think it's important to
take steps to be sure these programs work and are successful.
Here are some of the things that I, as a manager, would want
to consider in setting up a volunteer monitoring program:
• Identify a need that can be met by a volunteer program.
• What type of volunteer is needed—adults, students, post-
secondary, elementary, all groups? This will affect how
the program is structured.
• Local versus statewide. Most often I would be looking at
a state program. This can involve logistical issues—for
example, will I have to train a volunteer who is 300
miles away?
• Short-term vs. sustained efforts. Long-term efforts take a
different kind of institutional support and maintenance.
This is not meant to diminish the tasks involved in
short-term efforts. Success happens or not over the long
haul.
A few words about volunteers in relation to long-term
efforts:
• Ask yourself why volunteers are there—what is motivat-
ing them?
• Their time is as valuable as yours and mine, and it should
not be wasted.
• Volunteer time can't be viewed as free by an agency. An
agency must provide essential care and feeding for
volunteers, just as it would for employees, if a program
is to be successful.
• Like employees, volunteers need to be able to access the
organizational structure. They need to know who to call
with questions. Some are motivated by the access.
• Initial and ongoing training are required.
• Ongoing technical support is needed.
• The project needs to be valued; the data can, and will, be
used.
• Volunteers need to understand how the data can be
used—"expectation management."
• Volunteers need to know their efforts are appreciated in
some way.
.• Data management needs to be ready to receive informa-
tion before the project begins.
• The QA/QC requirements need to be understood by all at
the onset.
• Summarization, interpretation, and reporting methods
need to be established prior to the program initiation
data.
• Volunteers like to have feedback.
Benefits to state agency
Some of the benefits a state agency receives from working
with volunteers are:
• Credibility—involved community, better understanding
and implementation of programs.
• Public can be more politically and technically astute.
• Useful data can be obtained at a lesser cost to assist
decision makers.
• Agencies can better understand local values and priori-
ties. The volunteers also understand the agency better.
Costs
• There are several infrastructural costs.
• There is a cost if volunteers' expectations are not met.
• Volunteers can become alienated when a positive
situation turns into something else.
• Critics of volunteer efforts may have their doubts
confirmed. This can set other efforts back.
Problems we face in agencies
• More work than can be done.
• Regulatory/resource agencies are under fire in harder
economic times.
• Limited budgets to get work done.
84
-------
Session 4: Building Partnerships with State Governments
, • Many programs have significant backlogs and areas
where data are not available.
• Data management, consistency, and QA are issues we
face among agencies. These problems aren't unique to
volunteer data. Some agencies don't use each other's
data.
• If we start a volunteer program, we need to be committed
to it. It is difficult in harder economic times.
• Regulatory issues and uncertainties of data use.
Future
I am looking to the future for some of the new initiatives that
stress local involvement and collaborative participation to
allow resource pooling—i.e., watershed approach, basin
management efforts.
Managers must realize that there is more than one way to
get to an end. There is more than one way to collect data. We
can't continue doing business in the same way. The saying
that "we are from the government and we're here to help"
doesn't play well. Local implementation is where it is really
at.
Citizen involvement will pay dividends, once the start-up
needs are met. I look forward to expanding our citizen efforts
in the future.
_
85
-------
Session 4: Bacteria Testing, Part One
Bacteria Testing, Part One
Moderator: Esperanza Standoff, University of Maine Co-
operative Extension
Presenters: Esperanza Stancioff; Sigrid Schwind, Oregon
DEQ; Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Esperanza Stancioff
University of Maine Cooperative Extension
Basic Concepts and Definitions
Pathogens
In monitoring for bacteria in Maine, what we are concerned
with are microbial pathogens, especially in shellfish-grow-
ing waters. The pathogens are the "bad guys"—i.e., those that
are capable of causing disease.
Some of these bad guys are:
Bacteria
Salmonella typhi
Legionella
Shigella
Vibrio cholerae
Vibrio vulnificus
Viruses Protozoa ;
hepatitis Giardia
Norwalk virus Cryptosporidium
polio virus
What are bacteria? They are microscopic single-celled
organisms that multiply by binary fission. They are 2 - 4 |J.in
size, ubiquitous in nature, and may be either beneficial or
pathogenic. Over 5 million could fit on the head of a pin.
What are viruses? Viruses contain only one type of nucleic
acid (DNA or RNA), are inactive when outside of a living
host cell, and are all parasitic. They have protein coats that
provide protection. They range in size from 0.02 to 0.09 (0.
What are protozoa? They are much larger than bacteria
and viruses. They are common in bodies of water. Some
species secrete a protective covering and form a resting stage
(cyst).
Indicators
The problem is that we cannot readily isolate and quantify
pathogens in environmental water samples. There are too
many pathogens, and the methods for isolating and identify-
ing them are too sophisticated and expensive.
The solution is to monitor for the presence of organisms
that are indicators of sewage pollution. Requirements for
good indicator organisms are that they:
• are typically present in sewage pollution
• typically survive longer in water than pathogens
• are readily detectable from environmental samples
Two commonly used indicators are total coliform and
fecal coliform. The total coliforms are rod-shaped gram-
negative bacteria that ferment lactose at 35°C. They are
found in the intestinal tracts of cold- and warm-blooded
animals. Species include Escherichia, Klebsiella,
Enterobacter, Serratia, Citrobacter, and Edwardsiella.
The fecal coliforms are a subset of the total coliforms.
They are present in sewage and indicate the possibility that
human pathogens are present. They are distinguished from
the total coliforms by their ability to ferment lactose at
44.5°C. Species include Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Kleb-
siella.
Methods
The two detection methods most commonly used are:
• membrane filtration (MF), which is a direct plating
method. MF is accepted by EPA but not accepted by
FDA.
• multiple tube fermentation or "most probable num-
ber" (MPN), which is a serial tube dilution. MPN is
FDA-accepted but not recommended by EPA.
The basic steps in membrane filtration analysis are:
1. A 100-ml water sample is passed through a 0.45 (J, filter.
The bacteria are retained on the filter surface.
2. The filter is exposed to growth medium and incubated.
3. The bacteria multiply, forming visible colonies.
4. After a specific incubation time, colonies are counted
and reported as colony-forming units per 100 ml (CPU/
100 ml).
The basic steps in multiple tube fermentation analysis are:
1. The sample is serially diluted in liquid growth medium
in tubes.
2. Tubes are incubated.
3. The bacteria multiply, forming turbid cultures with gas
bubbles.
4. An estimate of bacterial numbers is made, based on end-
point dilutions of growth and statistical tables. The
number is reported as most probable number per 100 ml
(MPN/lOOml).
Sigrid Schwind
Department of Environmental Quality, Northwest Region
Overview of Methods
A. EPA bathing beach study
EPA's bathing beach study, begun in 1972 at marine and
freshwater bathing beaches, was the first good epidemiologi-
cal study to try to correlate indicator organisms with inci-
dence of gastrointestinal illness in swimmers. The results
showed that in marine water enterococci correlated best with
swimming-associated gastroenteritis. In fresh water, entero-
cocci and E. coli both correlated well with swimming-
associated gastroenteritis. (The enterococci are a subset of
86
-------
Session 4: Bacteria Testing, Part One
the fecal streptococci, and E. coll is one species of the fecal
coliform group.)
B. Criteria
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria,,published by
EPA in 1986, lists the following criteria (based on five
samples in a 30-day period and a geometric mean):
1. For fresh water:
E. coll - 126/100 ml
enterococci - 33/100 ml
2. For marine water:
enterococci - 35/100 ml
These criteria are based on "acceptable" swimming-asso-
ciated gastrointestinal illness rates of 8/1,000 in fresh water
and 19/1,000 in marine water. Single sample exceedence
values are also given in the EPA document.
C. Water quality standards in different states
1. Five states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Indiana,
and Ohio) have an E. coll standard for fresh water.
2. Three states (Connecticut, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico)
and one Indian tribe have an enterococci standard for fresh
and/or marine water.
3. Eighteen states have summer (seasonal) standards.
4. Thirty-seven states still have fecal coliform standards.
D. Methods
1. Membrane filtration methods
a. Fecal coliform (FC)
• medium = mFC agar or broth.
• incubate for 24 hrs at 44.5°C.
• colonies are medium to dark blue.
b. E. coll
• media = mTEC and urea substrate.
• incubate for 2 hrs at 35°C, then 22-24 hrs at 44.5°C.
• after incubation, place filters on urea-soaked pads.
• incubate 15-20 minutes at room temperature and count
yellow colonies.
c. enterococcus
• media = mE and EIA.
• incubate mE for 48 hrs at 41 °C; transfer to EIA and
incubate for 20 min at 41°C.
• count red colonies that produce black or brown halos on
the underside of the media.
2. Most Probable Number (MPN) method
• medium = Lauryl Tryptose Broth (LTB) or Lactose
Broth (LB) and EC broth.
• 15 tubes (5 tubes at three dilutions).
• check LTB or LB tubes after 24 hrs at 35°C. If positive
for gas and growth, transfer to EC broth. Check EC tubes
for gas and growth after 24 hrs at 44.5°C.
• check LTB or LB tubes again after 48 hrs at 35°C. If
positive for gas and growth, proceed as above.
• check combination of positive tubes in MPN tables in
Standard Methods.
3. Colilert
• low-tech method used frequently in drinking water
testing.
• Presence-Absence method or MPN method.
• add volume of water sample to substrate already in tubes,
incubate for 24 hours and check for yellow color and
fluorescence.
E. Why different agencies use different
indicators and methods
1. For fresh water, EPA recommends E. coll and entero-
coccus, but FC can still be used.
2. FDA has traditionally used FC-MPN, and in many
states standards for marine shellfish-growing waters are still
forFC.
3. For marine waters EPA does not recommend E. coll,
since it did not correlate well with gastrointestinal illness in
swimmers for marine waters. EPA recommends enterococci
for marine waters. However, FC is still being used.
References
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. 1986. EPA
440/5-84-002. Office of Science and Technology
(4304), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment.
EPA 600/8-78-017. Center for Environmental Informa-
tion, Office of Research and Development (G72), 26
W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268-
1072.
Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastewa-
ter. 1992. APHA, AWWA, WPCF. Available from
APHA, 1015 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in
Water by the Membrane Filter Procedure. 1985. EPA
600/4-85-076. Center for Environmental Research and
Information, ORD (G72), 26 W. Martin Luther King
Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268-1072.
Geoff Dates
River Watch Network
Choosing an Indicator Bacteria and
Analyzing Bacteria Data
I. Choosing an indicator bacteria
In the past 50 years, the most commonly tested bacterial
indicators have been total coliforms, fecal coliforms, E. coll,
fecal streptococci, and enterococci. All but E. coll are com-
prised of a number of species of bacteria that all share
common characteristics such as shape, habitat, or behavior.
E. coli is a single species of fecal coliform.
Choosing which one of these indicators to monitor is a part
of the study design process.
87
-------
Session 4: Bacteria Testing, Part One
Total coliforms
This is a group of bacteria that is widespread in nature. All
members of the total coliform group may occur in human
feces, but some may also be widespread in the environment,
such as animal manure, soil, submerged wood, and other
places outside the human body. For recreational waters, total
coliforms are no longer recommended as an indicator. For
drinking water, total coliforms are still the standard test since
their presence indicates contamination of a water supply by
an outside source.
Fecal coliform
This is a subset of total coliform bacteria which is more fecal-
specific in origin. However, even this group contains a genus,
Klebsiella, with species that are not necessarily fecal in
origin. Klebsiella are commonly associated with textile,
pulp, and paper mill wastes, in the absence of fecal contami-
nation. Therefore, if these sources discharge to your river,
you may wish to consider a more fecal and human-specific
bacteria. For recreational waters, this group was the primary
bacteria indicator until relatively recently when EPA began
recommending E. coli and enterococci as better indicators of
health risk from water contact. Fecal coliforms are still being
used in many states as the indicator bacteria.
Escherichia coli (E. coli)
This is a particular species of fecal coliform bacteria that is
specific to fecal material from humans and other warm-
blooded animals. EPA recommends E. coli as the best indi-
cator of health risk from water contact in recreational waters
and some states have changed their water quality standards
and monitoring accordingly.
Fecal streptococci
This group of bacteria generally occurs in the digestive
systems of humans and other warm-blooded animals. In the
past, fecal streptococci have been monitored together with
fecal coliforms, and a ratio of coliforms to streptococci
calculated. This was used to determine whether the contami-
nation was of human or non-human sources. However, this is
no longer recommended as a reliable test in the 20th edition
of Standard Methods.
Enterococci
This is a subgroup within the fecal streptococcus group. They
are distinguished by their ability to survive in saltwater, and
in this respect they more closely mimic many pathogens than
the other indicators. They are generally more human-specific
than the larger fecal streptococcus group. EPA recommends
enterococci as the best indicator of health risk in saltwater
used for recreation and as a useful indicator in fresh water as
well.
How to choose
There are two main considerations in choosing which indica-
tors to monitor:
1. What question are you trying to answer?
2. How difficult, time-consuming, and expensive is the
indicator to sample and analyze?
Which bacteria you test for depends on what you want to
know. Bacteria are commonly used to either determine the
health risk of water contact (through compliance with state
water quality standards designed to protect human health) or
the presence of fecal contamination from humans or animals
to help determine the impact of point or nonpoint pollution
sources on a river.
Studies conducted by the EPA to determine the correlation
between different bacterial indicators and the occurrence of
digestive system illness at swimming beaches suggest that
the best indicators of health risk from recreational water
contact in fresh water are E. coli and enterococci. For
saltwater, enterococci are the best. Interestingly, fecal
coliforms as a group were determined to be a poor indicator
of the risk of digestive system illness. However, many states
continue to use fecal coliforms as their primary health risk
indicator.
Both E. coli and enterococci are analyzed using the
membrane filtration procedure. This procedure is relatively
user-friendly for properly trained volunteers. However, it is
time-consuming, is not recommended for field analysis, and
requires special equipment and strict quality assurance/qual-
ity control. A warning about the enterococcus test: the nutri-
ent medium contains an extremely toxic material—nalidixic
acid. Handling this material requires special precautions,
such as protective clothing and a ventilation hood. For this
reason, it may be a good idea to have a lab with these facilities
make up the medium for you.
The bottom line
If your state is still using total or fecal coliforms as the
indicator bacteria, and you want to know whether the water
meets state water quality standards, use fecal coliforms.
However, if you want to know the health risk from recre-
ational water contact, the results of the EPA studies suggest
that you should consider switching to the E. coli or entero-
cocci method for testing fresh water. In any case, it's best to
consult with the people at the water quality division of your
state's environmental agency, especially if you expect them
to use your data.
II. Summarizing, displaying, and analyzing the
results
Lab sheets contain the raw data in the form of filter counts.
These filter counts are converted to and reported as colonies
per 100 ml.
The results on the lab sheets are then converted to a form
that is easier to analyze. The data may be summarized in
tables or in the form of various charts and graphs. This
enables you to view the data as a whole.
A computer is strongly recommended for data manage-
ment. Most spreadsheetprograms have fairly extensive graph-
ing capability. Trends, results that exceed a desired result,
and other highlights may be apparent at this point.
The data are then displayed in a way that tells the story of
88
-------
Session 4: Bacteria Testing, Part One
£ coli per 100 mL
Sites 1 5/27/92
MoBOO!
MoB013
MoB014
MoB015
MoB016
MoB017
200
200
200
7
200
- •
6/16/92
90
2400
7500
430
24000
-
8/3/92
770
-
-
10000
10000
-
8/20/92
310
12200
13800
9/23/92 1 10/7/92
7100
16666
10000
6200 j 1 200
2500 1 700
j 500
248
1800
2900
600
200
324
10/21/92
8
1300
700
1400
500
300
Geometric
Mean
250
2271
- 2737
788
1355
365
Figure 1. Table showing E. coli results for the season.
the results. Following are four examples of how bacteria
results can be displayed.
Example 1: Table showing results for the
season
Figure 1 (above) is an example of a table
that displays the results for six sample sites
on a small brook in New Hampshire. A
table like this is an easy way to look at lots
of results at one time. However, graphs can
tell a more compelling visual story.
Example 2: Graphed results for one date
The next example shows the results for E.
coli bacteria for one sampling date at six
sites (Figure 2, above).
Sample sites are listed along the hori-
zontal axis, upstream to downstream left to
right. A range of E. coli values (from 0 to
1,000) is displayed on the vertical axis.
Results for each site are shown by the bars. The height of the
bars corresponds to the levels of bacteria found at each site.
We've added a horizontal arrow which shows the NH Water
Quality Standard (406 bacteria colonies per 100 ml for class
B waters). Levels above the line exceed the standard and are
considered a health risk for swimming. The
E. coli
9/23/92
10000 7100
NH Water
Quality
Standard
406
MoB017 MoB016 MoB015
Upstream
MoB014 MoB013
MoBOO!
Downstream
Figure 2. Graph of results for one date at six sites.
E. coll
Geometric Mean
(all dates)
1000 T
900 --
800 --
700 --
600 --
500 --
400 --
300 --IS
200 --
100 -
4110
NH Water
Quality
..«
-------
Session 4: Bacteria Testing, Part One
3.00 j
2.50 •
1 2.00 -
.c
u
c
= 1.50 -
«2
c -, p.«
"J5
c£
0.50 -
Onn .
-
• j.,..
'..-j
;.«
t
»
':r
; -^
~;
sif
.III. flllltntiti.iM
T2000
Si
1
1
*
2
* i
' * i -<
•\\n&t ,„..
.;
|
i
1
^
1
1
*
i
i , "
* t I
* ^ ?
•
• fiu
HIM
6/1 6/24 7/1 7/157/227/29 8/128/19
^
\
''•
1
1
1
5*
1
S i
9 i-
u i! nil iii liiiii
= ^ -
ii ti n in.. >t.. ..i
- 1 800 £
• 1 600 o
-1400 I
-1200 ^
O
-1000 'E
o
-800 "o
U
- 600 .«
-400 5
u
-200 iS
n
8/26 9/1 2 9/30
Figure 4. Graph comparing bacterial results with rainfall.
plish the same thing.)
This graph shows the same type of upstream to down-
stream increase, with the most downstream site showing
some recovery.
Example 4: Graph comparing bacteria results with rainfall
Figure 4 (above) shows a graph comparing bacteria results
(the bars) with rainfall (the shaded area) at the most down-
stream site on a river. Sampling dates are listed below the x-
axis.
Rainfall events occurred on two of the sampling dates:
8/19 and 9/12. These dates also showed the highest bacteria
levels. This response is typical of a river where surface runoff
from nonpoint sources carries bacteria into the river from
failing on-site septic systems or animal manure.
Analyzing the results
Many monitoring groups establish a technical committee to
help them analyze the results—that is, to develop findings
(what the data says) and conclusions (why you think the data
says what it says). Produce a report that summarizes the
activity, reports your findings and conclusions, and makes
recommendations for actions to address problems or for
modifications to the sampling program if needed. Some
programs produce an annual "state of the river" report that
summarizes and analyzes the results of the preceding year,
and all previous years, highlighting trends, cleanup progress,
new trouble spots, etc.
Keep your volunteers informed of the results, as often as
possible. Some groups produce monthly summaries for vol-
unteer participants or send out periodic newsletters.
90
-------
Session 4: Presenting Your Data to Different Audiences
Presenting Your Data to Different
Audiences
Moderator: Ivy Frances, City of Portland Environmental
Services
Presenters: Katney Bair, City of Portland Environmental
Services; Jana Suchy, Terra Tech, Inc.; Lynn Kramer,
Herring Run Watershed Association
Katney Bair
City of Portland Environmental Services
Capturing Attention with Visual
Images
Visual images and graphics are part of our lives; we can't get
away from them. They influence us without our even being
aware of them.
We absorb, retain, and process all sorts of unwritten,
unspoken information every day. For example, when you
look at a stop sign, the color conveys a warning: it's fire-
engine red; it's an alarm. The sharp edges say, "This is
serious"; the plain type, very bold, says, "Pay attention to
this; this is something you have to obey."
Ad people are very good at what they do, and they need to
be, because every day we are bombarded with images. You
and your organizations have to compete with that, and you
don't have Coca Cola's budget, so how are you going to get
your messages heard? F m going to talk to you about the tools
that graphic designers use to create powerful messages.
Who is the audience?
The first and most important step is to determine who is your
audience. Who are you talking to? Without knowing that, you
can't focus your message. When you're presenting data, you
have to remember that even though there are scientific ways
of presenting data that your peers understand and that are the
"correct" ways academically, the people you are trying to
convince may not understand this type of presentation.
Here's an example of two ways of presenting a map. The
first one (Figure 1) is very detailed. It was used in presenta-
tions to local government. The project was the daylighting of
a stream, and it was important to show the exact blocks that
would be affected, because the city was going to have to pass
ordinances, approve construction, and so on. The other map
(Figure 2) shows the same area and the same project, but it
was presented to the public to get them excited.
Figure 1. This map of the project area was presented to local government agencies.
91
-------
Session 4: Presenting Your Data to Different Audiences
Figure 2. This map of the project area was part of a brochure written to.increase
public awareness.
Getting attention
After you've determined who your audience is, you have to
get their attention. That might be the harder part. A lot of you
don't have a big budget for graphics and color, so the first
thing you need to think about are the words you will use.
Consider two possible headlines for the same brochure:
"Monitoring Balch Creek, Winter 1994" or "Watch Out for
Balch Creek!" If I was flipping through my mail, the second
one would be more likely to get my attention.
So here is your reader—she's at home, she's listening to
her answering machine, her kids are talking to her, her bills
are on the table, but she's kind of interested in this "Watch
Out for Balch Creek!" So she opens the brochure, even
though she still hasn't figured out what she's going to cook
for dinner. You need to make sure that she can get your basic
story just from the subheads, because they may be all she has
timetoread. If she'sinterestedin one topic, she can read more
in that section. Give readers options for ways of getting your
message—they shouldn't have to read your 12-page report.
Type faces are also important, although I think that a good
headline will take you a lot further than type will. Type
communicates to us in ways that we aren't even consciously
aware of.
Jana Suchy
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Packaging Your Message Effectively
Let me start right off with the three main points I'd like you
to walk away with.
1. Your message is only as good as its packaging.
Packaging and distribution are the weak links to a
strong message.
2. These are the 90s. Things got sleek. Look around you:
The 50s were cool, the 60s were far out, the 70s were
hip, the 80s were slick, and the 90s are sleek. We must
effectively compete with the MTVs out there. I do not
at all advocate forsaking substance for splash: you have
to have a strong, worthwhile, valuable message—but
you've got to dress it up.
3. Make your message nuggets worth their weight in
gold. If all of your information spans a mile, your best-
case scenario is that you will effectively convey an inch
of that mile.
Here is an example of a "fact sheet." A fact sheet is black
type on white paper, and it's the most boring, low-technology
thing in the world. Now here's what you can do to dress up the
message. First is a short slide program with loon calls on the
sound track. Another is an original song composed by a blues
band on the theme of "Got the blues 'cause your lake is
green?"
92
-------
Session 4: Presenting Your Data to Different Audiences
You can get more bang for your buck by using more than
one medium: a fact sheet and a radio spot and a poster. Here's
a poster we designed—on the back of the poster is all the
information that was on the fact sheet.
You can do an effective and beautiful title slide by using
interesting colors. Everyone uses black, white, blue, and
gold. There are more colors than those. Or you can use two
colors at once. If you are going to use just words, fill the
screen. And use magenta!
Lynn Kramer
Herring Run Watershed Association
Presenting Your Vision
My role on this panel is to focus on oral presentations and the
importance of presenting your information with clear mes-
sages, with specific requests and opportunities for action,
and, most importantly, with a vision of what you see is
possible if those actions are taken.
Enrollment
Presenting information with clear messages and vision and
then presenting opportunities for action are all part of the
process of enrollment. Much of our life is spent either
enrolling people or being enrolled. It can be as simple as
enrolling a friend into going to the movies with you, or it can
be something complex like enrolling the City Council into
taking action to stop an incinerator from being built. It's all
enrollment, and I don't think facts and figures alone are what
enroll people.
The experience I am drawing from is the experience I've
gained over the last two years enrolling people—first, into
working with me on planning and conducting a stream survey
of the Herring Run, and subsequently, into taking action on
the data that were collected in that survey. In both instances
I had information to present to people. In both cases, I wanted
people to take certain actions after hearing the information I
had presented.
{Editor's note: For a detailed description of the Herring
Run Stream Survey, please see Lynn Kramer's presentation
in Session 2, "From Data to Action, Part One."]
When I began the process of enrolling people into the idea
of planning and Conducting the stream survey, the informa-
tion I had to present was minimal: What and where the
Herring Run is, and what a stream survey is. Now, do you
think presenting those facts alone would enroll people into
helping me plan the project?
A vision of possibility
I don't think so. I say what enrolled them into planning and
conducting the stream survey was the vision and the possibil-
ity of the project that I presented to them. When I chose this
project, I was in a Landmark Education Corporation program
called the Curriculum for Living. In the program, you de-
velop a "Statement of Possibility"—a statement about what
you say is possible for the future that really lights you up and
that will determine your actions in the present. So the possible
future I have created for myself and am living into is the
possibility of community and relatedness—people living in
harmony with each other and the earth around them. It's the
possibility of this future that got me beyond my discomfort
and up in front of community associations asking them to take
action.
People connecting
To me, the stream survey naturally fit with this possibility of
community and relatedness because it was about people
reaching out beyond neighborhood boundaries, working to-
gether with other neighborhoods as part of a larger, nature-
based community with a healthy waterway as its primary
focus. For me, that's what it's really all about: People
connecting who might not normally connect. Folks from one
neighborhood helping to plant trees in another neighborhood.
Black kids and white kids, 6-year-olds and retired people
building bird houses together. That's what the possibility of
the stream survey was, that's what enrolled people, and that's
exactly what is happening now as a result.
At any rate, the first community association I spoke to
about these possibilities gave me their official support and
three people volunteered that night to help me plan the
project. One of them is now the Vice President of the
Association and the other does pro bono art work for us.
Seven weeks later, 18 of us held our first planning meeting.
Seven weeks after that, with the help of Maryland Save Our
Streams, we held the stream survey and 100 volunteers
showed up.
The distinctions I learned in the Curriculum for Living—
speaking the possibility of your project and giving others an
opportunity to explore what it would mean for them; ac-
knowledging them for their concern (even if it's only for
showing up to hear what you have to say); and then offering
them opportunities for action—are some of the most valuable
distinctions I've learned in life.
It was these distinctions that were applied to the presenta-
tions of the stream survey results that were made to the public
and to the City Council.
At the community presentation, we again spoke about the
possibility of the Stream Survey and we applauded how many
communities had worked together to make it areality. Stream
survey participants were acknowledged for their efforts, and
those who were present were acknowledged for the concern
they were showing by attending the meeting. We made sure
people understood what an accomplishment the stream sur-
vey was (DPW was already addressing problems, a City
Council hearing was set). And we presented specific oppor-
tunities for action right then and there. Before leaving, people
divided into planning groups (tree planting, storm drain
painting, cleanup, or watershed association), discussed their
projects briefly and set a date to meet again.
93
-------
Session 4: Presenting Your Data to Different Audiences
At the City Council meeting, we talked about that same
possibility (which by now had become a reality) of commu-
nity—diverse neighborhoods joining together into a larger
watershed community to take action on something they really
care about. We emphasized that our newly formed associa-
tion was going to keep that watershed community alive. We
showed our strength and commitment by the large number of
people in attendance. We acknowledged past efforts and
accomplishments by the City in the Herring Run Stream
Valley and made special reference to the concern that had
been shown by the City Councilman who had not only
participated in the survey but had also set up the televised
hearing for us. And finally, we made some specific requests,
one of which was to be assigned a City Councilman on the
Health and Environment Committee who would act as our
liaison to the City Council.
It was the combination of all these components, as well as
the actual data we presented, that served to make the stream
survey such a success.
So collect your data. Develop the most visually effective
report possible. But don't forget why you' re doing it. Why do
you want people to take action? What is your vision of the
world when all the problems you are uncovering are handled?
Picture what's possible ... and speak about it to anyone
who will listen!!
94
-------
Session 4: Monitoring Restoration
Monitoring Restoration and Pollution
Prevention Activities
Moderator: Jonathan Pearson, Maryland Save Our Streams
Presenters: Jonathan Pearson; Gayla Campbell, Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Susan Barthel,
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services; Mike Rigney,
Coyote Creek Riparian Station
Jonathan Pearson
Maryland Save Our Streams
Monitoring Construction Sites
Maryland Save Our Streams is a 24-year-old nonprofit group
that works to organize volunteers across the state and involve
them in activities aimed at river and stream restoration and
stewardship. Through our Adopt-A-Stream program, we
have several activities aimed at addressing the problems
related to nonpoint source pollution.
The activity I've been asked to touch on today is our use
of volunteers to monitor construction sites for sediment
pollution. Sediment, or mud pollution from construction
sites, is one of the largest single problems affecting the health
of Maryland streams and the Chesapeake Bay.
My personal observations are that (a) the state of Mary-
land has relatively strong sediment control laws, (b) most
contractors make a good to excellent effort to adhere to those
regulations as a project gets underway, and (c) the biggest
problem comes in the long-term maintenance and adherence
to those regulations.
Thus, the need for vigilant volunteers to watch over
construction sites is very, very important.
Training
SOS trains citizen volunteers on how to be effective moni-
tors. We do this in two basic ways:
1. One way is through our Adopt-A-Stream program. At
a volunteer's request, we will send a packet that highlights
information the volunteer needs to know about how to
monitor a construction site. The packet includes literature
that outlines what to look for, how to tell if a site is in
violation, and how to go about correcting the problem. The
packet also includes basic data sheets which the volunteer can
use to record his or her findings. In addition, we can make
available a slide show that discusses why sediment pollution
is such a large problem, and provides the volunteer with
pictures of the kinds of problems he or she is being asked to
look for.
2. The second, and preferred, way to train volunteers is
through a workshop. The basic components of our construc-
tion site workshop are as follows:
• Provide each volunteer with a packet of information,
containing much of the same information included in
our Adopt-A-Stream packet.
• Invite the participation of state inspectors, local inspec-
tors, and contractors.
• Conduct an indoor training session that goes through the
basics of construction site monitoring.
• Give volunteers the information they need regarding
procedures to follow when reporting a violation.
Include the names, addresses, and phone numbers of
appropriate contact people.
• Go on a tour of active construction sites to observe first-
hand the information provided during the training.
• (Perhaps most important) For the targeted region,
identify and list active construction sites and encourage
the volunteers who attend to "adopt" one of these sites
and monitor it on a regular basis.
Successes
Our successes include the following:
• Correcting violations. We have had dozens upon dozens
of instances where volunteers have successfully
reported violations and had problems corrected.
• Changes in policy. Building a base of active volunteer
monitors can lead to stronger sediment regulations. For
example, in 1984 an SOS campaign in which volunteers
conducted a large-scale review of sediment controls in
Anne Arundel County, Maryland, resulted in the
doubling of County inspectors. In another example,
legitimate concerns raised by volunteers helped bring
about policy changes within the Maryland State
Highway Administration. The SHA now rates contrac-
tors on sediment control measures; poor ratings can
result in contractors not being given future projects.
Another major change in policy is that at every point
where a state road project crosses a stream, monitoring
is now conducted before, during, and after the project to
determine the extent of stream degradation, and
whether mitigation is required at the site. SOS volun-
teers are beginning to play a role in this monitoring
effort.
• Building bridges of cooperation. Seeking the involve-
ment of contractors in workshops and site visits, and
writing letters of praise when good sediment controls
are in place (as opposed to simply writing letters when
sites are in violation), can establish an atmosphere
through which positive improvements can be made.
Failures
Our one big failure has been our inability to recruit adequate
numbers of volunteers for construction site monitoring.
95
-------
Session 4: Monitoring Restoration
Ideally, we could use volunteer monitors for every construc-
tion project. However, it is more difficult to recruit volunteers
as construction site monitors than it is to, say, conduct a
stream cleanup. I would cite several reasons for this:
1. More than any of our other projects, construction site
monitoring is directly confrontational. No matter how coop-
erative you try to be, the bottom line of the activity is seeing
that laws are enforced, both by contractors and the enforce-
ment agency. If the laws are not being enforced, it becomes
the job of the volunteer to report violations and violators. For
some volunteers, this can be uncomfortable.
2. There is a significant time commitment. This pertains
not only to the initial training time, but also to the time needed
to monitor an adopted site, sometimes on a regular basis. To
truly monitor a construction site to see if a contractor is
violating laws regarding temporary stabilization of bare soil,
a volunteer needs to visit the site on a daily basis. Volunteers
also must take the time to contact, speak to, and follow up
with inspectors; to write letters to contractors and govern-
ment officials; and, hopefully, to send their findings back to
our office.
3. There is also a financial commitment. Basic costs
consist of gas, stationery, and stamps. Moreover, the most
effective monitors are those who document their findings
through photographing or videotaping. Such documentation
can strengthen a volunteer's ability to get a response; how-
ever, it costs money.
I want to stress that volunteer monitors can be useful, and
quite successful, if they simply take on the task of observing
and reporting when fences designed to catch sediment have
fallen down, or are not in place.
Recommendations
Let me close by leaving you with two recommendations on
how groups can try to make their construction site monitoring
program as successful as possible:
1. Arrange weekly site visits with state and/or local
inspectors. Make arrangements to walk a construction site
with the inspectors. This can help to educate volunteers
further, as well as build stronger levels of cooperation and
understanding.
2. Organize an annual large-scale event. For example,
each year, conduct a "State of the Sediment Fences" survey.
Set a goal to have your volunteers investigate 100 construc-
tion sites in a region, to determine what percentage of those
sites have sediment fences that are properly maintained.
Schedule the activity for a traditionally rainy month, when
well-maintained fences are most critical. Give the volunteers
a 30-day period in which to survey their sites. Alert the
regulatory agencies and the associations representing con-
tractors that this activity will be taking place. After the
information is in, release the findings to the agencies, the
associations, and then to the news media. Hold a press
conference to announce your findings.
Gayla Campbell
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Watch Nonpoint Source
Program
Texas Watch is the statewide volunteer environmental moni-
toring program of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission. The goals are:
To produce environmental information that agencies,
waste generators, and the public need to make environ-
mentally sound decisions;
To resolve conflicts over environmental impacts through
positive cooperation, and
To improve communication about the environment and
environmental issues.
The program unofficially started in 1987 through citizens'
concerns about fish kills on a river in western Texas. Through
their efforts, the amount of environmental information about
the river increased and communication with the agency
improved. In 1991, Texas Watch became an official program.
Presently, the program has over 4,000 volunteers, with teach-
ers and students making up approximately 40 percent.
Texas Watch offers several levels of training, ranging
from educational programs to the certified monitor, trainer,
and quality assurance officer level. These levels provide the
framework for volunteers to collect quality-assured data that
augments professional data-gathering efforts. Together, vol-
unteer and professional data provide a more complete picture
of water quality in Texas which can then help focus efforts to
address present and future environmental issues.
Although Texas Watch presently focuses on water-ori-
ented volunteer activities, the program will be expanding in
the next several years to include biomonitoring, air monitor-
ing, and observational monitoring, such as watershed walk
components.
The Texas Watch nonpoint source program has several
distinct project areas. Presently, the program has two 319
grant projects with a third one to commence in September.
Texas Watch activities will be included in the new statewide
nonpoint source management plan, which must be approved
by EPA Region 6 to apply for federal 319 grant funds.
The overall purpose of these projects is to educate com-
munities about actions that contribute to nonpoint source
pollution and involve citizens in the prevention and control of
it by training them to collect and test waterways in their
communities. The goal is to increase awareness and encour-
age changes in individual behavior to reduce water pollution.
The effectiveness is measured by the changes in water quality
through the data collected by trained volunteers.
One project focuses in four urban areas and the other in
two agricultural areas. Both projects are individually de-
signed to incorporate the needs of each city and community
in identifying nonpoint source pollution problems, control-
96
-------
Session 4: Monitoring Restoration
lingthem through various bestmanagementpractices(BMPs),
and preventing further pollution by educational outreach
activities.
Three of the four cities will have volunteers trained to
collect the five basic variables: pH, conductivity, dissolved
oxygen, temperature, and transparency. They will also note
weather and visual characteristics of their sites. In addition,
volunteers will collect water samples for laboratory analyses
for fecal coliform, orthophosphates, and nitrate-nitrogen.
The fourth city will train volunteers to use a storm drain
monitoring kit for testing pH, temperature, detergents, cop-
per, chlorine, and phenols. Volunteers will also test for
ammonia. Dry-weather sampling of storm-drain outfalls will
augment the sampling done by the city. The data collected in
these areas will augment professional data-gathering efforts,
and help identify problems and evaluate the effectiveness of
non-structural BMP implementation such as storm-drain
stenciling projects.
The project focusing in two agricultural areas will encour-
age the involvement of the agricultural community and will
have volunteers collect the same five basic variables as well
as fecal coliform, orthophosphates, and nitrate-nitrogen. The
data will help evaluate the effectiveness of structural BMP
implementation carried out through technical assistance pro-
grams.
Presently, amendments to the Texas Watch Quality As-
surance Project Plan (QAPP) are in the EPA approval stages
for the fecal coliform and nutrient sampling components. An
important part of the success of these outreach projects are
partnerships with the cities, communities, river authorities,
councils of governments, and laboratories who assist Texas
Watch by providing various types of in-kind services.
The third project, commencing in September, will focus
on adjacent urban watersheds. The goals will be to decrease
the load of toxics and other urban nonpoint source pollutants
entering the creeks by implementing effective non-structural
BMPs and encouraging the implementation of structural
BMPs, and to evaluate the effectiveness of those BMPs using
trained volunteers and a paired watershed design. The project
will use a holistic approach involving concerned citizens,
students, teachers, and businesses.
The monitoring design will allow quantification of the
effects of a series of BMPs on water quality, adding to the
body of knowledge on BMP effectiveness. A paired water-
shed monitoring design is the best method for determining
effectiveness in a short period of time.
In addition to the five basic variables sampled weekly,
volunteer monitors will be trained to sample for benthic
macroinvertebrates on a quarterly basis. A QAPP for this
biomonitoring component will be written, and approved by
EPA, before monitoring commences.
This paired watershed design project using volunteers is
on the "cutting edge" and it is hoped the success of this project
can assist other volunteer groups in implementing successful
water quality studies in cooperation with their local and state
governmental agencies.
For more information concerning the Texas Watch non-
point source program, please contact Joan Drinkwin, Non-
point Source Project Coordinator, at 512-463-8540.
Susan Barthel
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Monitoring Improvement Efforts in
the Columbia Slough
My responsibilities right now are with programs that are
going to affect the water quality and multiple objective uses
of the Columbia Slough. Some of you already know the
Slough as an 18-mile body of water just south of the Colum-
bia River.
The Slough is quite a complex area. This 18-mile-long
reach crosses three jurisdictions. There are three cities in-
volved. The Slough begins at Fairview Lake, with a stream
that drains alot of the eastern part of the city of Gresham. The
top eleven miles are all diked and leveed and controlled for
flood protection and irrigation purposes.
There are drainage canals throughout this area. The Slough
crosses under the Interstate Bridge. This area is targeted for
heavy industrial development. The slough also goes through
a large area that hasn' t been sewered. There are about 52,000
households that have been on septic systems that are contrib-
uting a lot of bacteria to the Slough.
Last fall, Ralph Rogers, the Watershed Manager, the
Outreach Educator Ivy Frances, andDianaHinton (who at the
time was doing work that I'm now doing) organized the first
volunteer monitoring effort on the Slough. It was specific to
a particular effort that is part of the city's plan to improve
basic water quality in the Slough—a pilot test to lower the
level of water in the upper part of the Slough by about 8 inches
to see whether the increased flow would reduce the amount
of bacteria, and what kind of effect would be noticed on
wildlife and other habitat. Also, there's not a real good
baseline, and so we're establishing the first-ever baseline
during an atypical period of time on the Slough.
Although we had a only short time to organize it, recruit-
ment was fairly broad. We included ads in The Oregonian
and The Asian Reporter, and articles in The Audubon. We're
forming a watershed stakeholders committee, so there were
presentations there, and we got some volunteers from that. A
number of local teachers were involved. We had doorhangers
that the Bureau's Youth Team distributed, and we had booths
at some ecology events.
The volunteers recorded vegetation growth, illegal
dumpsites in the stream and on the side of the stream, wildlife,
and birds. The frequency varied. Some people did almost
daily observations, though we asked for somewhat less than
that.
97
-------
Session 4: Monitoring Restoration
A couple of things we learned: (1) Summer vacations
interfere with recruitment efforts—at least here in the North-
west. I think August is a lost month. (2) We had a problem
getting information back from some volunteers. And, we also
had a problem giving information back to them, frankly.
We're now gearing up for the second round of monitoring.
It was lots of fun, and we did receive some really valuable
information about the effects of lowering the level of the
water. In some places, there were culverts that were clogged.
That was obvious rather rapidly. And in some places we
didn't get a drop in water level. So that was interesting, and
it provokes the idea that we need some further study.
Mike Rigney
Coyote Creek Riparian Station
Inventorying Riparian Resources in
California
It is always a shock to people involved in volunteer monitor-
ing programs when I mention that the Coyote Creek Riparian
Station, established just last year, is one of the first volunteer
stream monitoring and riparian habitat inventory projects in
the state of California. How can this be, people often respond,
when California is considered by most to be a leader in
environmental issues? The reasons are many, including rapid
expansion, manifest destiny, the legacy of John Wesley
Powell, an abundance of concrete, and Ronald Reagan. The
bottom line, however, is that little attention has been paid in
California (and for that matter most of the arid West) to the
preservation of natural waterways, while a great deal of
attention and financial resources have been spent on methods
of capture and transport of water through dams, canals,
culverts, and pipes.
It is estimated that 90 - 95 percent of all riparian habitat in
California has been eliminated or substantially altered. With
such a small fraction of this valuable habitat left, it seemed
important to a number of us involved in riparian resource
issues to know where the remaining areas of suitable habitat
were and began a process which would ultimately lead to
protection and restoration. In 1992, our organization, the
Coyote Creek Riparian Station, a nonprofit research organi-
zation based in the southern San Francisco Bay region,
applied to Region 9 of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency for funds to implement a watershed demonstration
project. This demonstration project would develop methods
to inventory riparian resources in Santa Clara County (home
of Silicon Valley) and begin abaseline water quality monitor-
ing program on several of the major streams in the county.
And we wanted to accomplish this task by using trained
volunteers to collect the field data. Not a novel concept in the
East and Pacific Northwest, but this was—and, as far as I
know, remains—the only program of its kind in California.
Being the first to develop such a project in the state, we
struggled through many of the processes that older, more
established programs dealt with probably 20-odd years ago.
However, being the new kid on the block gave us the
advantage of building upon what these groups had discov-
ered through experience. What we learned quickly, though,
was that you could not necessarily transfer programs and
protocols which work in the East to the arid climates of the
West where many streams flow only sporadically. Intermit-
tent streams pose special problems for those of us who wish
to categorize and characterize. We found it difficult, for
instance, to use stream invertebrate classification systems
such as those developed by the Izaak Walton League in
streams which were dry during most of the summer. Yet, as
a wildlife biologist, I knew that these streams provided
critical habitat for birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians,
despite the fact that they ran dry. We therefore chose a
combination of biological factors (including basic water
quality parameters and invertebrate sampling) which we felt
represented a broad picture of the whole ecosystem as the
foundation for our stream inventory process.
In order to tie the inventory into urban runoff and pollution
prevention programs, we created a more encompassing pro-
gram that we called Community Creek Watch. After training
creekside residents on inventory procedures, we began a
program of regular surveys for nonpoint sources of pollution
and illegal dumping. These surveys fed into newly estab-
lished stormwater pollution monitoring programs being es-
tablished by each of the counties within the greater San
Francisco Bay area.
We now have well over 100 trained and active volunteers
assessing and inventorying riparian habitat in Santa Clara
County with information related to pollution, illegal dump-
ing, and best management practices funneling to the appro-
priate local and state agencies. And the process is spreading
to other Bay Area counties. There are plans being formulated
currently to create similar "riparian stations" in all of the
major watersheds of San Francisco Bay. We may be late
bloomers, but the concept of volunteer monitoring is now
flowering in some portions of dry California.
Discussion Session
After the presentations, participants in the workshop broke
up into small groups. Each group discussed a problem ques-
tion and reported back to the full group. The following is a
summary of those discussion groups.
Scenario #1
A volunteer group, working in cooperation with a local water
district, does a habitat inventory of a particular watershed, in
which some of the land is privately owned. The inventory is
done with permission of the landowner. However, results of
the inventory show a habitat area partly on private land, partly
on public land, which is home to an endangered species of
plant. The landowner now denies giving permission for the
98
-------
Session 4: Monitoring Restoration
_
inventory and does not want the endangered species habitat
information to be used.
Challenge: Develop a strategy for addressing this prob-
lem and reaching an agreeable resolution of the problem.
Discussion: The discussion group identified several ques-
tions they would want to investigate prior to developing a
strategy. These included: (1) Will publishing the data hurt the
reputation of the volunteer monitor? (2) Why not just use the
information from the public portion of the land? (3) How can
someone prevent the use of data? (4) Why was there no
written record of the landowner's original permission?
Strategies that incorporated a "best-case" scenario in-
cluded:
(1) Approaching the landowner in a non-threatening man-
ner; (2) Explaining what the Endangered Species Act means;
what are the implications; (3) Proposing a land exchange; (4)
Proposing a donation, easement, or tax break; (5) Involving
the landowner's peers.
Possible outcomes listed under the "worst-case" scenario
included: (1) The volunteer group provides information to
the government agency with jurisdiction (a "last-case" sce-
nario?); (2) The landowner doesn't want the area seen as
unique and special; (3) The neighbors join forces against the
"Granola Heads"; (4) The landowner destroys the plant to
end the issue.
A further suggestion was the possible relocation of the
plant, if it is on a small enough tract of land and if it transplants
well. It was also noted that the volunteers have to deal with
the emotional content of the landowner's argument in addi-
tion to the rational.
The group concluded by noting that if they were dealing
with a dishonorable individual or company, they may have to
go the legal route.
Scenario #2
You head a volunteer group in a small, urbanized watershed.
The stream is channelized and has unstable streambanks, low
habitat diversity, stormwater discharge, and high toxic load-
ing into receiving waters. It is in a low socioeconomic
residential community with very mixed land use. There are
restaurants, gas stations, small strip business areas, and, of
course, large areas of impervious surface. There is limited
public access to the creek, and the community is an untapped
resource. The city and state are both involved via state and
federal grant money.
Challenge: Assess and evaluate the monitoring needs
within this watershed, and develop a strategy for involving
volunteers in such a program.
Discussion: The first recommendation involved getting
baseline information. Gather information on toxics and on
habitat degradation. Identify problems related to health,
garbage, and aesthetics. Outreach into the community was
also recommended.
These strategies were further outlined as follows:
1. Identify needs and a "vision" by conducting a survey,
holding public meetings, and engaging in one-to-one
conversations.
2. Set goals by consensus. Possible goals include increased
access and better aesthetic quality.
3. Design a monitoring program.
4. Educate through surveys, meetings, etc. Raise aware-
ness through activities such as a cleanup or a "stream
day."
5. Publicize the results.
6. Secure funding to hire a local coordinator.
Scenario #3
Your volunteer group has been active in a watershed with
mixed urban and rural land uses. In many areas the stream is
natural with good habitat quality, while in other areas it is
highly impacted by a variety of urban activities. You have
been successful in lobbying local jurisdictions to implement
protection and restoration processes. These agencies are now
looking for input from your organization on how and where
to focus their efforts.
Challenges:
1. Discuss ways of prioritizing and implementing these
efforts, ensuring your organization's continued participation
in the process. Be sure to discuss the issue of prioritizing
between the protection of "good" areas in order to halt
degrading factors (including urban runoff) versus focusing
your efforts on restoration.
2. Discuss within your group the following: (a) Particular
areas of monitoring of nonpoint source pollution and/or best
management practices where you believe volunteers are
currently being underutilized; (b) Reasons why volunteers
are being underutilized in those particular areas; (c) Recom-
mendations on how to reverse this underutilization.
Discussion: The group had the following recommenda-
tions in response to question 1:
• Take a watershed approach instead of isolated problems/
solutions.
• Have a demonstration restoration program.
• Have a common vision of the watershed.
• Have a balanced approach between protection and
restoration.
• Try to determine what is best for the river.
The group listed the following in response to question 2:
1. Area where volunteer monitors are underutilized =
Construction site monitoring. Reasons for underutilization
of volunteers = Political (concerns on the part of agencies);
staffing needs. Possible solutions = Organize site walks to
build cooperation/understanding; hold an annual large-scale
event.
2. Area where volunteer monitors are underutilized =
99
-------
Session 4: Monitoring Restoration
Direct measurements of structural BMP's. Reasons for
underutilization = Training, access, liability. Possible solu-
tions = Start with entry-level observational monitoring.
3. Area where volunteer monitors are underutilized =
Monitoring nutrients, particularly septic. Reasons for
underutilization=Ammonia not held to solid standards; tests
aredifficult; it takes alotoftraining. Possible solutions = Just
do it. While there may be problems, the best way to start
addressing those problems is by getting a program under way.
4. Area where volunteer monitors are underutilized =
Stream temperature. Reasons for underutilization = Cost
of equipment. Possible solutions = Coordinate with groups
that own equipment and want to share it.
Also mentioned as areas of underutilization of volunteers:
wetlands, particularly measuring the success of restoration or
mitigation projects; monitoring within the business commu-
nity, both outside looking in and inside looking out; and using
more volunteers in education efforts.
100
-------
Session 4: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two
Involving Volunteers Effectively,
Part Two: Developing Leadership
Moderator: Abby Markowitz, Maryland Save Our Streams
Presenters: Abby Markowitz; Wes Halverson, LBJ Sci-
ence Academy of Austin; Pat Reese, Friends of the Fox River
Abby Markowitz
Maryland Save Our Streams
Developing Leadership Among
Volunteers
The purpose of this workshop is to explore issues around
developing leadership among volunteers. Wes Halverson's
presentation deals with leadership among students and teach-
ers. Pat Reese focuses on organizational leadership in the
boardroom. I'd like to discuss why we should develop lead-
ership; what makes a leader; and how we develop leadership
among the adult volunteer monitors in our programs.
Why should we develop leadership?
Perhaps the simplest, and most often overlooked, reason is
that volunteers in leadership positions make the notions of
"volunteer monitoring" and "citizen involvement" more than
just slogans. Volunteers can play an integral and critical role
beyond the actual collection of data. Other significant rea-
sons why leadership development is a vital component of
Maryland Save Our Streams (SOS) programs are that it:
• Builds a stewardship ethic. One thing that virtually all
volunteer monitoring programs have in common is the desire
to develop an environmental stewardship ethic among the
populations of people we work with. We want to increase the
public's awareness of water and resource issues and to build
a sense of responsibility for all our actions that influence
water and watersheds. Leadership among the volunteers in
our programs is a critical ingredient to building environmen-
tal stewardship. In fact, I think our long-term success—in
collecting data and using it effectively to promote positive
change—is tied to our ability to create and nurture volunteer
stewardship over the monitoring programs themselves.
• Shares the workload. I have yet to see the monitoring
program that could not benefit from a larger pool of people
participating in coordination. Most volunteer monitoring
program managers I know often bemoan the incredible work
load and attention to detail that is critical to sustaining—
much less expanding—the program.
A strong core of volunteer leadership can help strategize,
develop, and implement one, a few, or many of the tasks
relating to program coordination, such as:
- recruitment and retention of volunteer monitors
- publicity and media relations
- interacting with partners and data users
- interacting with other monitors in the program
- developing data forms, manuals, and training proce-
dures—especially, serving as a "reality check" to
ensure that written materials contain volunteer-
friendly language and explanations
- data presentation
- actual training of volunteers
- data management
- fundraising and other resource development,
Increases credibility and outreach: Volunteer monitor-
ing programs need to be credible to data users, data collectors,
and the larger watershed population (businesses, media,
foundations, communities). My experience has been that a
program visibly represented by a strong core of volunteer
leadership is taken more seriously than one in which staff are
the only visible spokespeople.
One clear example is in media relations. Reporters some-
times are skeptical of what I say; they assume that my agenda,
as a staff member, is simply to publicize and promote SOS.
However, in instances where volunteers have followed up
with reporters by phone—and in person—we have gotten
more in-depth press coverage. Local television and newspa-
pers love to interview and film committed and articulate
volunteers who do this work not because they are paid but
because it is important to them.
Also, we have found that monitor recruitment, retention,
and attention to QA/QC are increased when members of our
volunteer Steering Committee interact with other monitors.
Volunteers respond to their peers. Three years ago, amember
of the Steering Committee was lost on her way to a monitor-
ing session. She stopped to ask directions and got to talking
with someone about the program and her involvement in it.
That someone was intrigued by her enthusiasm as a volunteer
and decided to tag along for the session. He is now the
outgoing Chair of the Steering Committee.
Also, relationships with government agencies and elected
officials are strengthened through volunteer investment. In
our Baltimore County program, many decisions are made in
partnership among the volunteer Steering Committee, the
County government, and SOS.
What makes a leader?
Although some may disagree, I don't believe that every
volunteer is a leader. This does not in any way diminish the
role that every volunteer plays. It does mean that there are
some distinctive skills, qualities, and characteristics associ-
ated with leadership. A leader is someone:
• who is invested and has ownership over a program or
project
101
-------
Session 4: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two
• who motivates others to become involved
• who takes on increasing responsibility, and follows
through on tasks
• whose opinions are respected and who can build consen-
sus
• who can effectively delegate responsibility
• who builds a constituency and fosters leadership skills in
others
How do we develop leadership?
Asistrueofmostareasinvolvinghumanbehavior.leadership
development is far from an "exact science." People are
individuals with different motivations, interests, goals, etc.
Leadership development demands a strong commitment
on the part of organizations and agencies to the process.
The willingness to develop leaders requires an understanding
that power over the program will be shared. Handing some
control or decision making over to others is sometimes a
frightening proposition to program managers. However, if
you are not willing to do this, you will have "mascots," or
tokens—not leaders. And, most likely, you will not have
them for very long. Volunteer "leaders" should not be people
who are paraded out for show when the occasion strikes.
Back in 1989, when we were developing "Project Heart-
beat" (our volunteer bioassessment program in Baltimore
County), we began by forming a Steering Committee of
volunteers who had been active in other local SOS projects.
But simply having a "Steering Committee" didn't mean we
had a ready-made group of leaders. Leadership development
is a long process, and the formation of that group was the
beginning—not the end—of that process for Heartbeat. Very
few leaders that I have known have sprung up overnight. This
work needs to be a stated, primary goal of the program. It
must be just as important as education and data collection.
As I said before, not every volunteer is a leader. Learn to
identify volunteers with leadership potential and foster
that potential. One skill I have tried to learn is to treat every
new volunteer as a potential leader. Look for people who ask
a lot of questions. If your program asks for volunteer evalu-
ations, look for people who take this seriously and who give
in-depth and thoughtful answers to evaluation questions.
Part of learning to identify leadership potential is learning
to look between the lines and really hear what people are
saying—don't just listen to their words. The first time I met
Olga, she was complaining to me—rather vigorously— about
some logistical problem during a monitoring session. I re-
member thinking, "I'll never see her again." During that
session, we made a plea for new committee members. Much
to my complete surprise, Olga showed up at the next Steering
Committee meeting and has stayed ever since. What I mis-
took for simple "griping" was really someone who saw that
things weren't perfect and felt that she could contribute to
improving them. I learned that when people bring up a
problem, I should not assume they wouldn't be willing to
work to correct it. I also learned that listening and hearing are
not always synonymous. I had listened politely to Olga, but
I had not really heard her. I wonder, now, how many people
I've "lost" because I didn't really listen to what they were
saying or because I didn't come right out and ask if they
would be willing to help figure out a solution. So, don't be
afraid to ask volunteers directly if they are interested in
becoming more involved. Get to know the volunteers in-
volved in your program as people. What are their interests;
what do they do for a living; what brought them to this
program? Develop trusting relationships with them.
Provide opportunities for volunteers to grow by devel-
oping new skills and experiencing increasing levels of
responsibility. Look at your program and determine what
opportunities exist for leadership. The Steering Committee
was our first opportunity for leadership. Of the original 25
people who came to the first meeting, about five are still on
the committee. Over the years, others have joined, some have
left, and we currently have about 15 members, four of whom
are new since 1994. The "SC," as it is known, is currently
working on developing our Heartbeat Volunteer Handbook,
planning a fall 1994 conference, improving monitor recruit-
ment and retention strategies, and identifying new members
for the committee. Each of these projects provides an oppor-
tunity for members to learn new skills, gain confidence in
their abilities, and take on new levels of responsibility.
In addition, several members of the SC have forged
relationships with our primary data user, Baltimore County.
The SC plays an active role in all decisions regarding the
program, including site selection and evaluation. In this way,
these volunteers have a hands-on responsibility in making
sure the program achieves its goal of providing critical data
needed to implement watershed protection and management
policies.
Allow people to develop and implement their own
ideas, even if you don't always agree. Over the last several
months, as we have worked to develop our Volunteer Hand-
book, the SC has engaged in "heated" discussions around
content, style, and level of sophistication. Sometimes it felt as
if we were going around in circles and not being as productive
as I would have liked. But in reality, these arguments were an
extremely valuable part of the leadership development pro-
cess. These folks were taking ownership of this project in a
very real way and we were all learning to act as a group and
to build consensus. When we finally agreed on the outline of
the Handbook, writing assignments were delegated to vari-
ous members. As I read the drafts submitted for various
sections, I was tempted to do rewriting—not because there
was anything wrong, but because it was not how I would have
written it. For me, one of the most difficult lessons to learn—
and to adhere to—was that my way isn' t always the right way.
Leaving the pieces intact meant that the Handbook really was
a volunteer handbook, not a document written by staff for
volunteers.
Sometimes I think of leadership development as if I were
organizing the seating arrangements for a dinner party—
102
-------
Session 4: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two
putting people together who share a common interest, who
can learn from each other, and who will help make the party
(or monitoring project) a success.
It is important to provide an atmosphere that encourages
existing leaders to develop a relationship with and serve as a
mentor for a new volunteer. For example, when Mike, a high
school biology teacher, went out in the field with Heartbeat
for the first time, I deliberately teamed him with Carl, one of
the SC members and a university biology professor, because
I had identified Mike as a potential leader. Mike later told me
that Carl was probably the best first partner he could have had
because they shared many interests and because through
Carl, Mike realized there was a place for him in this program.
In the ensuing two years, Mike has trained many new moni-
tors, has donated the time of his classes to repair kick-seines,
has been an enormous help as a supervisor in the taxonomy
lab, and has recently joined the Steering Committee.
We recently had a party for the SC Chair, who is moving
West to attend graduate school. As we were all hanging out,
eating a cake with a big stonefly made out of chocolate
frosting, I looked around and was amazed at this group of
people. Through this monitoring project we had become
important to one another. The process of leadership develop-
ment was really the process of building a community, foster-
ing a sense of belonging, creating connections, and making
friends who touch your life and are sorely missed when they
go away. In the end, there isn't any better reason to do
anything—including developing leaders.
Wes Halverson, Ph.D.
Colorado River Watch Foundation, Inc.
Techniques That Build Leadership
Among Teachers and Students
When high school students Inga Adams and Chani Gilfeather
spoke to this conference two years ago, they electrified the
audience with their speaking style, charm, and in-depth
knowledge of the Colorado River of Texas. The reaction they
got was fabulous, but not unexpected. We had watched these
two young people come up through our organization and
grow into articulate, forceful, and powerful leaders. Jack
Goodman, CRWN Coordinator, chose these two students to
represent the Colorado River Watch Network for all the right
reasons: They could represent the future generation; they had
highly developed speaking skills from first-hand experience
in front of the Austin City Council; and they had "wet feet."
Creating the learning organization
We all understand the meaning of having "wet feet" because
that's where good leadership starts, especially for a water
monitoring program. Inga monitored Cypress Creek on Lake
Travis with her Westwood High classmates, and Chani
monitored Shoal Creek inside the Austin city limits with her
LBJ Science Academy friends. Inga and Chani had become
close friends through the training activities of our organiza-
tion and environmental advocacy events. Chani was one year
older and an early role model for Inga while speaking out in
support of a city-wide ban on phosphates in laundry deter-
gents. Chani campaigned with fellow Science Academy
students Sandra Cavazos, Jonah Mesritz, Tamara Saltman,
and Kim Stienke. They helped win the campaign and Austin
adopted a ban on the sale of detergents with greater than 0.5
percent phosphate content.
The friendship between Inga and Chani grew into an
effective partnership that helped bring their two high schools
closer together. Students from Westwood and the LBJ Sci-
ence Academy testified in favor of the Comprehensive Wa-
tershed Ordinance which was designed to protect the re-
charge zone over the Edwards Aquifer and the "heart of
Austin," Barton Springs. It was a wonderful, thrilling expe-
rience for these young high school students to be part of the
"political scene" and feel empowered by adults who listened
to their testimony with a respectful attitude. They became
responsible adults during those weeks and months. The
whole city was involved in the struggle between the land
developers and environmentalists. What happened to the
students during these stressful days is simply put: "There sure
was a whole lot of learning going on." The kind of learning
that will stay with those young people throughout their adult
lives. The bottom line on learning is, Just Do It! What
learning is, in its simplest and purest form, is "being able to
do something."
Peter M. Senge calls it "personal mastery" of whatever
tasks you have to perform in your business organization. He
is giving his advice to corporate leaders who are reading his
recent book, The FifthDiscipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization. Thoughtful and intentional change
is how an organization can remain fresh and vibrant, but not
without personal mastery within the organization. Our volun-
teer monitoring organizations learn through the senses of our
monitors out there in the creeks. They' re getting their feet wet
and our organizations continue changing and improving from
those experiences. When personal mastery stops and people
stop trying to do new things, our organizations dry up.
Young people want to learn how to function in our society
and to be effective doers. But, they are often afraid of making
mistakes. Our role as adult leaders is to overcome this initial
fear of failure and allow young people a chance to learn from
their experiences. The key strategy is to try again. When
failure occurs, as it should, get back up and try again.
Opportunities for students
The Colorado River Watch Network offers many opportuni-
ties for young people to learn from their mistakes. Change is
constant and what is offered here is from our first five years
of organizational building.
1. Annual River Watch Symposium: Once a year we
hold a large gathering of all student monitoring teams at a
camping facility where we have plenty of room and solitude.
103
-------
Session 4: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two
It's held toward the end of the school year so that monitoring
teams have had time to collect sufficient data for analysis.
Teams write a technical report and construct a display poster
for viewing by other participants. We hang the posters on
long clotheslines and give each team five minutes at the
microphone to explain their work. Presentations are judged
by all participants and awards are given in five different
categories. The symposium event is a time to create "heroes"
and to recognize student leaders. A traveling trophy is given
to the school that has set the highest standard of effort during
the year. The "River Watch Warrior" trophy is a prize worth
winning and a great thrill for everyone to anticipate and cheer
about.
2. Peer tutoring and mentoring: The Austin Youth
River Watch Program addresses the high school drop-out
problem by providing ninth-grade students with peer tutoring
from a successful eleventh- or twelfth-grade student. Funded
by the City of Austin two years ago, the program has achieved
positive results and is expanding. This is an after-school
program designed to keep kids off the streets and in the
creeks. The student tutors are paid a minimum wage for three
hours each week to raise their self-esteem and give them their
first real employment opportunity.
3. Computer networking monitoring teams: A new
partnership with Southwestern Bell and the Texas Environ-
mental Center has brought the Internet resources to the
Science Academy. Two other schools are also in the pilot
program. A server computer at Rice University stores our
monitoring information and links the three schools to each
other and to Texas Watch at the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission. We are learning how to use the
resources of Internet and to build our little "superhighway
onramp."
New efforts take time to incubate and hatch. All the eggs
won't hatch, but your organization should keep on laying
them. The key to success is to start small and grow big
gradually.
Opportunities for teachers
I have a lot of empathy for teachers in today's society. They
are highly undervalued and overworked. But, so are environ-
mentalists. In fact, I feel wealthy around my environmentalist
friends and that's a very unusual feeling for a teacher. You
can really find strong allies within the teaching profession.
We have a lot in common.
What teachers need today is a connection to the outside
world. School activities tend to smother teachers inside their
classrooms between September and May. Talk to them dur-
ingthesummermonths and find outwhat education goals you
have in common and build your partnership from that point.
Good teachers will feel motivated to learn about their
community and to find resources for their students. Your
organization can help them on both counts. Set up your
training program for teachers and take them out into the
watershed. Show them the real world and watch them bloom.
Teachers have a basic instinct to gather knowledge and share
that wealth with their students. Give them a little equipment
to monitor water quality and they will become your slave for
life. Nurture this relationship and build new programs on
discovered talents. Remember, people make the difference,
and every organization should be unique because of the
various talents in the group. Copy the best of what's out there
and create something new from the rest.
There is another reform movement sweeping science
education and you should become aware of its implications
for yourprogram. Itis called Project 2061 by James Rutherford
and members of the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science. Rutherford claims the recommended re-
forms will be done before Haley' s Comet returns in 2061, but
I'm not sure of that optimism. There are two books out that
will help you work with teachers, Science for All Americans
and Project 2061 Benchmarks, both published by the Oxford
University Press. The benchmarks are written for specific age
groups and include science education content topics for
individual mastery. Many of these benchmarks match the
intent of environmental education. You can help the teachers
and schools in your region of the country develop curriculum
and teaching strategies that accomplish the 2061 bench-
marks. Wouldn't this be great—reforming education and
improving environmental quality at the same time!
Future view
Chani Gilfeather is now a student at the University of Texas
in Austin and a member of our Colorado River Watch
Foundation Board of Directors. Inga Adams is attending
Georgetown University and fully intends to be a foreign
diplomat one day. No one doubts her word. Having young
people pass through your program and go on to adult respon-
sibilities is the ultimate joy of education. A "learning organi-
zation" can help them get where they want to go.
The teachers and citizens of the Colorado River Watch
Network are still working hard in Texas and looking forward
to the upcoming visit by Vadim Kalinin and his "Waterdrops"
of Obninsk College in Russia. He is coming over in the
summer of 1995, and 10 of our students will visit his program
during the summer of 1994. There are wonderful opportuni-
ties out there in the world right now. It's a great time in history
to be alive and working for the common good and environ-
mental quality.
Patrick Reese
Friends of the Fox River, Inc.
About Leadership in the Boardroom
Leaders are developed by challenges.
- James E. Burke
My assignment today is to talk about the responsibilities of
the board of directors and the important leadership role the
104
-------
Session 4: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two
_
board plays in the environmental organization. Abby
Markowitz and Wes Halverson recruited me to address these
subjects because I am the founder and former president of a
watershed organization. But I'd also like to talk about lead-
ership in general, and begin by sharing part of my own story.
The idea for founding the Friends of the Fox River came
to me, a construction worker, while I was fishing from my
boat one day in the spring of 1988.1 was fishing alone along
a tree-lined river corridor in an urban setting. Here I had the
Wonderful illusion of fishing a forested river in Canada. But
during the day my dreamworld was destroyed. A tree surgeon
hired by the Kane County Forest Preserve District came by
with chain saws and trucks and clear-cut what turned out to
be about 300 mature trees along the river's edge, decimating
the river's scenic beauty and critically damaging its aquatic
habitat and fishery.
The District had developed a new bike trail along this
portion of the river, and I later learned that the District's
policy was to cut riveredge trees in urban areas so people
couldn't hide behind them and mug trail users. Taking a few
trees and trimming others might have been a workable
compromise, but at the time there was no organization in
place to monitor district policy or its management practices.
So from this event the Friends emerged and I became,
unwittingly, a leader. And because an organization now
exists to monitor environmental conditions in our watershed,
many other river advocates, like me, have become educated
and active environmental leaders within their communities.
But the formula for creating the Friends wasn't my own.
It came from reaching out to the experienced leadership and
program models of other organizations. Talking with these
leaders enabled me to gain the knowledge I needed to
understand environmental issues, develop a vision for our
river, and organize a board of directors and our RiverWatch
programs. In fact without their guidance and encouragement
the Friends might never have, like a mayfly, emerged.
The above story helps illustrate my first observations
about leadership: A leader is a person who fully learns the
issues, makes the argument honestly, and inspires others to
respond and perform. And if an ordinary construction worker
or fisherman can become a leader, so can anyone who is
awakened to the challenge.
Today, throughout our country, there is an appalling lack
of leadership for resolving our nation's socio-environmental
problems. And the role and responsibility of the environmen-
tal organization is not only to monitor public policy and
educate the public about these problems, but to provide
citizens with opportunities to become active on issues that
concern them. It is from this education and involvement that
new leaders emerge.
In fact every person involved in any volunteer organiza-
tion at every level is a leader, from the program volunteer to
the president of the board, because each volunteer provides a
still unique example and public service for his or her family,
neighbors, and communities.
The role of the board of directors
Often, as Abby and Wes have so eloquently described,
program volunteers becomes great, courageous leaders. Yet
front-line volunteers are not always aware of the important
leadership role of their board of directors—how the board
drives organizational success and makes their roles possible.
On the other hand, what some board members don't always
understand is the importance of becoming aleader more than
simply in name.
The challenge of the nonprofit board is to define the issues
and empower the program volunteer (or client), and being on
the board demands that each board member set an example
for the program volunteer by becoming a leader in fact,
meaning that directors assume responsibility for the success
of their agency and should be willing and able to contribute
the time and expertise needed to achieve organizational
goals—and be absolutely loyal to its mission.
Occasionally inexperienced nonprofits recruit directors
who only attend board meetings, or who have conflicting
interests, or whose principal motivation is wielding personal
power. These directors short-circuit board work and organi-
zational development goals. To help avoid these problems,
perhaps the best standard in recruiting board members is a test
of character—determining whether the candidate is a "friend
of the human race" or a slave to a personal or special interest.
Or, as Havel wrote, discovering if the candidate shares "a
deeper sense of responsibility toward the world, which means
responsibility toward something higher than himself."
In my experience the effective board leader is first a
person who is concerned with achieving social justice—
because this, like the civil rights movement, is the underlying
or central purpose of the environmental organization. Given
this guideline, board members should be unmoved by con-
flicting special interests and subversive political influences.
Often in the environmental organization many board
members have little experience serving on a nonprofit board,
but most bring management skills to the board and all have
varying degrees of leadership experience. Fortunately there
are many levels of leadership ability and areas where leader-
ship is needed, and most any volunteer who accepts the
"board challenge" can, with proper training and involvement,
become a great leader.
Probably the best way to learn is to become the student of
leaders outside of the organization. This means that board
members must have initiative. By networking with staff and
board leaders from other nonprofits, and researching their
successes and failures, board members may expand their
knowledge and bring the experience and example of others to
their board.
Within many volunteer groups there are three levels of
management where leadership is needed. These are: board of
directors, staff or program administration, and volunteer
management.
The governing board is the permanent part of the organi-
zation. The board is the stable, continuing element of the
105
-------
Session 4: Involving Volunteers Effectively, Part Two
agency because it provides for its own orderly perpetuation.
Staff and volunteers are highly mobile or transient, so the
heart of the organization lies in the boardroom, and the
success of the agency is measured to a large extent by what
the board does and by what it fails to do.
The board—that is, management—has to give direction to
the institution it manages. The board's primary responsibili-
ties include: establishing the organization's purpose and
mission; setting policies, goals, and objectives; approving
programs; engaging in organizational planning, fundraising,
financial management, risk management, and public rela-
tions; employing a volunteer or paid administrator; and
evaluating agency performance. In short, it has to organize
resources toward achieving the greatest results.
Program administrators are responsible for program de-
velopment and delivery, and the recruitment, training, and
retention of volunteer group leaders. Volunteer group leaders
are responsible for the training and success of the front-line
soldiers, the program volunteers, who in turn are responsible
for collecting data, educating their communities', and imple-
menting the desired environmental change.
Board committees
The area where board leadership becomes most beneficial is
in the operation of board committees. Committee work is
crucial to board success, and this work should be organized
by the board to accomplish most board work between board
meetings. Board committees in particular musthave commit-
ted and able leaders, and next to being an officer, being a
committee chair is the most important responsibility a board
leader will ever have. Essentially committee work should be
organized to fulfill the board responsibilities listed above.
Board training
Having a well-defined mission, budget, operating plan, and
committee structure are essential to providing direction, a
sense of unity, and inspiration for successful board work, and
the climate needed for leadership to emerge. Given this
management framework, providing organizational develop-
ment and leadership training are the next steps.
Developing an orientation packet or manual specific to
your organization is helpful in recruiting and training new
board members. Additionally, board members should re-
ceive professional education materials to help guide them.
Two helpful resources are the Nonprofit Management Note-
book 1990, published by the Beatrice Foundation (402-595-
4158), and River Network's Capturing the Magic of the
Board (800-423-6747).
Planned board orientation, organizational development,
or leadership training workshops and retreats are vital to
success, because they build consensus and help the emerging
board leader develop problem-solving and leadership skills.
The Executive Service Corps, which operates in some major
markets, the Environmental Support Center in Washington,
DC, or community or regional foundations can usually help
organize and fund these workshops.
Experienced board leaders, executives from area corpora-
tions, and leaders from other nonprofit groups will often
volunteer to design and conduct training workshops for you.
Also board members should attend most, if not all, of the
organization's events, and be willing to attend a number of
industry seminars, and even board meetings and training
workshops of other nonprofit organizations.
A pitfall to avoid
In terms of recruiting new board members, orientation train-
ing should not begin after a new board member has been
appointed or elected. It should begin well before the candi-
date accepts the job, and include: (1) participating in several
board and committee meetings, because the new board mem-
ber must clearly understand what their board responsibilities
will be, and (2) "getting their feet wet," because the board
member must be in tune with the program volunteer and
clearly understand their expectations and needs.
The essence of leadership
I' d like to touch upon what I consider to be the most important
characteristic of leadership—moral courage, tempered not
with ambition but with truth and justice. To understand this
aspect of leadership, what Abraham Lincoln called duty, I
feel that nonprofit leaders should become intimately familiar
with the vision, work and sacrifices of the great leaders of the
past such as Socrates, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Lincoln,
Lawrence of Arabia, Susan B. Anthony, and Mahatma Gandhi.
Here it is important for the board leader to evaluate four
realities: (1) that democracy is not a matter of faith, but a
matter of legal guarantees, (2) that the ultimate goal of the
environmental organization is achieving an environmentally
sound economy, (3) that protecting or restoring environmen-
tal quality is not a private interest, but a broad public interest,
and (4) that many special interests, motivated by greed, work
daily to corrupt the public interest—our nation's leadership,
laws, and democratic processes—for private advantage or
economic gain. The result is a fake democracy: evasive
thinking, hollow laws, and a deceived citizenry.
Conclusion
I'd like to close by recommending that every board leader
read about the corruption of leadership and democracy in
America. I sense that the most instructive book that any
nonprofit leader could read today is William Greider's Who
Will Tell the People. From this compelling book environmen-
tal leaders will gain a better understanding about the betrayal
of American democracy and how important their leadership
is to the success of their organization, community, state,
nation, and world.
In the final analysis, it seems to me, the healing of our
environment lies in the healing of its people via restoring an
honest leadership and democracy in America. And the beauty
of the environmental organization is that it hopes to help
achieve these goals—from the grassroots.
106
-------
Plenary Session, Day Three
Plenary Session, Day Three
Dr. Stan Gregory
Oregon State University, Department of Fish and Wildlife
The Willamette River: Ecosystem
Management and Restoration
The management, monitoring, evaluation, and restoration of
our resources represent a major public challenge that is
generally referred to by such terms as "ecosystem manage-
ment," "watershed management," "fisheries management,"
or "riparian management." But in many ways the real chal-
lenge gets lost in these terms, because they all describe the
easy part.
The real challenge ahead of us is "human behavior man-
agement. " That's the tough part. That's where monitoring
comes in, because monitoring is where people gain knowl-
edge.
John McPhee noted that humans tend to think in terms of
five generations: two in the past, two in the future, and a
heavy concentration on the one in the middle. I think that's an
accurate representation. It also sets the stage for monitoring
and restoration of a system as complex as the Willamette
River basin: a look to the past to consider the history; a look
to the present to evaluate its current status; and a look to the
future to examine our options and make plans ahead of time.
History of the Willamette
Citizen groups do a tremendous amount to help with histori-
cal research. They can scour historical libraries for photos
and maps. If nothing else, they can conduct a "geezer sur-
vey." Long-time residents have knowledge that we can use.
Looking at old maps of the Willamette valley, we can see
where the prairies were. Studying Native American uses of
the resources give us more clues about what the river was like
historically. The Chinook Indians maintained amajor salmon
fishery at the falls at Oregon City.
Old photographs can give us an image of the vegetation at
the turn of the century. Photos of canneries give us an idea of
the impacts we've had on the fisheries.
Early accounts of the river boats on the Willamette indi-
cate that the crews spent more of the time off the boat cutting
down riparian vegetation and clearing snags than they did
actually running the boat. Probably the term "logger" was
more appropriate than "river boat crew member." The river
was also used to transport logs—and you can imagine what
this does to the habitat and the resources.
Historical documents like maps and photographs give us
a sense not only of the change that has occurred, but of the
potential for the future—the kinds of things that might be
possible if we change some of our practices, and set standards
and goals now.
Along the Willamette there have been many changes.
Much of the riparian zone and floodplain has been converted
and put to different kinds of land uses—urban, agricultural,
industrial—greatly diminishing the ecological capacity of
the river. Now we try to have "hard" engineering solutions,
when the natural system provided a natural filter along the
river, a natural buffer against floods.
We channelize the river, turn it into a pipe, dump things
into it, and then wonder why we have to spend millions and
millions of dollars maintaining water quality.
The present and the future
If you think our challenges are tough today, think about 25 to
30 years from now. The population in the Willamette valley
will probably be double what it is now.
But we haven't lost the Willamette River. All we have to
do is take a look at what we're doing. We can restore the river
if we want to. What are some of the ways we can involve
citizens?
Go out and measure anything. We need information, and
we need to have people get to know the resource. The most
effective way to educate the public is to let them know what
their world is like, and one way to do that is to let them
measure it. What they measure could be the insects, it could
be the fish, it could be the birds, it could be the habitat. In
terms of habitat quality, we're way down in the red zone. I
know of no study of habitat quality in the Pacific Northwest
that has concluded that it's in good condition.
One thing volunteers can do is capture an image. Go out
in a boat and take a video— once a month, once a season, once
a year. I guarantee you, 100 years from now people will want
to see that image. Think what you would give for a video of
the Willamette River in the 1850s.
Restoration is going to take at least 100 years. It takes
these systems time to heal. But it will never happen unless we
start today.
107
-------
Session 5: Using Your Data to Evaluate Your Program
Using Your Data to Evaluate Your
Volunteer Monitoring Program
Moderator: Patricia Hurley, Alabama Department of Envi-
ronmental Management
Presenters: Abby Markowitz, Maryland Save Our Streams;
Janice Miller, Unified Sewerage Agency; Mike Mullen,
Troy State University, Alabama; Deborah Dahling, Bellevue
Utilities Department
Abby Markowitz
Maryland Save Our Streams
How SOS Used Data Evaluation to
Identify and Solve a Problem
In 1990, Maryland Save Our Streams (SOS) implemented
"Project Heartbeat," a volunteer bioassessment program
modelled on Protocol 2 of the EPA's guidance document,
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers: Macroinvertebrates and Fish (1989). Heartbeat was
piloted in Baltimore County, under the local name "100
Points of Stream Monitoring." Volunteers were trained to
conduct macroinvertebrate and habitat assessments on 100
stations along the county's waterways in the spring, summer,
and fall. SOS organized both a volunteer Steering Committee
made up of community leaders, educators, students, and
interested volunteers and a Technical Advisory Committee
comprised of biologists from agencies and universities to
help oversee and direct the program.
After the first year of sampling, we began to take a look at
the data as a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the
training and the program. This process has been continuous
throughout Heartbeat's five-year history. What I' d like to do
is illustrate this process through a specific example in which
we used data to evaluate, refine, and improve the monitoring
program. Our evaluation process followed these four overall
steps (keep in mind that many steps overlap or are continu-
ous):
1. Identify problem.
2. Explore possible reasons for problem.
3. Develop and implement strategies for correcting the
problem.
4. Analyze results; if problem was not corrected, go back
to step 1.
1. Identifying the problem
In order to analyze and interpret data, Heartbeat macroinver-
tebrate subsamples should contain at least 100 organisms.
After the first two sampling seasons, we observed many
samples with fewer than 100 organisms. Further, many
samples did not contain any "midges," a family of dipteran
that should be found in every sample. Midges are tiny,
hairlike critters that are easy for the nonprofessional eye to
miss. We determined that volunteers were having trouble
spotting and picking small organisms—including midges.
We were able to detect this problem through field data forms,
macroinvertebrate tally sheets from each lab session, written
volunteer evaluations, and Steering Committee discussions
among themselves and with other volunteers. Once we iden-
tified the problem, we began to explore the possible reasons.
2. Possible reasons for problem:
• collecting and sorting organisms difficult in urbanized
streams due to overall small size and sparsity of critters
• sampling equipment not adequate for seeing and picking
up small critters
• importance of 100+ sample size not emphasized enough
in training
• training in selecting optimum sampling area not adequate
• training in macroinvertebrate field ID not adequate—
people not looking for small critters
• some volunteers impatient with length of time required to
collect adequate sample and/or with discomfort of
prolonged kneeling to collect critters off the net
This exercise showed us that many of our problems
seemed to be related to training emphasis and methods. In
addition, we realized that we needed more sensitive equip-
ment (forceps, magnifying lenses, etc.). We also determined
that sampling procedures and protocols required some revi-
sion. Our next task was to come up with ways to alleviate
these problems.
3. Taking action to correct problem
• grant written and received for improved equipment—
forceps, magnifying lenses, etc.; other new equipment
added to aid in collection and sorting—including
holding buckets and spray bottles
• training and data forms restructured to emphasize
significance of 100+ sample; preregistration materials
designed to advise volunteers to bring knee cushions,
dress for sitting on the ground, etc.
• Steering Committee members and staff produced hand-
drawn color maps of each station, detailing exact
location of riffle(s) to be sampled; maps were color-
copied and placed in station field packets for each
monitoring team
• composite sampling introduced at all sites; volunteers
instructed to sample three times, in different sections of
the riffle, at each station, and to composite results of
each sample before subsampling
• experienced volunteers recruited to be team captains;
team captain training introduced as a separate event
108
-------
Session 5: Using Your Data to Evaluate Your Program
These measures were developed and implemented over
time through trial and error. It was critical for us to continu-
ally evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy
and to be flexible enough to recognize when we needed to
change strategies.
4. Analyzing the results
As the following charts demonstrate, this evaluation process
has been successful for us over the last few years. Figure 1
(below) illustrates the increase in midges collected by volun-
teers over the year. In 1990, only about 65 percent of samples
contained midges. By the summer of 1993,99 percent of all
samples contained midges.
H % sites without
midges
• % sites with
midges
Figure 1. Increase in midges collected by volunteers,
1990-1993.
Figure 2 (below) shows the increase over the seasons of
samples containing 100 or more organisms. Over the last
several years, we have gone from 25 percent of samples with
an adequate subsample size to about 80 percent. However,
the spring of 1993 shows a significant drop, which we believe
is due to unusually late snows with slow melting and very
heavy rains.
Figure 3 (above right) looks at one particular watershed,
Bird River. Bird River is a highly urbanized watershed where
Percent samples with 100+ organisms
80 -I
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
m_ x
-X^*
yx •
^•x\ /
^ \/
\/
•sJ
o o o
TO TO 0>
Q. E "55
M £ "-
TO TO O5
a. E "55
05 S "-
eg CM gJ co co
TO TO o> TO TO
k. r- ^= ^- f
Q. E CO Q. • C
co -3 u- co 3
_cn
I
O
•5
33 37 18 38
Station Number
Figure 3. Number of organisms collected from Bird River
stations.
volunteers have historically had a difficult time collecting an
adequate subsample. This chart traces the progress, over the
summer seasons, of volunteer ability to collect 100+ organ-
isms. (If a season's data are not shown, this indicates that the
station was not sampled that season.) It is important to note
that the numbers of organisms subsampled in both urban and
rural watersheds increased over the 11 sampling seasons,
with the exception of spring 1993. In addition, volunteer time
in the field did not significantly increase—in fact, it actually
decreased in some areas.
Janice K. "Jan" Miller
Unified Sewerage Agency
Chemistry Data
I. Compare your data
A. Try to find some other data with which to compare your
data.
1. Split your samples with a professional lab doing the
same tests on similar samples.
2. Find data from other reliable sources on similar
streams in your area.
a. Look at the range of values they get and compare
them with yours.
b. If they don't have the same parameters, are
similar parameters showing the same pattern?
B. What are the Water Quality Standards for the stream.
1. If your data suggests the stream is out of compli-
ance, does that match what you would expect?
2. Do all the parameters give the same pattern or is
there an explanation when they don't?
3. Are the values so far below the Water Quality
Standards that you don't have to worry about how
"tight" the data are?
C. Compare to other sites that your organization monitors.
Figure 2. Increase in samples with 100+ organisms.
109
-------
Session 5: Using Your Data to Evaluate Your Program
II. What constitutes a good match
A. Duplicates for one sample by the same analyst in the
* 5 - 10 percent range are good, if you are in the middle
of the test range.
B. Duplicates between labs on the same sample in the
* 10 - 20 percent range are good, if you are in the
middle of the test range.
III. What to do when they don't match
A. Review and double-check all calculations.
1. Was there enough information recorded by the
volunteer to do this?
2. If they ran the test more than once, how consistent
were their results?
B. Are you reporting the same thing?
1. Phosphorus as P vs. Phosphate (PO4)
[0.33XP04 = P]
2. Ammonia as N vs. Ammonia (NH3)
[0.83XNH3=N]
3. Nitrate as N vs. Nitrate (NO3)
[0.23xNO3=N]
4. Temperature in Celsius or Fahrenheit
C. Whose values are more realistic?
1. pH should be less than 14.
2. DO should be less than 20, but any data over 12
should be checked out.
D. Could there have been a problem with your glassware,
or water?
1. Total phosphorus glassware needs to be washed with
phosphate-free detergent and rinsed with hot dilute
HC1.
E. Check storage and handling requirements if the test
wasn't done in the field.
F. Was the procedure you were using appropriate for the
test? Did it give reliable results in the range of most of
the samples?
1, Did the volunteer have enough information to do the
text properly?
2. Is there a consistent pattern?
a. Do experienced people do better than novices?
b. Do samples taken at the same time of day match
better than those that are not?
3. At the bottom end of the test range you can expect
variations greater than 30 percent with everything
else being done very well.
a. If the test range is 0.02 to 1.0 mg/1, you can
expect 3 percent variation between 0.02 and 0.04
mg/1. If you can it is a good idea to report these
results as estimates.
Mike Mullen
Troy State University
Resolving Data Discrepancies
Problem:
Dissolved oxygen (DO) data from three volunteers sampling
the same area of a well-mixed nutrient-poor lake are unex-
pectedly different and, in the case of one volunteer, some-
what erratic.
DO DATA (mg/1):
Date
1/15/93
1/31/93
2/14/93
2/28/93
3/14/93
3/28/93
4/14/93
4/28/93
5/14/93
5/28/93
6/14/93
6/28/93
7/14/93
7/28/93
8/14/93
8/28/93
9/14/93
9/28/93
10/14/93
10/28/93
11/14/93
11/28/93
12/14/93
12/28/93
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
John
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.4
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.8
9.4
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.5
8.1
8.6
8.8
9.1
9.4
8.9
9.4
9.7
9.6
9.3
10.4
8.1
Jane
9.9
8.7
8.8
10.3
10.1
8.6
8.0
8.3
7.9
8.9
7.6
7.2
6.9
8.1
8.3
7.1
7.2
8.5
8.8
8.3
7.6
9.1
9.9
8.5
8.4
10.3
7.1
Joe
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.3
7.5
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.4
7.8
8.1
7.7
8.2
8.4
8.3
7.9
8.7
6.9
Questions:
1. What are some possible reasons for the difference in the
dissolved oxygen data collected by John and by Joe? How
might you determine why the two sets of data are different?
What are some possible corrective actions for solving the
possible problems you identified?
2. Compared to the data from John and Joe, Jane's data
seems to be much more erratic. Other than poor technique,
what are some possible causes for the variability in Jane's
data? What are possible corrective actions for the problems?
What other parameters might provide help?
110
-------
Session 5: Using Your Data to Evaluate Your Program
Probable causes of the data discrepancies:
1. John's data vs. Joe's data. There are several possible
explanations for the differences in the data collected by John
and Joe. Since the two sets of data track each other, it is
possible that there is a systematic error in the procedure. One
of their test kits could have had titrant for DO that was
significantly weaker or stronger than it should have been. The
magnitude of the difference makes it unlikely that it was
caused by a systematic error in the titration.
Another possible cause of the difference in the data could
be a difference in sampling time. If Joe sampled in the
morning just before going to work and John sampled in the
afternoon after getting off work, the differences could be
explained by diel variations in DO.
Finally, it is possible that sampling at different depths
caused the differences in John and Joe's data.
2. Jane's data. Jane's DO data are highly variable. A
reasonable conclusion is that Jane might be having problems
collecting samples. She might be introducing error due to
poor sampling technique or might not be careful enough
when titrating. On the other hand, Jane might be doing
everything correctly. The data variability could result from
taking DO samples at different times of day or at different
water depths.
Possible solutions:
The problem of "bad" reagents can be addressed in several
ways. Volunteers can be encouraged to buddy up with an-
other volunteer for the purpose of simultaneously sampling
and checking results. Technical assistance personnel can
conduct "field audits" in which they go into the field and
collect samples and test side by side with volunteers. When
received, reagents can be dated and the expiration date noted.
Fresh reagents need to be supplied in a timely manner to
assure that old, outdated reagents are not used.
The necessity of sampling during the same time period
and at common depths can be stressed during training and
retraining activities. DO sampling in lakes should include
temperature (or conductivity, etc.) profiling to assure that
samples are taken from the well-mixed zone (epilimnion).
Volunteers testing within the same area of a water body
should strive to test at approximately the same times (days
and times) to yield data with the greatest value for trend
monitoring and planning.
Deborah A. Dahling
Stream Team Coordinator, City ofBellevue, Washington
Volunteers Help Monitor the Effects
of a Lake Restoration Project
In 1993, Bellevue's Stream Team volunteers were called
upon to help monitor two small lakes following a major city-
sponsored restoration project. The two lakes, Phantom and
Larsen, have highly urbanized watersheds and during the late
1980s began to experience more frequent and severe algal
blooms. The restoration project addressed inputs of nutrients,
primarily phosphorus, into the lakes. Volunteers are impor-
tant in monitoring water clarity and conditions to address the
release of phosphorus from lake bottom sediments.
From both lakes, volunteers collect water temperature and
dissolved oxygen concentration data at different water depths.
Water temperature is monitored to detect the onset of lake
stratification. Once a lake stratifies, oxygen is depleted more
quickly in the colder, .deeper water layer. If the dissolved
oxygen concentration falls below 2 mg/L, phosphorus is
released from the sediments and is available to growing
algae. As part of the restoration project, aerators were in-
stalled to oxygenate the deeper water layer when the lakes are
stratified. Volunteer data are used to show the onset and
breakdown of stratification so city staff know when to turn
the aerators on and off. The dissolved oxygen measurements
collected by the volunteers trackthe efficiency of the aerators
in keeping dissolved oxygen concentrations above 2 mg/L in
the lakes' deeper waters.
Volunteers also collect Secchi disk measurements on both
lakes. Taking Secchi disk measurements is an indirect way
of monitoring the amount of algae in the water. In designing
the restoration project, water clarity goals were defined in
terms of Secchi disk measurements—0.9 m for Larsen Lake
and 2.7 m for Phantom Lake. The volunteer data provide
water clarity trend information following restoration mea-
sures and points of reference regarding water clarity goals.
Following the first year of monitoring, city staff and
volunteers evaluated the program to address data quality
concerns. The lessons learned included:
• Larsen Lake. The monitoring site at Larsen Lake is on
the end of a pier extending from the lake's edge. By looking
at the data we began to see that during most of the year the
Secchi disk hit the bottom of the lake before disappearing
from view. Therefore we were not getting an accurate Secchi
disk reading for establishing trend information or comparing
to restoration water clarity goals.
Additionally, the water at the monitoring site was not deep
enough for volunteers to detect the changes of water tempera-
ture which indicate stratification. Consequently, the volun-
teer data was not identifying the aerator operation window for
city staff. Volunteers also could not detect whether the
aerator was keeping dissolved oxygen concentrations above
2 mg/L in the deeper sections of the lake. Since this is a
monitoring location problem, we are currently considering
other location options.
• Phantom Lake. About six months into the program, the
volunteers began recording very low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations near the bottom of the lake. We assumed the lake
was not stratified since volunteers were recording homog-
enous temperatures from the water surface to bottom. Ho-
mogenous temperatures suggest lake turnover or mixing, so
111
-------
Session 5: Using Your Data to Evaluate Your Program
dissolved oxygen concentrations should be over 2 mg/L and
consistent from top to bottom. Due to the low dissolved
oxygen measurements, city staff monitoring trips were orga-
nized to verify the volunteer results. Staff measurements
indicated that oxygen concentrations were at acceptable
levels. However, the temperature measurements were cor-
rect. This information led city staff to determine that the
aerator was inducing lake mixing and heightening nuisance
algal blooms. The aerator has since been adjusted to prevent
this from happening. The problems encountered with the data
accuracy regarding dissolved oxygen measurements most
probably lie in training issues and equipment management.
City staff and volunteers are working together to address data
quality concerns.
112
-------
Session 5: Bacteria Testing, Part Two
Bacteria Testing, Part Two
Moderator: Esperanza Standoff, University of Maine Co-
operative Extension
Presenters: Marie Levesque Cauduto, Connecticut River
Watch; Mary Gilroy, Lower Colorado River Authority;
Debra Wirkman, Surfriders
Marie Levesque Caduto
Connecticut River Watch Program
Membrane Filtration for E. coli
What is E. coli?
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a species of fecal coliform
bacteria that occurs in the gastrointestinal tract of warm-
blooded animals. It occurs in high densities in human wastes
and has been used as an indicator of fecal contamination for
many years. It does not grow in the natural environment
under ordinary circumstances. Studies have shown a close
correlation between high E. coli counts and the incidence of
gastroenteritis (digestive tract illness) at swimming areas
(U.S. EPA, 1986). Most E. coli are not disease-causing
bacteria, but their presence signals the possible presence of
viruses and other disease-causing microorganisms.
What is CRWP?
Connecticut River Watch Program (CRWP) is a volunteer
monitoring, improvement, and protection program for the
Connecticut River and tributaries in Vermont and New
Hampshire. We monitor over 100 sites on 12 to 18 different
waterways, from large rivers to tiny streams. We monitor for
E. coli, total phosphorus, turbidity, and temperature five
times over the summer (usually July - August, when the water
is most heavily contacted).
All our lab work is done in donated labs (most recently,
labs at the local technical college and the Army Corps of
Engineers) by minimally paid lab coordinators. We provide
major equipment, such as incubators, and all reagents, and the
lab provides space, hot plates, balances, distilled water, etc.
Why did we choose the E. coli method?
One major focus of CRWP and other River Watch Network
programs is to ensure that the data we gather is scientifically
credible. EPA's 1986 study of different bacteria indicators
found that both E. coli and enterococcus gave good correla-
tion to illness in fresh water. (In saltwater, enterococcus is
recommended.) E coli is easier to test than enterococcus and
is used by both New Hampshire and Vermont in their state
standards. We want to ensure that our data are used to the
greatest extent possible and have the greatest impact pos-
sible, so E. coli is what we use also.
Quality assurance and data use
We follow EPA-approved procedures with very slight adap-
tations for non-certified labs (such as allowing pressure-
cooker-type autoclaves to be used). To establish and maintain
our credibility, we perform QA/QC procedures such as
splitting samples with state labs, splitting samples between
our own labs, running blanks and state-prepared unknowns,
and duplicating samples within each lab. Because of this our
data has been accepted and used by both Vermont and New
Hampshire in their 305(b) reports. So far they have qualified
our data as "evaluated" rather than "monitored," but we're
working on having the data accepted as "monitored."
Currently an extensive bistate water quality assessment is
being done on the Connecticut River, and our data are part of
it. We feel this is a maj or endorsement of our work. Unfortu-
nately the two states have different numerical water quality
standards for E. coli—Vermont, uses 77/100 ml in a single
sample, while New Hampshire uses the geometric mean of
126 in 3 samples or 406 in a single sample. Because the
Connecticut River is officially in the state of New Hampshire,
we use the 126 GeoMean, then use state standards on the
tributaries.
Summary of method:
1. Water sample is collected in a sterile "Whirl-pak" bag.
Samples should be analyzed within 6 hours.
2. A subsample is pulled through a gridded membrane
filter, which retains the bacteria and other particles
larger than 0.45 microns.
3. After filtration, the membrane containing the bacterial
cells is placed on a nutrient medium, "mTEC," which
promotes the growth of E. coli colonies.
4. The filter is incubated at 35°C for 2 hours (to resuscitate
injured or stressed bacteria), then incubated at 44.5°C
for 22 hours.
5. Following incubation, the filter is transferred to a filter
pad saturated with urea substrate, which brings out the
color of E. coli colonies.
6. After 15 minutes, yellow or yellow-brown colonies are
counted.
Both the formulation of the "mTEC" nutrient medium and
the relatively high incubation temperature encourage the
growth of E. coli bacteria and inhibit the growth of other
bacteria. Incubation for two hours at 35°C increases the
survival rate of E. coli bacteria by reviving injured bacteria
prior to the high temperature incubation. The incubation at
44.5°C favors the high-temperature-tolerant E. coli over
other bacteria types.
The E. coli break down an ingredient in the medium and
produce acid, which causes the dyes in the nutrient medium
to produce a yellow color. Other bacteria do not produce the
acid and remain purple in color. Placing the incubated filters
on the urea substrate at a pH of 4.5 selects for E. coli. Other
bacteria types break down the urea and turn the colonies
alkaline, which reacts with the dye in the substrate and causes
113
-------
Session 5: Bacteria Testing, Part Two
them to become red or purple. The E. coli colonies remain
yellow because they cannot break down the urea and so
remain acidic.
Advantages and disadvantages
Disadvantages of using this method in a volunteer program
include:
1. The initial expense of equipment, which can run up to
$3,700 if incubators are needed.
2. Time-consuming preparation (making and pouring
media plates, preparing buffered rinse water solutions
and urea solution).
3. Difficulties in getting all samples run within the 6-hour
time limit from collection.
However, the advantages do outweigh the difficulties.
The numbers are acceptable by and comparable to both state
agencies, making this a key test in our area. Also, once the lab
is set up volunteers can easily be trained to run the samples.
After a bit of practice, they can do the test on their own.
Reference
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. 1986. EPA
440/5-84-002. Office of Science and Technology
(4304), 401M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Mary P. Gilroy
Lower Colorado River Authority
Fecal Coliform Test: Equipment and
Information
The Colorado River Watch Network (CRWN) is an environ-
mental education and data collection program involving
volunteers throughout the lower Colorado River Basin. We
are part of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), a
self-supporting public utility created by the Texas Legisla-
ture in 1934. The Network has grown from a handful of
Austin high school students in 1988 to an estimated 500
participants. Monitors test weekly for dissolved oxygen, pH,
TDS, nitrate-nitrogen, orthophosphorus, and fecal coliform
bacteria, and many are now being trained in biological
monitoring techniques. Many of our monitors work on urban
creeks in the Austin area, where fecal contamination from
NPS runoff or sewage can be a problem.
Why does CRWN use fecal coliform testing?
All of CRWN's tests were chosen to complement LCRA's
professional monitoring efforts, as well as to promote water
quality protection. We chose fecal coliforms as our bacterial
test organisms because the state regulatory agency and LCRA
use fecal coliforms as an indicator for surface water. Stan-
dards are based on the geometric mean of five samples over
30 days.
Why did we choose the membrane filtration
method?
B oth the size of our network and its volunteer nature contrib-
uted to our choice of the membrane filtration method. We
needed to choose a test method that was relatively simple and
low cost, while still being able to give accurate counts of fecal
colonies. Another consideration was availability of labora-
tory facilities—since the network stretches over 600 river
miles, and many monitors live in rural areas, it was not
economically or logistically feasible to contract with a lab for
sample analysis. The low-tech membrane filtration method
provides a low-cost, easy-to-use alternative.
How is our method different from standard
methods?
LCRA's lab and CRWN use similar filtration apparatus and
procedures, with minor differences in connections and type
of vacuum pump. Differences are more apparent in steriliza-
tion and incubation methods. Monitors do not have access to
autoclaves, so sterilization involves allowing equipment to
dry out between samples (usually one week or more), then
rinsing equipment with alcohol and excess deionized water.
For incubation, CRWN monitors use a water bath incuba-
tor made from a simple Igloo cooler equipped with an
aquarium pump and heater. The incubator must be set up a
few days prior to the testing so that the temperature can be
adjusted to the necessary 44.5°C. Many monitors keep the
incubator running constantly to minimize temperature varia-
tions.
Detailed instructions for constructing incubators, as well
as instructions for CRWN's membrane filtration method, are
available from Lower Colorado River Authority, P.O. Box
220, H-202, Austin, TX 78767-0220; telephone 1-800-776-
5272, ext 7634.
How good are the results?
Side-by-side tests were run with a CRWN monitor using our
equipment and the LCRA lab using standard laboratory
procedures. A sterile one-liter container was used to sample
from a creek, and mixed well before subsampling. Five
subsamples were poured into standard 125-ml sterile sample
bottles for LCRA lab analysis. The remaining sample was
subsampled and analyzed using CRWN techniques and equip-
ment. The results were encouraging: a t-test analysis showed
no significant difference between the sets of numbers. We
plan to expand this side-by-side testing in the future, with an
increased number of data points for the statistical analysis.
Experience with this method
This method is more time-consuming than simply collecting
samples for lab analysis. Many monitors are not able to
commit to the approximately 30 minutes it takes to run the
tests and count the plates the next day.
Quality control is another issue. If the incubator is not
maintained at 44.5°C (± 0.2°C), other types of organisms can
grow on the medium. The colonies produced by these organ-
114
-------
Session 5: Bacteria Testing, Part Two
isms will not have the blue color characteristic of fecal
coliform colonies, and monitors are instructed not to count
colonies unless they are blue or partially blue. However, this
is a judgment call that can introduce inaccuracy into the
values.
Monitors are instructed to count all colonies they can see
distinctly and are told that the optimum number of colonies
per plate is 60-80. If more than 200 colonies are counted, they
are to report it as "TMTC" (too many to count). This is a
helpful indication that they should run a greater dilution with
the next sampling time.
Another potential problem is with cross-contamination.
CRWN takes several steps to avoid this problem. As de-
scribed above, monitors sterilize the filtering apparatus with
alcohol and rinse well with deionized water. The highest
dilution is always run first, with multiple rinses with deion-
ized water between dilutions. Blanks are run at the end of
each sample run; if these are not completely free of colonies,
monitors are instructed to discard any data from that sample
run.
Use of the data
CRWN monitors are able to use fecal coliform tests to
identify trouble spots that can then be verified by LCRA
professionals. Elevated fecal counts from two CRWN sites
were used to identify leaking sewage lines that are now slated
for repair. Another monitor's data is used to help determine
the swimming status of a creek in a state park.
Because the CRWN fecal testing is used for screening
purposes and 'trouble spots' are verified by professionals, we
find that this system works well. Using a low-tech filtration
apparatus in combination with the homemade water bath
incubator provides our monitors with an accessible, afford-
able, yet still reasonably accurate method of fecal coliform
testing.
Debra Wirkman
Surfrider Foundation
Bacteria Testing Methods Used by
Surfriders
Who are the Surfriders?
The Surfrider Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedi-
cated to the preservation of the world's waves and beaches
through research, conservation, education, and local activ-
ism. The organization was founded in 1984 by a handful of
surfers who were tired of simply watching and grumbling as
thek treasured surf breaks became trashed, were suddenly.
posted "NO TRESPASSING," or—worst of all—were de-
stroyed forever to make way for new harbors, highways, and
breakwaters.
The Santa Cruz Chapter of Surfrider was founded in the
summer of 1991, and we've been working hard to preserve
and improve our part of the Monterey Bay ever since. After
all, we have a lot to protect. Surfing is a way of life in Santa
Cruz, with its own local culture and heritage.
Unfortunately, there are also some problems. It rains
seasonally here, most streams flow intermittently, and drought
years are common, so our stormwater often carries a large
accumulation of nonpoint source pollutants directly to the
ocean via storm drains. On some beaches, huge storm drains
stand watch above the waves like enemy gargoyles ready to
spew nasties on unsuspecting surfers; regulars complain of
frequent surfing-related sinus infections, flu-like symptoms,
and rashes.
Bacterial testing
Phase 1: Coli-Count Sampler
Water quality assessment has been a high priority for us ever
since our chapter's kick-off meeting. As soon as the national
Surfrider office made the Millipore Coli-Count Sampler tests
available, our chapter purchased them. We were also lucky
enough to obtain a working incubator from a local donor.
With these supplies, and several sterile sampling bottles
provided each week by a local donor, our chapter set up shop
in a corner of a member's art studio. Then, with no water
quality monitoring experience and no more training than a
photocopied sheet of directions could offer, our intrepid
members began collecting samples by boat using the Coli-
Count Sampler.
The Coli-Count Sampler is supposed to work something
like the more sophisticated membrane filtration analysis. A
small paddle is dipped into the sample for 30 seconds, shaken
off, and reinserted into a case. It is then left face down in an
incubator for 24 hours at 35°C. To score the test, the shiny,
blue raised dots that have grown on the paddle's grid are
counted, and the count is multiplied by 100 to obtain the total
coliform count.
Unfortunately, many different colored colonies grew on
the grid, and it was hard for volunteers to tell them apart. Also,
a lot of error is associated with small variations in the 30-
second dipping time. Consequently, our chapter soon gave up
on this method.
Phase 2: Multiple tube fermentation
National Surfrider received complaints about the Coli-Count
Sampler from many members along the U.S. coast. Eventu-
ally, they decided to try another method for total coliform—
multiple tube fermentation (MTF), a much more involved
procedure. To keep things relatively simple, they recom-
mended using pre-mixed, pre-sterilized test kits manufac-
tured by Hach, and made the test kits available to the chapters.
Our chapter purchased several kits from the national
office, but problems quickly became apparent. Some experi-
ence in microbiology is definitely necessary to set up a
procedure for this test from square one.
The most important piece of equipment we didn't have
was an autoclave. Fortunately, we didn' t have to worry about
115
-------
Session 5: Bacteria Testing, Part Two
sterilizing our testing equipment. We were able to purchase
pre-sterilized inoculation supplies and even pre-mixed, ster-
ile, 90-ml portions of buffered dilution water, although these
products are very expensive.
The most probable number index (MPN) is a statistical
estimate of the number of bacteria in a sample, based on
macroscopic observations of aseries of test tubes. A positive
tube is one in which the growth media, or broth, becomes
cloudy and in which a gas bubble has been trapped in a tiny,
inverted vial inside the tube. These conditions must be
observed within 48 (± 4) hours.
Next, a loopful of the broth from each positive tube is
transferred to a second type of broth (Brilliant Green Bile). If
the same observations are made within 48 hours in this broth,
the presence of coliform is confirmed.
As you can see, this test was very time-consuming—it
took4 days to complete it, and at a cost of about $ 1.00 per test
tube plus the other supplies, it was very expensive to do it
properly. Still, we went ahead and gave it the old eco-warrior
try, mainly because this dinosaur of a method was still being
used by our local municipal public health laboratories to test
ocean water.
MPN tests can be more cost-effective for a volunteer lab
if reusable supplies and bulk media are used, but then the
need for equipment (or donated lab facilities) and labor
skyrockets.
Phase 3: Colilert
By this time, we knew we wanted more specific information
about the water we surf in than an estimate of total coliform.
Because total coliform bacteria are ubiquitous in the marine
environment (sources include rotting kelp, sediments, fish,
and mammals), the total colifonn test does not specifically
indicate the presence of potentially unhealthy fecal contami-
nation.
The year 1993 had arrived, and so had a major change in
microbiological water quality monitoring. The EPA had just
approved the use of a new test for determining E. coli in fresh
water and finished drinking water: the Colilert method (Idexx
Laboratories). This method combines two tests in one: total
colifonn and E. coli (E. coliis a species of colifonn). Both are
determined in the same test tube within 24 hours.
The Colilert method relies on two target-specific indica-
tor-nutrient compounds that produce a signal when the nutri-
ent is metabolized. The indicator-nutrient ONPG yields a
yellow color when metabolized by members of the total
colifonn group, and the indicator-nutrient MUG yields fluo-
rescence at 366 nm when metabolized by E. coli.
Although Colilert has not yet been approved by the EPA
for marine waters, there is a specially formulated marine
version available. We did comparison studies, both with our
previous method and with split samples run at the county lab
using membrane filtration for E. coli. Results compared
favorably—well within the expected variability of the meth-
ods.
Samples are collected in sterile Whirlpak bags from an
incoming wave, about 6 inches below the water surface.
Samples are chilled on blue ice or refrigerated at 4°C until
analysis. In the lab, we run five tubes at the 100X dilution for
our regular weekly sampling (10- or 15-tube tests are run to
double-check problem areas whenever funds allow).
After the tubes are incubated for twenty-four hours at 35
±0.5 °C, we score the tests. Using a comparator tube supplied
by the manufacturer, we record a plus for each tube that's at
least as yellow as the comparator. This is the total coliform
portion of the test. Then we darken the room and check for
fluorescence using a long-wave UV lamp. (Check your local
lighting store for an inexpensive one. Be sure to avoid
looking directly at the lamp when it's on.)
For quality control checks, we use E. coli (positive for
both color and fluorescence), Klebsiella pneumoniae (color
only, no fluorescence), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (nega-
tive for both color and fluorescence). We currently obtain
these quality control organisms from the county lab.*
Use of the data
We record our weekly water quality results and the county's
weekly data on our hotline. We also report high bacteria
counts to the County Office of Environmental Health, so they
can do followup sampling (sometimes).
Our data gave us the confidence to fight and win a major
victory against the city of Santa Cruz. The Regional Water
Quality Control B oard recently forced the city to apply for the
first stormwater permit in our region. The board also ordered
that the outfall be clearly posted with permanent warning
signs.
*Our complete Colilert method is available on request. Write
to Surfrider Foundation, Santa Cruz Chapter, Box 3203,
Santa Cruz, CA 95063; or to Debra Wirkman, 1133 Callas
Lane #2, Capitola, CA 95010.
116
-------
Session 5: The Watershed Approach
The Watershed Approach
Moderator: Alice Bamberger, Westchester Land Trust
Presenters: Alice Bamberger; Anna Dunbar, City of Sugar
Land; Dodd Galbreath, Tennessee State Planning Office;
Elbert Moore, U.S. EPA Region 10; Jill Davis, Kootenai
River Network
Workshop Summary
The "Watershed Approach" workshop was designed as a
discussion session for watershed leaders in the audience and
on the panel. Following brief introductory remarks by the
panel moderator, Alice Bamberger, panelists and audience
participated in a brainstorming session to identify the strengths
and challenges of the watershed approach. Based on these
strengths and challenges, guidelines were developed in re-
sponse to the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water's
request that conference members relay to him what they need
to implement the EPA's watershed protection approach.
The "Watershed Approach" workshop was offered twice—
first during Session 5, then repeated during Session 7. The
summary below includes ideas from both sessions.
A. Introduction
Traditional land use planning techniques for preserving open
space are often not sufficient to ensure full protection of
natural resources. For example, one obstacle to long-term
protection of water quality is the extension of the watershed
over more than one planning jurisdiction. A second obstacle
is the prevalent lack of monitoring and enforcement of
existing water protection regulations. The EPA's 1990 Na-
tional Water Quality Inventory tells us that in 1988-1990
states monitored only 36 percent of the nation's river miles
and 47 percent of its lake acres. For data on the remainder, we
must rely on citizen groups.
This reality confirms the premise that despite myriad
statutes on the books that mandate water quality protection,
the laws still don't protect rivers. People do.
A watershed approach shifts the frame of reference from
manmade boundaries (states, towns, neighborhoods, and
school districts) to watersheds that follow natural bound-
aries. With this shift in focus, the community in which we live
becomes defined as part of the natural world we share in
common with others. This new perspective brings with it both
strengths and challenges.
B. Definitions
1. Watershed. A watershed is a geographic area in which
water, sediments, and dissolved materials drain into a com-
mon outlet—a point on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying
aquifer, an estuary, or an ocean (U.S. EPA, The Watershed
Protection Approach: An Overview).
2. Watershed protection approach. The watershed pro-
tection approach is built on three main principles. First, the
target watersheds should be those where pollution poses the
greatest risk to human health, ecological resources, desirable
uses of the water, or a combination of these. Second, all
parties with a stake in the specific local situation should
participate in the analysis of problems and creation of solu-
tions. Third, the actions undertaken should draw on the full
range of methods and tools available, integrating them into a
coordinated, multi-organizational attack on the problems
(U.S. EPA, The Watershed Protection Approach: An Over-
view).
C. Strengths of the watershed approach
The watershed approach provides the basis for:
• proactive programs that target sources of pollution
concerns before they become problems
• consensus-building among watershed constituents
• cooperative relationships
• potential natural resource districts
• cost-sharing between communities
• holistic approach to land-use issues
D. Challenges of the watershed approach
The watershed approach involves the following challenges:
• potential for overextension of limited resources
• whole watershed may be too big for people to develop a
sense of "ownership"
• watershed process is slow, needs time to develop
• technical challenges associated with monitoring a more
complex system
• watershed usually does not coincide with political
boundaries
• difficulties in coordinating multiple agencies that may
have different agendas and charges
• potential problems in transporting volunteers to ends of
large watershed
E. Suggested guidelines for U.S. EPA
The following are the combined ideas of over 150 partici-
pants at the two sessions of the "Watershed Approach"
workshop.
We propose that U.S. EPA consider the following guide-
lines when implementing the watershed protection approach:
• Build partnerships with those in positions to influence
and make decisions. These partnerships should include,
but not be limited to, citizen leaders, private business-
men and women, city and county engineers, planning
professionals, developers, political leaders, and
regulatory agency officials.
• Provide seed money for professional leadership and
technical support to community groups.
• Implement citizen-up consensus-building efforts with
local, county, regional, state, and national groups.
117
-------
Session 5: The Watershed Approach
• Include a public education aspect in the watershed
protection approach as a basis for ownership by all
constituents.
• Recognize the role and contribution of each stakeholder
(constituent groups).
• Provide financial and technical support to decision
makers to develop a cohesive watershed management
plan.
We urge everyone reading this paper to consider how your
organization, agency, or business can build cohesi veness into
the watershed approach. An effective program must be based
on the willingness of the parts to participate for the good of
the whole.
References
U.S. EPA. 1991. The Watershed Approach: An Overview.
EPA 503/9-92-002. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, 4503F, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460.
U.S. EPA. 1992. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990
Report to Congress. EPA 503/9-92-006. Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 4503F, 401 M St.,
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
118
-------
Session 5: Data Analysis for the Technically Impaired
Data Analysis for the
Technically Impaired
Moderator: Ginny Barnes, Audubon Naturalist Society
Presenters: Joyce Lathrop, University of Maryland;
Jonathan Pearson,* Maryland Save Our Streams
Ginny Barnes
Audubon Naturalist Society
Workshop Summary
The discussion portion of this workshop was experimental in
format and designed to be very participatory. We chose to
focus on biological monitoring because it presented more
complex data for interpretation.
The workshop began with Joyce Lathrop's presentation.
Then, using an actual watershed as an example, we gave
participants raw data as well as graphs. Some of the graphs
were deliberately inadequate or even misleading, in order to
test the participants, stimulate their thinking, and show them
that they might not be so technically impaired as they be-
lieved. After presenting the data and graphs, Jonathan Pearson
posed a series of prepared questions, shooting them at audi-
ence members in the style of a game show host.
The workshop stressed the following points:
1. Know what you want to achieve by collecting the data.
2. Remember that you are creating a picture of a watershed.
• Choose metrics (measurements) that relate to your
. goal.
• The more metrics you choose, the clearer your picture
of the watershed.
3. Know the difference between data analysis and data
interpretation.
• Analysis = the use of descriptive and interpretive
statistics to put raw data into an understandable
form.
• Interpretation = what the data mean.
4. Make sure your graphs are meaningful and meet your
needs. How you interpret depends on how you analyze.
5. Avoid "data abuse" hazards.
• Don't try to make your data say something they can't.
• Don't oversimplify.
*no paper submitted
Joyce Lathrop
University of Maryland
Principles of Data Analysis
Data analysis and interpretation concepts can be applied to
any type of monitoring data from terrestrial, aquatic, or
marine systems. Examples provided are from freshwater
systems, especially streams.
When volunteers return from the field, they bring back
raw data or samples. Samples that are brought back (e.g.,
water samples or jars of benthic macroinvertebrates, com-
monly referred to as "bugs" even though most are not true
bugs) are used to generate raw data. The goal of data analysis
is to put this raw data into a form that can be more easily
understood and interpreted. Thus, a picture of the water body
in the context of the surrounding landscape can be created.
Data analysis includes both inferential and descriptive statis-
tics. Inferential statistics examines relationships among vari-
ables (e.g., dissolved oxygen and temperature; invertebrate
community structure and function attributes, also called
metrics). Descriptive statistics is used to create graphic
displays that make the data easier to comprehend and, there-
fore, make interpretation easier. Data interpretation puts
analyzed data together to determine what the data mean.
The types of analyses that may be done with a data set
depend on the type of data available. For example, if one
wants to compare dissolved oxygen levels with temperature,
both must be measured at the same time. Likewise, if quan-
titative analyses are to be done on macroinvertebrate data,
such as determining population densities, the samples must
have been collected by a quantitative method (e.g., multiplate
or Surber sampler). Therefore, data analysis goals should be
set before samples are even collected
Three main types of analysis may be done on data: spatial
comparisons, comparisons between or among variables, and
temporal comparisons. Spatial analyses compare one site to
another (e.g., upstream and downstream or ecoregional ref-
erence condition). Comparisons can be made between chemi-
cal, physical, and biological variables (e.g., habitat and taxa
richness, a measurement of the variety of "bugs" present).
Temporal analyses examine data that have been collected
over some period of time (e.g., over the course of a day or
diurnally, weekly, semiweekly, monthly, seasonally, or
yearly). Care must be taken when manipulating time frames
for data. Data collected every week for a period of years could
be used to tell something about weekly, monthly, seasonal, or
yearly trends; data collected only once a year can only tell
something about year-to-year trends.
Good quality data are essential to proper analysis and
119
-------
Session 5: Data Analysis for the Technically Impaired
correct interpretation. Thus, it is essential that quality assur-
ance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols be written and fol-
lowed. Other workshops discussed QA/QC and it will not be
discussed here. The level of detail available for analysis and
interpretation depend on the level of detail of the data
collected. This is especially true of "bug" data. Some macro-
invertebrate assemblage attributes (metrics) are relevant only
when organisms have been identified to family, genus, or
species levels. For example, the percent EPT (percent of
Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera [stoneflies], and
Trichoptera [caddisflies] in the sample) and the EPT taxa
richness (number of kinds of mayflies, stoneflies, and
caddisflies) are not relevant if these insects have been iden-
tified only to order. Percent EPT and EPT richness are
relevant and important when these insects have been identi-
fied to family, genus or species. Again, decisions need to be
made regarding the type of data analysis desired before
sampling begins. Streamside identification methods usually
rely on order (or higher taxon) level identifications, although
some true flies (diptera) and a few other groups are identified
to family. Preserved samples can be identified to any level
desired.
Only variables that are relevant should be analyzed. For
chemical and physical (habitat, flow, temperature, etc.) vari-
ables and Streamside data collected on macroinvertebrate
assemblages, decisions as to which to measure must be made
before sampling. For macroinvertebrate sampling, some de-
cisions can be made after the sample is collected, provided
that the organisms are preserved and identified in a labora-
tory. In any case, irrelevant variables and comparisons should
be avoided. For example, in Maryland Save Our Stream's
benthic macroinvertebrate collection each volunteer is in-
structed to pick organisms grid by grid until 100 are collected.
It may take one to several grids before 100 organisms are
obtained and once a grid is started all the organisms are
removed from it, so values usually range from 100 to 150.
While very low values (less than 60) can tell us that a stream
is in dire need of help (assuming the volunteers have put forth
great effort to follow proper procedure), generally the num-
ber of "bugs" in a sample is less meaningful.
Measuring a larger number of meaningful variables in-
creases the clarity of the resulting picture of the watershed.
Again, it is important to know what analyses you will want to
do before you begin sampling, obviously, you can't add on
variables that weren' t originally collected. Preserved benthos
samples allow a large number of different metrics to be
analyzed, and decisions about which metrics to use can be
made later. Itis even possible to determine which are the most
relevant metrics after a preliminary analysis of your data.
Structural attributes are based on the types of organisms
(taxa) found and include EPT richness, taxa richness (total
number of different kinds), percent dominant taxon, and
biotic indices, among others. Functional attributes are based
on how the organisms obtain food and include scraper-to-
filterer ratios. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols de-
scribe several possible metrics. Volunteer groups should
check with their state agencies for the ones being used by their
state.
Care should be taken when graphing the variables. Avoid
overcrowding the graph. It's better to have several good
graphs than one confusing one. Some variables lend them-
selves to using a single graph. For example, taxa richness,
EPT taxa richness and non-EPT taxa richness could easily be
shown on the same graph. Variables with very different
ranges are best shown on separate graphs. If you really want
to put them on the same graph, then both a Y and a Y2 axis
are used for showing scales and labeling. For example,
habitat data that ranges from 0 to 166 and biological score that
ranges from 9 to 42 can be shown on a graph together if a Y
and Y2 axis are used and labeled with the two different scales.
Bar graphs work well when data are compared between sites
(spatial) and for year-to-year changes (temporal). Line graphs
work well for displaying data collected at short intervals
(temporal) and for comparing variables with other variables
(e.g., DO and temperature). Pie charts are acceptable for
comparing percentages (e.g., percentage of sites in unim-
paired, moderately impaired, and severely impaired catego-
ries), but are otherwise not very useful.
In making interpretations, volunteers should recognize
what their data can and cannot tell them. Remember that the
more detail you have in your data, the more discriminatory
power you have. All data should be compared to a standard
or reference. Chemical data are compared to an established
standard. Consult your state or EPA for these standards.
Biological data should be analyzed and interpreted in relation
to some established reference. Ideally, data should be com-
pared to a reference condition developed from many years of
data collected from several reference sites. Data can also be
compared to a single reference site. In either case the refer-
ence sites chosen are the least-affected comparable (e.g.,
third order stream to third order stream) water bodies in either
the same ecoregion or the same area. Upstream/downstream
comparisons can also be made. These are less desirable in
many cases (depending on your data objectives) since the
upstream site may also be impaired.
Interpretation also involves trying to determine whether
some human activity has affected the water body. Sources of
variation from an accepted value (reference or standard)
include (1) error in measurement or collection, (2) natural
variation (e.g., different season, weather conditions) between
sites or sampling times, and (3) human impact. The first two
should be ruled out before any definitive statement about
human impact is made. QA/AC protocols reduce the first;
information about weather and other natural variables can
help eliminate the second.
120
-------
Session 5: Interdisciplinary Approach to Monitoring
An Interdisciplinary Approach to
Monitoring
Moderator: Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Center
Presenters: BUI Stapp, GREEN; Robert Williams, Illinois
Rivers Project; Lisa Bryce-Lewis, NW Watershed Alliance
Dr. William B. Stapp
Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
(GREEN)
Project GREEN: An Interdisciplinary,
International Student Network
One challenge for educators entails more effectively convey-
ing fundamental science and environmental information.
While it may be difficult to get excited about the periodic
table, people are intrinsically captivated by the world around
them. Environmental education—giving shape and meaning
to the principles of the natural and social sciences through the
tangible and the visible—has proven to be an effective tool
for engaging people's interest. Many environmental educa-
tors see education heading in a direction that includes the
weakening of subject barriers, making education more rel-
evant, focusing on creativity and curiosity, linking local and
international issues, meeting the learning needs of all chil-
dren, and creating partnerships between schools and the
scientific, business, and neighborhood communities.
GREEN—A brief history
L The Huron River Project
The seeds for GREEN (Global Rivers Environmental Educa-
tion Network) were planted in 1984 when University of
Michigan faculty and students developed an interactive water
monitoring project with teachers and students from high
schools located in the Huron River watershed in southeast
Michigan. Huron High School was an ideal site for imple-
menting a pilot water quality monitoring program because it
lies near Gallup Park on the Huron River, and because
students windsurfed at Gallup Park and jumped from its
bridges. There had been reports of windsurfers getting ear
infections and diarrhea; at least one individual reported
getting hepatitis A. All of these illnesses could be linked to
the water quality at Gallup Park.
Huron High School science classes learned how to safely
and accurately run nine water quality tests that constitute the
National Sanitation Foundation's Water Quality Index. These
nine tests are dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH, bio-
chemical oxygen demand, temperature, nitrates, total phos-
phates, turbidity,.and total solids.
Of these tests, fecal coliform was the most revealing in
regard to public health concerns of students. Through the water
quality monitoring program, students measured levels of
1,500-4,500 fecal coliform colonies/100 ml of water—many
times higher than acceptable levels for total body contact.
Students discovered that storm sewers upriver from Gallup
Park were implicated as the primary source of fecal coliform
bacteria. In response to this situation, students began to
compose letters of concern to the newspaper, the city council,
the County Health Department, and the Ann Arbor Parks and
Recreation Department. The result of student efforts, citizen
response, and a School of Public Health study was the
erection of a sign at Gallup Park warning the public not to
windsurf after rains.
During 1985 and 1986, the project grew to include several
other schools along the Huron River. The experiences and
insights gained on the Huron River set the stage for work
along the Rouge River.
2. The Rouge River Project
To those who lived near the Rouge, it was a river of aban-
doned automobiles, discarded shopping carts, eroded banks,
mammoth log jams, raw sewage, and toxic sediments. The
urgency of these problems, and the need to educate young
people and communities about them, provided compelling
reasons to apply the Huron River Program to the Rouge.
The goals for the Rouge Project included:
• linking diverse schools and communities—rural,
suburban, and urban—through the common thread of
the Rouge River
• providing a watershed focus and watershed-wide
monitoring
• developing an informed citizenry
• increasing student problem-solving skills
• providing an interdisciplinary focus (social, political,
economic, and ecological)
• promoting student empowerment and action-taking
The scope and sequence of activities were designed with
the project goals in mind and revolved around two key
content areas—water quality monitoring and computer net-
working.
3. An international network
The Huron River and Rouge River projects led to the devel-
opment of an international network involving thousands of
students from multiple watersheds. Students, teachers, com-
munity leaders, government officials, and university re-
source people are brought together by the linking of water
systems and schools using computers and face-to-face work-
shops. Through the program, students learn about the local
history, land usage, and water quality of their watersheds in
a hands-on project. With the help of an interactive computer
121
-------
Session 5: Interdisciplinary Approach to Monitoring
conference, students share data, concerns, strategies, and
courses of action as they strive to improve the rivers that they
research.
Characteristically, at the end of each project, students
from all parts of the watershed meet at an annual Student
Congress where they discuss the results of their monitoring
activities, assess the state of the watershed, participate in
workshops on various action-taking skills, and, finally, come
up with concrete plans of action to improve the quality of the
local river.
Involvement in GREEN gives students the opportunity to
learn about the common dimensions and shared concerns of
local water uses and to communicate with each other in
addressing their local issues. Projects take on an interdiscipli-
nary approach as history, social studies, humanities, and
geography are incorporated to enrich students' understand-
ing of river issues.
During the last four years a variety of new elements have
been added to the watershed monitoring programs, including
heavy metals testing, cross-cultural links with sister water-
sheds elsewhere in the world, social studies simulation games,
and groundtruthing. GREEN has recently worked with the
Aspen Global Change Institute's Ground Truth Studies Project
Curriculum and NASA in developing a teacher handbook for
Ground Truth Studies which includes classroom use of
innovative environmental monitoring techniques (i.e., the
use of LandSat satellite images) in monitoring water quality
and assessing environmental change (Aspen Global Change
Institute, 1994).
Key issues
Our experience with GREEN watershed monitoring pro-
grams, and feedback from teachers and program coordina-
tors, have led to the identification of the following key issues
which need to be addressed to improve the overall quality of
programs that involve school-based environmental monitor-
ing:
• Collaborative teaching in the social studies and the
sciences remains problematic even though there are
many teachers in both disciplines with good intentions
in this direction.
• Teachers have difficulty integrating experientially-
oriented educational programs into their regular school
curriculum.
• Teachers' lack of confidence and familiarity in working
on water quality issues can either (a) make the success
of GREEN-type programs become dependent upon
outside support (e.g., university personnel) or (b) lead
to the elimination of unconventional, but important,
components of the program (e.g., simulation games,
land-use surveys, computer conferencing, and data
graphing). Teachers need to be given opportunities to
familiarize themselves with these innovative strategies
and adapt them to their own classroom practice.
Additionally, GREEN needs to tap the innovative
teaching strategies many experienced teachers already
use and make those available to others.
• Teachers' lack of familiarity with computer telecommu-
nications reduces the potential of computer networking.
Strategies need to be developed to help teachers take
full advantage of telecommunications networks.
• Lack of teacher input in program development weakens
the program. Experienced teachers (master teachers)
need to play a bigger role in designing, evaluating, and
disseminating the program.
• Not following a set curriculum brings many unknowns to
the classroom. For instance, many teachers have
difficulty identifying and utilizing the key players and
information resources in their watershed. There is a
need to help teachers cope with the uncertainties and
unknowns of this type of educational program.
Bibliography
Barnett, M. R. 1989. Educational policy trends in a
neoconservative era. In Black Education: A Quest for
Equity and Excellence. W.D. Smith and E.W. Chunn,
eds. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Beebe, A. 1989. Recovering the Rouge—or, The river as
classroom. Natural Resources News 39.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Continuum Publishers.
Hale-Benson, J. 1986. Black Children: Their Roots,
Culture and Learning Styles. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Kazenberger, John. 1993. Ground Truth Studies Curricu-
lum Program. Aspen Global Change Institute, Aspen,
Colorado.
Kemmis, S. 1982. Action Research. In International
Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies. T.
Husen and T.H. Postelthwaite, eds. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kozol, J. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in
America's Schools. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
Mitchell, M. and W.B. Stapp. 1994. Field Manual for
Water Quality Monitoring: An Environmental Educa-
tion Program for Schools. 8th Edition. Dexter, Michi-
gan: Thomson-Shore.
Dr. Robert Williams
Rivers Curriculum Project, Southern Illinois University
The Rivers Curriculum Project
The Illinois Rivers Project began in February 1990 as a pilot
program involving eight high schools along the Mississippi
and lower Illinois Rivers. With scientific literacy as the
ultimate goal of the Project, students from each of the
participating schools collect and analyze water samples from
122
-------
Session 5: Interdisciplinary Approach to Monitoring
various test sites along both rivers. The study of the rivers was
extended to include historical, social, and/or economic impli-
cations of the state of the rivers, thus involving students from
classes across the curricular areas of science, social studies,
and English. SOILED NET, a telecommunication network
linking all of the participating schools with each other and the
Project headquarters, provides a technological framework
for many of the Project's activities.
The Rivers Project Network has grown to include over
300 schools in an eight-state region. Funding has come from
a variety of sources: Illinois State Board of Education Scien-
tific Literacy program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Illi-
nois Board of Higher Education, Dwight D. Eisenhower Title
II Program, National Science Foundation, and Illinois Bell.
The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
and Illinois Bell have both provided funding for the produc-
tion of the Project's student-authored publication,
Meanderings.
Meanderings, an annual compilation of students' writ-
ings, provides the opportunity for students to have their work
published. From their study of the river and their surrounding
communities, scientific and otherwise, students produce re-
ports, articles, essays, and creative writings. To date, 14
editions of Meanderings have been published. Students are
also invited to submit articles for publication in the Project
newsletter, The River Watchers' Log.
The Project held its Fourth Annual Illinois Rivers Project
Student Congress in March. Students from high schools in
Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Indiana gathered in Peoria to
share with each other the ideas and experiences gained as a
result of their participation in the Project. Topics ranged from
the scientific (water quality data) to the historic (slide presen-
tations of local history) to the creative (original music and
puppet shows). Response to the Congress was enthusiastic;
plans are already in progress for next year's event.
Two major projects continue to develop. First, a National
Science Foundation grant has allowed the Project to develop
a formal "Rivers Curriculum" in the areas of chemistry,
biology, earth science, geography, and language arts that will
be applicable to any river in the world. A group of teacher/
writers and content specialists gathered in August, 1991, to
draft the curriculum. The Project sponsored a Rivers Curricu-
lum Training Session in August of 1992 for 99 interested
teachers andin 1993 for 195 teachers from across the country.
Second, a cooperative effort has been undertaken with the
Illinois Natural History Survey and the University of Illinois'
Water Resources Center to help monitor the zebra mussel as
it enters the Midwest. Each school received two monitoring
devices through a grant from the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
Program. Participating schools will continue to monitor the
water quality in their respective areas. The data collected will
be transmitted to the Environmental Management Technical
Center (a division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) in
Onalaska, Wisconsin, and will be used by the EEPA.
For further information contact Dr. Robert Williams,
Project Director, or Cindy Bidlack, Project Coordinator,
Southern Illinois University, Box 2222, Edwardsville, IL
62026. Phone: 618-692-3788; FAX: 618-692-3359;
INTERNET: rivers@eville.uiuc.fred.org
Lisa Bryce Lewis
NW Watershed Education Alliance
Some Practical Tips for School-
Based Monitoring Programs
In setting the stage, Dr. Bill Stapp has discussed why an
interdisciplinary approach is important. Bill has provided a
historical context for school-based monitoring programs by
discussing the evolution of the Global Rivers Environmental
Education Network (GREEN), and has talked about the
current status of monitoring with schools.
My remarks are designed to build on this foundation by
discussing practical aspects of interdisciplinary school-based
monitoring, and to provide some guidance to groups inter-
ested in working with schools on how to design programs that
will work in a school setting.
/. Community support
It is very important to work toward making a school-based
monitoring program self-sustaining, so that it won't die if a
key teacher leaves. One way to do this is to build a network,
or circle, of local support for sustaining the program. Work-
ing with GREEN, we have developed a flow of partnerships
from the national to regional levels designed to help open
doors at the local watershed level for multiple partnerships
over the long term (see Figure 1). Building long-lasting
relationships at the local level is at the heart of sustainability.
It takes time and persistence as the program and its partners
learn and evolve together. For example, the City of Olympia
has made the local watershed education program (Budd/
Deschutes Project Green) a line item in its annual budget.
Similarly, a school district is incorporating the GREEN
model into their entire middle school curriculum, across
disciplines, by partnering, schools and community players
share the successes and move innovative educational ap-
proaches from the "fringe" to the "core," embedded within
the system.
2. Advisory board
Form an advisory board that contains wide community rep-
resentation. Include people who are involved in decision
making; people who have a buy-in to the program and can
help sell the idea to their peers.
3. Watershed coordinator
A coordinator who serves as a link between the school system
and the community is critical to success— "People work with
people." The coordinator serves as a liaison, keeping com-
munication going and leveraging support for the monitoring
program. The coordinator should be someone who knows
123
-------
Session 5: Interdisciplinary Approach to Monitoring
both the school system and the community structures, and
who (preferably) is locally based.
4. "What is in it for them"
Whether you are discussing your project with people from
school administrative systems or businesses, agencies, local
jurisdictions, or volunteers, you need to spell out what is in it
for them. What will they gain by being involved in your
collaborative effort? School districts have systemic plans,
with goals and objectives. How will working with you on
monitoring and community projects help them meet their
goals? Be explicit.
5. Assessment
In assessing the success of your program, think about what
outcomes each player is seeking. Evaluate your results based
on the goals identified by those involved. Be sure that the
objectives considered are relevant to all the players—i.e.,
business partners, local jurisdictions, state and federal agency
partners, students, teachers, and, ultimately, the environ-
ment. Don't forget that last "player"; you want and need to
have environmental improvements as well.
NW Alliance - Regional ]
Watershed Project-Local \
I I "
City and
County
Govt's
Chamber of
Comm^Rotary
Club
Local
Colleges
Figure 1. "Wheel of partners."
6. Be incremental
Involve just a segment of teachers at first, then more—for
example, start with just elementary teachers, or just second-
ary; or with teachers from just one school per district. We
recommend starting with self-selected teachers first; they can
be catalysts for greater school and district participation—the
enthusiasm is contagious.
7. Student Congress
A yearly Student Congress brings community and schools
together, with students as leaders. Students have an opportu-
nity to share with one another and with the community what
they have discovered (data, interviews, etc.); their ideas for
taking action based on their information; and, perhaps, the
results of their community action.
8. Teacher training/Community training
An annual teacher training institute provides a forum for
connecting teachers to the community. By involving commu-
nity members (local governments, civic organizations, busi-
nesses) in the institute, teachers can learn of upcoming
community projects that could use student help (e.g., a stream
rehabilitation project), and teachers can increase their under-
standing of local issues and perspectives on the issues. Panel
formats work well for these objectives, followed by interac-
tive opportunities.
9. Teacher meetings
Hold regular meetings during the school year of teachers
from throughout the watershed (i.e., interdistrict) to learn and
share with each other, and to plan. This provides support to
teachers (many of whom are otherwise out on their own
with their innovative teaching) and increases participants'
sense of watershed identity.
10. Money for buses and substitutes
One of the biggest obstacles in a school-based moni-
toring program is transportation—simply getting the
students out to the field. You also need to think about
providing substitutes for secondary teachers who must be
gone more than one period of the day for field work. Funders
typically like to fund such discrete parts of a program,
especially when their money helps get kids to the river.
11. Special Education involvement
Never underestimate what "challenged" students can do.
Outside of the traditional classroom, these students are find-
ing out they can contribute to the community and really make
a difference.
The "why" of interdisciplinary monitoring is really synony-
mous in my mind with community-based learning. When
community and schools work together, the elements dis-
cussed are worth considering as steps you can take to build
strong interdisciplinary, locally beneficial monitoring and
service programs.
124
-------
Session 5: Partnerships with Federal Agencies
Building Partnerships with Federal
Government Agencies
Moderator: Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Part-
nership
Presenters: Don Duff, USDA Forest Service National Part-
nership Coordinator; Susan Harris, National Park Service
River and Trail Conservation Assistance Program; Alice
Mayio, U.S. EPA; Tom Muir,* U.S. Geological Survey
Citizen Monitoring Liaison; Dave Nolte, Bureau of Land
Management's Bring Back the Natives Program Coordinator
Jerry Schoen
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Introductory Remarks
Federal environmental agencies can be broken down into
several categories:
I. Land management agencies
A. Forest Service
The FS of the USDA manages land and water resources on
some 156 national forests and grasslands across the country.
It is responsible for providing clean water and habitat for fish
and wildlife resources, which happen to include about 50
percent of all the trout and salmon resources in the U.S. It also
manages lands for other multiple uses, such as timber produc-
tion, livestock grazing, mineral, and oil and gas development.
The Forest Service is divided into 9 regions around the
country, each of which contains 10 or more forest or grass-
land units. Each forest unit may have several districts. Man-
agement and monitoring decisions are made at each of these
levels.
B. Bureau of Land Management
The BLM of the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)
manages some 272 million acres of public land (about 48
percent of all federal lands), mostly in the Western U.S.
These lands include approximately 155,000 miles of streams
and rivers and 4.1 million surface acres of ponds, lakes, and
reservoirs. Like the Forest Service, BLM manages for mul-
tiple uses such as fish and wildlife, timber, grazing, etc.
BLM is organized in a regionalized structure by geo-
graphic location of public lands managed at a state office
level. Under each state office are BLM Districts, which also
include one or more Resource Areas. For example, Oregon
has 11 Districts. One of these, the Prineville District, has two
Resource Areas: Central Oregon and Deschutes. In order to
accommodate ecosystem management, the BLM is currently
reorganizing, with some districts probably to be combined
into "provinces." These changes will take place over the next
year.
*No paper submitted
In attempting to balance multiple uses, both FS and BLM
tend to focus on water quality impacts of sedimentation,
streambank erosion and other fish habitat alteration, tem-
perature, dissolved oxygen levels, pH and toxicity problems
associated with mine effluent, and other traditional point and
nonpoint problems. Biological monitoring, both benthic in-
vertebrate monitoring and fish sampling, is becoming an
increasingly important assessment and management tool for
these agencies.
II. Land conservation and service-related
agencies
A. National Park Service
The National Park Service is charged with conserving "the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife
therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations." Two branches of NPS
are of particular interest to volunteer monitors. The most well
known of these is the National Park system, which manages
Parks, Monuments, Seashores, and Recreation areas across
the nation. Public involvement with these units is usually
limited to often perfunctory hearings within abutting towns
and counties.
Today we're going to feature a different aspect of the
NPS—the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance pro-
gram. This program advocates and assists community-based
conservation to protect rivers, trails, and greenways. In other
words, their focus is more on helping citizen groups help the
rivers, rather than getting help from citizens to manage the
resource themselves.
RTCA staff are found in each of 10 regional offices
throughout the country, and at several state-level field of-
fices. Contact with the RTCA program is usually made
through the regional and field offices.
B. Soil Conservation Service
The mission of the SCS is to promote conservation of natural
resources through technical assistance to farmers, ranchers,
and local communities.
The primary organizational unit of SCS is the state. States
are organized into state offices, where the planning and
engineering staffs and resource specialists work. Several area
offices within each state are mostly administrative in func-
tion. Field offices (usually one per county) consist of a district
conservationist and zero to three staff. In addition, four
National Technical Centers provide technical support to the
state organizations.
SCS works in very close partnership with Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCDs), which are locally elected
(volunteer) boards with quasi-government functions. There
125
-------
Session 5: Partnerships with Federal Agencies
is generally one SWCD for each field office. SCS is a far-
flung organization and most Field Offices have a lot of
latitude in decision making.
Historically, SCS was mostly concerned with getting soil
and water conservation practices adopted and not with mea-
suring environmental quality or the effectiveness of conser-
vation practices. SCS is now looking to better quantify the
water quality effects of conservation practices. SCS has
traditionally worked primarily with farmers. They are now
also heavily involved in urban stormwater runoff and other
nonpoint pollution problems.
III. Regulatory and science-related agencies
A. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA is an independent agency charged by Congress to
protect all the nation's land, air, and water systems. It oper-
ates under a mandate of national environmental laws such as
the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and similar
laws. Its role is basically to implement those laws by devel-
oping environmental regulations, ensuring the compliance of
government and industry with those regulations, issuing
guidelines when regulations don't apply (e.g., voluntary
nonpoint pollution management activities), and overseeing
state environmental programs.
EPA has a Headquarters Office in Washington, DC, 10
Regional Offices, and a number of laboratories around the
country. Its operational style is fairly centralized: generally
HQ develops policy, programs, regulations, and guidance,
and looks to the regional offices to implement them. It is the
regional office staffwho work most closely with state and
local agencies and the public. As a whole the EPA is not very
cducalional/outreach-oriented, although that is changing.
B. Fish and Wildlife Service
The FWS of the USDI is the lead federal agency in the
conservation of migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, certain mammals, and sport fishes. This includes the
management of a system of National Wildlife Refuges and
national fish hatcheries, and enforcement of regulations and
Acts covering the management and protection of these spe-
cies. FWS often conducts studies on impacts of human
activities on various wildlife species.
C. U.S. Geological Survey
The mission of the USGS is to provide geologic, topographic,
and hydrologic information that contributes to the respon-
sible management of the nation's natural resources. To ac-
complish this mission the USGS conducts and sponsors
research in geology, hydrology, mapping, and related sci-
ences.
USGS conducts many water research and water quality
monitoring activities, the largest of which is the National
WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. NAWQAis
designed to determine the status and trends of the nation's
rivers, streams, and groundwater, and to provide a scientific
understanding of the natural and human factors affecting the
quality of these resources.
126
Donald A. Duff
National Partnership Coordinator,
Forest Service/Trout Unlimited
Forest Service Partnerships
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
manages land and water resources on some 156 National
Forests and Grasslands across the country for the public' s use
and enjoyment. This covers some 191,000 acres of lands,
128,000 miles of stream, and 2.2 million acres of lakes and
reservoirs, as well as 16,500 miles of coastline.
Trout Unlimited partnership
The Forest Service program goal, in working with Trout
Unlimited and other conservation groups, is to build volun-
teer opportunities for citizen angler and interested stream
observers, utilizing both educational and technical skills, for
the conservation and management of watershed and stream
ecosystems on the National Forests. This Forest Service and
Trout Unlimited Partnership is a joint cooperative effort of
the Forest Service's Rise to the Future Fisheries Program to
expand the national emphasis and visibility of aquatic habitat
and fisheries resources in National Forests across the nation.
The Rise to the Future Fisheries Program meshes with Trout
Unlimited" s Embrace-A-Stream Program for the protection
and management of streams and watershed resources for
fisheries and water quality needs. Another important compo-
nent of the program is the Bring Back the Natives initiative,
which emphasizes the on-the-ground conservation, protec-
tion, and management of native fishes, especially those that
are threatened, endangered, or at risk from threats that could
lead to their extinction.
The Forest Service and Trout Unlimited cooperate with
the USDI BLM in all these program initiatives to jointly
involve volunteers in the process of watershed restoration
and protection through a water quality and aquatic resources
monitoring program on federal lands that are administered by
each agency, many times side by side within a watershed.
Forest Service information needs
The Forest Service has many resource information needs,
most of which concern the condition, status, and trend of the
natural resources. But information on the interests and con-
cerns of citizens, both those living the local area and those
who visit the area, is also needed. Many of the needs involve
the gathering and collection or inventory and monitoring of
natural resources, especially physical and biological resources
of the land and waters, with the wildlife that uses them, so that
informed management decisions may be based in part on
citizen participation. Volunteer assistance in gathering this
information can be used at all levels of management, espe-
cially at the Ranger District level.
Volunteer opportunities
Volunteer opportunities for inventory and monitoring of land
and water resources, including the physical, chemical, and
-------
Session 5: Partnerships with Federal Agencies
biological characteristics, are available on all National For-
ests. Volunteers may be recruited and trained, or they may ask
to be involved by contacting individual National Forests.
They can assist forest personnel in the collection of water
quality data needs. These citizens' collections, along with
routine forest monitoring and research data, help the agency
meet the intent of the Clean Water Act, and other national
environmental policies for clean air, water, and lands.
Forest Service volunteers are selected without regard to
gender, race, religion, or disability. Those under 18 years
usually serve as a member of a group and must have written
consent of a parent or guardian. The Forest Service will work
with organized groups to identify, design, and construct
cooperative "partnership" projects that can enhance or re-
cover the natural resources on National Forests. Usually, the
group works under a "formalized" agreement or memoran-
dum of understanding, which could be operational at either
the local, regional, or national level. For more information on
specific volunteer activities in your area, contact your closest
National Forest or Ranger District Office.
Susan Harris
National Park Service; Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program
Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program
The mission of the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assis-
tance Program (RTCA) is to advocate and assist community-
based conservation action to protect rivers, trails, and
greenways. Our program is oriented toward local communi-
ties and is based on the principle of partnerships—RTCA can
help bring together residents, landowners, private organiza-
tions, and government agencies to conserve an area's natural
and cultural resources.
Interested nonprofit organizations, local governments,
and states can request assistance from RTCA for their par-
ticular conservation effort. RTCA helps these groups to
identify resources, understand the issues, set goals, and
choose among alternatives. The goals and needs of river
protection, restoration, and enhancement projects vary ac-
cording to the specific conditions. However, for many creek,
river, or watershed projects, water quality is a critical issue.
Increasingly, volunteer water quality monitoring is a valu-
able and effective component of these projects, both as an
important data resource and as an effective way to involve
people in river stewardship.
When volunteer water quality monitoring is identified as
beneficial to a particular project, as part of the overall project
coordination RTCA staff can help link interested volunteers,
monitoring expertise, and appropriate agencies. RTCA could
also assist a project in attracting financial support and help
coordinate effective use of monitoring information by vari-
ous entities.
If the conservation project involves an adjacent National
Park Service unit, you should contact the park unit directly to
gain their involvement. In some cases, a National Park site
may offer a publicly accessible location to conduct sampling.
As the National Park Service's work continues to extend
beyond park boundaries, both the Rivers, Trails and Conser-
vation Assistance program and National Park units can
become new partners in volunteer water quality monitoring
efforts.
For more information on the Rivers, Trails and Conserva-
tion Assistance Program nationwide, contact:
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
P. O. Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 343-3780
Alice Mayio
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's Volunteer Monitoring
Program
Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with
you today about federal roles in volunteer monitoring. EPA
has supported volunteer monitoring for many years, starting
with sponsorship of the first national conference for volun-
teers in Rhode Island in 1988.
Why does EPA care about volunteer
monitoring?
First, we recognize the need for educated stewards of the
environment—folks who practice pollution prevention and
educate others" about water quality issues.
Second, it is clear that federal, state, and local water
quality managers need the data volunteers can provide. Only
a small fraction of the nation's waters—about 20 percent of
streams and rivers and less than half our lakes—are moni-
tored every two years by the states. We need more compre-
hensive monitoring data to help us make better decisions
about where to put increasingly scarce funds to work fighting
pollution. This is really the driving need behind EPA's
support of the volunteer monitoring movement.
There are three major points I would like you to take back
with you today about EPA's volunteer monitoring program:
1. Guidance and assistance
First, EPA's role is one of encouraging volunteer monitoring
through two main vehicles: guidance/technical assistance
and outreach. Technical assistance involves developing tech-
nical guidance for volunteers and program sponsors on how
to monitor and how to set up programs; we also provide some
technical assistance, mostly at the regional level and prima-
rily in quality assurance. Outreach involves spreading the
127
-------
Session 5: Partnerships with Federal Agencies
word about volunteer monitoring by developing tools for
information exchange (such as The Volunteer Monitornews-
letter, brochures, an electronic bulletin board forum for
volunteers, and regional and national conferences), and en-
couraging states to support volunteer programs.
It's important to note that EPA doesn't manage volun-
teers, give people sampling kits, organize cleanups, or di-
rectly fund volunteer programs. The only opportunities ac-
tual volunteers have to really "work with EPA" is as advisors
and reviewers, helping us develop the guidance, manuals,
and outreach tools for the program.
2. EPA's grants process
The second major pointl'd like you to take home with you is
that, next to issuing volunteer monitoring documents and
outreach tools, I believe EPA's greatest contribution to
volunteer monitoring is through its grants process.
Under various provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
EPA issues grants to the states to help control pollution.
These include nonpoint source control grants (Section 319 of
the CWA), Clean Lakes water quality assessment grants
(Section 314), and National Estuary Program grants (Section
320).
These grants are administered through the 10 EPA re-
gions, which solicit grant proposals from the states and
review and approve or disapprove them. Under these CWA
sections, EPA gives grant money to the state water quality
agencies, who in turn may either use the money themselves
or pass it through to local and regional governments,
nonprofits, academics, and others.
How have these grant programs been used to support
volunteer monitoring?
• Nonpoint source control grants have been used to set
up volunteer programs that monitor the effects of
nonpoint source management activities or that identify
nonpoint source pollution problems so controls can be
implemented.
• Clean Lakes water quality assessment grants have
been used for years to fund volunteer programs which
are many states' primary source of information on lake
conditions.
• National Estuary Program grants help fund the
development of comprehensive management plans in
estuaries of national significance; volunteer monitors
and other citizen groups are often involved in develop-
ing these plans.
In all three cases, highest priority for funding generally
goes to projects that generate quality data using accepted
techniques and following approved quality assurance proto-
cols. Many of these projects also include public education
components.
3. A small program—so far
The third and last point I'd like you to carry away this
afternoon is that EPA's volunteer monitoring program is
really quite small. At Headquarters in Washington, DC, it
consists basically of myself (in the monitoring program), and
one person in the coastal program who has some volunteer
monitoring responsibilities. There are also staff in the 10 EPA
regional offices who include volunteer monitoring in their
job descriptions. However, almost all of these regional vol-
unteer monitoring coordinators have a wide range of addi-
tional responsibilities and can devote only small amounts of
time to volunteer monitoring support. How much time they
can devote to volunteer monitoring depends on the manage-
ment priorities of their regions, and varies a great deal
between regions.
I hope that as volunteer monitoring programs continue to
flourish and more and more water quality managers at all
levels of government come to recognize their value, EPA's
support will continue to grow. To help make that happen, I
urge you to connect up with the EPA volunteer coordinators
in your regions; let them know what your program is doing;
invite them and their managers to your meetings, and seek
their advice. And if you have any questions about EPA's
program, or about our documents, outreach tools, or confer-
ences, don't hesitate to get in touch with me at U. S. EPA,
4503F, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
David A. Nolte
Trout Unlimited/Bring Back the Natives Coordinator
Bring Back the Natives
BLM program goal
To guide the continued management of fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) has initiated a major strategy, Fish & Wildlife 2000—
A Plan/or the Future. This strategy outlines a comprehensive
master plan for the effective long-term management of fish,
wildlife, and special status plant resources on public lands. It
encourages cooperation between the BLM and all groups,
public or private.
There are approximately 18 National Strategy Plans asso-
ciated with Fish & Wildlife 2000. These include Bring Back
the Natives, Neotropical/Nongame Migratory Bird Conser-
vation Plan, Waterfowl Habitat Management on Public Lands,
Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990's, Anadromous
Fish Habitat Management, and Special Status Fishes Habitat
Management. The BLM is working with Trout Unlimited,
the nation's leading coldwater fisheries conservation group,
and other conservation groups to involve volunteers in the
process of watershed and riverine restoration on public lands.
Information needs
The agency has a variety of information needs related to
managing public lands. Essential is the gathering of informa-
tion related to the status and trends of the resource. Monitor-
128
-------
Session 5: Partnerships with Federal Agencies
ing of watersheds and areas of critical concern, scientific
research, compilation of data, and development of informa-
tion to aid in public participation and management of public
lands are all areas where citizens can be involved as volun-
teers.
Volunteer opportunities
Volunteers are involved with a diversity of opportunities
including fish and wildlife, recreation, range management
and forestry, energy and minerals, archaeology and history,
watersheds, administrative support, public information, wild
horses/burros, engineering and surveying, data management,
planning and wilderness for group or individual interests.
Water-quality-related activities include assisting BLM pro-
fessionals in soil and water conservation projects, riparian
protection, erosion control, stream temperature monitoring,
water quality sampling, and habitat surveys, and participa-
tion in resource management planning by aiding in the
identification of areas of critical concern.
Most BLM volunteers serve part-time during a particular
season, weekend, or project. BLM volunteers have the same
benefits as federal government employees for compensation
for work-related inj uries and tort claims protection. Although
volunteers contribute their services without pay, they may
deduct out-of-pocket expenses on income tax returns within
the limits set by tax laws. If a volunteer is a member of an
organized group, BLM personnel will work with the group to
identify or design a cooperative volunteer "partnership"
project that the group can work on together. This is usually
formalized by a cooperative agreement or memorandum of
understanding and may occur at the local, state, or national
level.
Bring Back the Natives
Bring Back the Natives is funded by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC. This key national
fishery program is the first national campaign combining two
major federal agencies, the USDA-Forest Service and USDI-
Bureau of Land Management, with partnerships including
state agencies, local organizations, private businesses, citi-
zens and landowners, and Trout Unlimited. This program
seeks to restore the health of entire riverine systems and then-
native species through a cooperative effort that stresses
improved watershed and ecosystem management. Currently
28 projects are being funded through this program nationally.
Successful implementation of the Bring Back the Natives
program will substantially benefit watersheds, water quality,
and endemic fishes. Local communities, including private
business, landowners, and citizens, are encouraged to seek
partnerships with the Bureau of Land Management and/or
USDA Forest Service for watershed-level projects that meet
Bring Back the Natives program criteria. The BLM needs to
expand its habitat enhancement and educational opportuni-
ties and work with a multitude of partners to accomplish
management objectives and goals of fishery strategies such
as Bring Back the Natives offers.
Bring Back the Natives is now serving as a model for other
agencies. For example, through Fisheries Across America,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is replicating the model of
Bring Back the Natives. These types of programs will serve
as catalysts for change and involvement of all citizens con-
cerned about the future quality of our watersheds, our water,
and our planet's life.
129
-------
Regional Breakout Discussion Session
Regional Breakout Discussion Session
On the morning of April 12 (the second day of the confer-
ence), participants broke into small discussion groups ac-
cording to which of EPA's nine geographical regions they
represented. The breakout groups were charged with these
three tasks:
1. Develop a vision for the future of volunteer monitoring.
2. Identify obstacles to the use of volunteer-collected
monitoring data.
3. Recommend "next steps" volunteer monitors should
take to improve data use and strengthen volunteer
monitoring regionally and nationally.
The results of the brainstorming and discussion in these
breakout groups are summarized below.
1. Vision for the future
• Improved communication between data users and data
gatherers, as well as among volunteer programs
themselves. This better communication enhances data
sharing, allows groups to learn from each other's
mistakes and successes, increases publicity for volun-
teers' activities, and strengthens monitoring groups'
ability to educate the public and decision makers about
water quality issues.
• Strong role for EPA, both regionally and nationally, in
enhancing communication; promoting standardization
of methods; assisting with training, data management,
and quality assurance; publicizing success stories;
encouraging state use of volunteer data; and securing
funding sources for volunteer programs.
• Recognition by government agencies of the value of
volunteer data. Agencies work cooperatively with
volunteer monitors and share agency data with volun-
teers.
• Strong state or regional volunteer monitoring associa-
tions.
* A watershed approach to volunteer monitoring.
2. Obstacles to use of volunteer data
• Government resistance to admitting the data's credibility.
• Lack of standardized methods (and consequent inability
to compare data over time or between programs).
• Lack of information—particularly from potential data
users—concerning needed quality assurance/quality
control methods.
• Lack of coordination and leadership from EPA regions.
• Insufficient communication and data sharing, both
between government agencies and volunteer programs,
and among volunteer programs themselves.
3. Recommendations for "next steps"
Wide-ranging recommendations for future directions and
actions spanned the following categories:
a. State and regional coordination
• Form statewide or regionwide volunteer monitoring
associations that would incorporate state, local, and
federal agencies as well as volunteer monitoring
organizations. Associations would address issues such
as:
- building teamwork among programs
- improving ties between volunteer programs and govern-
ment
- exploring standardization of methods
- sharing information on funding sources
- producing regional directories, databases, and newslet-
ters
- sponsoring regular conferences
• Strengthen the role of the regional EPA volunteer
monitoring coordinators. This role should include:
- working to organize regional conferences
- involving state and federal agencies in supporting volun-
teer monitoring
- providing technical support
b. Communication
• Support or develop the following communication tools:
- newsletters
- directories
- conferences
- published success stories
- centralized libraries/clearinghouses
- educational outreach campaigns
- shared mailing lists
- regional or statewide databases of volunteer data
- computer networks, electronic bulletin boards
c. Method standardization and QA/QC
• Develop standard monitoring protocols, reporting
procedures, and equipment recommendations for
monitoring specific ecosystems.
• Work with data users to specify needed level of data
quality for individual projects.
• Develop national, regional, and/or state guidance on
quality assurance for volunteers.
• Consider standardized training/certification of volun-
teers.
d. Watershed approach
• Adopt watershed-level goals and plans and monitor
whole watersheds.
• Incorporate many types of water bodies (including
groundwater and wetlands) and many types of monitor-
ing (e.g., habitat, fish, plants).
• Integrate all the various monitoring and management
activities within the watershed.
130
-------
Regional Breakout Discussion Session
e. Diversity (cultural, age, class, racial)
• Increase education on water quality issues to groups
currently outside the volunteer monitoring "circle."
• Use school-based monitoring programs to reach inner-
city children and communities.
• Develop community-based partnerships.
• Actively share monitoring programs' findings with
affected communities.
• Use watersheds as a way to link communities.
• Commit to diversity in organizational structure, litera-
ture, and events.
131
-------
Writing Wall Responses
Writing Wall Responses
The conference featured a "Writing Wall" that gave participants a chance to vote on the following eight questions. The
questions and suggested answers were displayed on large posters along one wall. Participants were allowed to choose only
one answer for each question. Space was also provided for writing in comments, and in some cases "write-in" responses
received a substantial number of votes. In fact, for question 7, a write-in response won out over all the "officially" provided
answers.
1. What Is the biggest obstacle to the
use of your volunteer data by gov-
ernment? (# of votes)
No staff to interpret/manage volunteer data 38
Skepticism about data quality 32
Lack of awareness ofvolunteerdata 10
Mistrust of motives of volunteer programs 6
Data not provided in proper format 2
Data doesn't match government needs 2
2. How has your program's data been
used the most?
To educate the public 44
To screen for problems 19
To educate decision makers 13
To bring about local action 11
To bring about legislative change 2
3. What is most needed to help build
credibility of volunteer data?
More involvement of potential data users 35
Quality assurance protocols 21
Increased awareness of use of volunteer data 17
Better volunteer training 7
More involvement of water quality profes-
sionals 5
Standardized methods 5
4. What are the major roadblocks to
the growth of your program?
J£j
Insufficient funding 15
Lack of time (write-in) 12
Lack of committed volunteers 10
Lack of scientific/technical help 9
Data not used
Lack of regional/local volunteer monitoring 7
networks
5. What type of technical assistance
does your program need most?
Data analysis/presentation 16
Training 14
Data management 13
Laboratory support 12
Regionally standardized methods 10
Monitoring method manuals 8
6. What is the best way to avoid
volunteer burnout?
Ensure data are used 27
Skill-building/growth opportunities 19
Realistic program goals 15
Feedback from program coordinator 10
Action (write-in) 10
Opportunities for social interaction 2
Realistic job description 1
7. In what areas should EPA increase
its support of volunteer monitoring?
Money (write-in) 26
National/regional conferences 19
Technical assistance 15
Methods manuals 10
Volunteer Monitor newsletter 5
Electronic bulletin board 5
8. What topics would you like to see
emphasized at the next national
conference?
Watershed management techniques 37
Data interpretation 15
Training in monitoring techniques 15
Data sharing and networking 11
Monitoring other ecosystems (e.g., air,
groundwater) 9
Enforcement (write-in) 8
Diversity (write-in) 5
Data management 2
132
-------
Attendee Address List
Attendee Address List
Adolfson, Lisa
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Ave. NW
Seattle, WA 98155
206/789-9658
Albertson, Doug
Unified Sewerage Agency
150 N. First Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
503/640-3532
Alex-Saunders, Deborah
Minority Environment
Association
3509 Milar Rd.
Sandusky, OH 44801
Alexander, Marilyn
Canyon Fy Limnological Inst.
7653 Canyon Fy. Rd.
Helena, MT 59601
406/475-3638
Allison, James
NWF
921 SW Morrison #512
Portland, OR 97205
503/222-1429
Aim, Andy
GREEN/EcoNet '
2051 Parton Lane
Arcata,CA 95521
707/822-7947
Amsberry, Rob
C.LO.
380 A Ave.
Lake Oswego OR, 97034
503/635-0268
Archer, Jonathan
Lassen High School
1110 Main St.
Susanville, CA 96130
916/257-2141
Armin-Hoiland, Louis
Arcata High School
2079 Scott Ct.
Arcata, CA 95521
707/822-4974
Atkisson, Jeff
Glencoe High School
Portland, OR
Augustine, Dave
RiverWatch/NWEA
33 SW 2nd Ave. #302
Portland, OR 97204
503/295-0490
Auyong, Jan
OSU-HMSC
2030 S. Marine Science Dr.
Newport, OR 97365
503/867-0329
Ayotte, Jennifer
Wetlands Working Group
2455 NESeavy Circle
Corvailis, OR 97330
503/758-4645
Bair, Katney
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7197
Bair, Barbara
Padilla Bay Reserve
1043 Bayview-Edison Rd.
Mt.Vernon,WA 98273
206/428-1558
Baird-Wireman, Ginger
FOLAR
703 Abbot St.
Richland.WA 99352
509/545-4402
Bakke, Bill
Oregon Trout
Baldridge, D. Bouton
Cape Fear River Watch
620 Chestnut St.
Wilmington, NC 28401
910/762-5606
Bamberger, Alice
Watershed Consultant
21-17CrotonLakeRd.
Katonah, NY 10536
914/232-1146
Barmes, Patrick
CMHC Sound Opportunities
4500-ALaceyBlvd.
Lacey,WA 98503
206/438-1904
Barnes, Ginny
Audubon Society
10311 Glen Road
Potomac, MD 20854
301/762-6423
Barthel, Susan
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7268
Becker, Bill
PSU-Ctr. for Science Education
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
503/725-4266
Behar, Sharon
River Watch Network
153 State St.
Montpelier.VT 05602
802/223-3840
Bell, Nina
RiverWatch/NWEA
133 SW 2nd #302
Portland, OR 97204
503/295-0490
Belmore, Maggie
OR Trout RiverKeeper
16747 Timber Rd.
Vernonia, OR 97064
503/429-2401
Bergman, Karl
Chicopee River Watershed
Council
P.O. Box 148
Chicopee, MA 01013
413/594-4468
Berliner, Steve
Kellogg/Mt. Scott Crk.
P.O. Box 220105
Milwaukie, OR 97269
503/653-7875
Bidlack, Cindy
Rivers Curriculum Project
SIUE
P.O. Box 2222
Edwardsville, IL 62026
618/692-3788
Bingham,Tim
LCOG
125 E. 8th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
503/687-4410
Blackburn, Thomas '
National Weather Service
1325 East West Hwy.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301/713-1724
Blackburn, Olive
9406 Saybrook Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20901
301/589-5870
Blair, Jane
OG I/Student Watershed
P.O. Box 91000
Portland, OR 97291-1344
503/690-1344
Blatt, Alice
15231 NEHolliday
Portland, OR, 97230
Blosser, Bill
Bodor, Aaron
Oregon DEO.
811SW6thAve.
Portland, OR 97204
503/229-5593
Bouchard, Debra
KCM, Inc.
1917 First Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206/443-3596
Brenner, Loretta
OWRRI/DEQ
OSU Strand Hall
Corvailis, OR 97331
503/737-5736
Brod, Daniela
3749 SE Willamette Dr.
Milwaukie, OR 97267
503/659-3663
Brown, Bob
8516GradienDr.
Baltimore, MD 21236
Brown, Tracy
LCOG
125 E. 8th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
503/687-4363
Bryce-Lewis, Lisa
NW Watershed Alliance/
GREEN
444 NE Ravenna Blvd., #408
Seattle, WA 98115
206/522-8489
Burbidge, Jared
City of Lacey Water Resources
P.O. Box B
Lacey, WA 98503
206/438-2687
133
-------
Attendee Address List
Burt, Wendy
Stream Team
P.O. Box 1967
Olympia.WA 98507
206/753-8598
Bush, Wendell
Fishman Environmental Svcs.
434 NW 6th Ave. #304
Portland, OR 97209-3600
503/224-0333
Chesney, Linda
Headwaters
P.O. Box 729
Ashland, OR 97520
503/482-4459
Choy, Chee
City of Portland BES
1120 SW 5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-5310
Czarnezki, Jim
MO Dept. of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314/751-4115
Daggett, Steve
PSU
Dahling, Deborah
Bellevue Utilities Dept.
Dickens, Steve
RiverWatch Network
5 Cedar Ct.
S. Burlington, VT 05403
802/863-5601
Dickerson, Kathy
Kitsap PUD
P.O. Box 1989
Poulsbo,WA 98370
206/697-4197
Byrne, Jack
RiverWatch Network
153 State St.
Montpelier, VT 05602
802/223-3840
Caduto.Marie
CRWP
199 Heater Rd. #1
Lebanon, NH 03766-1451
603/448-4149
Calesso, Diane
US EPA Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Ave MS220
Edison, NJ 08837
908/906-6999
Campbell, Gayla
Texas Watch
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78628
512/463-8177
Carcich, Italo
NYS DEC
50 Wolf Rd. #301
Albany, NY 12233-3502
518/457-1254
Carpenter, Kurt
PSU
Caton, Larry
Oregon DEQ
1712 SW 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97201
503/229-5983
Chamberlain, Don
Project Watershed
Site41,C-50
Fanny Bay, BC
Canada VOR1WO
335-2978
Cheo, Martha
Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
P.O. Box 5558
Everett, WA 98206
206/388-3487
Clair, Kathy
Tualatin Riverkeepers
17890 SW Eisner Rd.
Sherwood, OR 97140
503/590-2706
Clifford, Sharon
Missouri DNR
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
314/751-7298
Cohen, Gershon
AK Clean Water Alliance
Box 1441
Haines, AK 99827
907/766-2296
Conlin, Linda
Nevada River Wranglers
1120 E. Badger St.
Silver Springs, NV 89429
702/577-2631
Cooke, Ken
KY Water Watch Program
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
800/928-0045
Copland, Mike
Freshwater Research Australia
P.O. Box 234
Wodonga Victoria 3689
Australia
011-61-6-043-1002
Corathers, Robin
RU Mill Crk Restoration Prjct.
805 Central, Ave. #610
Cincinnati, OH 45202
513/352-1588
Craycraft, Robert
NH Lakes Monitoring Prgm.
109 Pettee Hall UNH
Durham, NH 03824
603/862-3546
Curry, Barbara
IDNR
402 WWashington RmW265
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2748
317/233-5468
P.O. Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009-9012
206/637-5200
Danicic, Daniel
City of Gresham
1550 NW Eastman Pkwy #175
Gresham, OR 97030
503/669-2492
Dates, Geoff
RiverWatch Network
RR1 Box 209
Hartland,VT 05048
802/436-2544
Dates, Alice
RR 1Box209
Hartland,VT 05048
802/436-3033
Davies, Jill
Kootenai River Network
14 Old Bull River Rd.
Noxon,MT 59853
406/847-2228
Davies, William
Auburn University
Dept. of Fisheries
Auburn, AL 36849
205/844-9311
Decker, Frances
The Nature Conservancy
9499 Overseas Hwy.
Marathon, FL 33050
305/743-2437
Deibel,Jill
Ohio DNR
Fountain Square Bldg.E-2
Columbus, OH 43224
614/265-6637
Desruchers, Lindsay
P.O. Box 106
Elk, CA 95432
707/877-3405
Deutsch, Bill
Dept. Fisheries- Auburn Univ.
Auburn, AL 36849
205/844-9311
Dohrenwend, Kara
Urban Creeks Council
1250AddisonSt. #1070
Berkeley, CA 94702
510/540-6669
Dolter, Sean
Humber Arm Environmental
Assoc
89 West Valley Rd.
Corner Brook NF
Canada A2H 2X4
709/634-1552
Drescher, Dave
Metro
600 NE Grand
Portland, OR 97232
Dresner, Marion
1711 McGeeAve.
Berkeley, CA 94703
510/841-5403
Drury, David
Santa Clara Valley Program
5750 Almaden Expy
San Jose, CA 95118
408/265-2600
Duff, Don
USFS/Trout Unlimited
125 S. State St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
801/524-6491
Dunbar, Anna
City of Sugar Land
P.O. Box 110
Sugar Land, TX 77478
Duncan, David
9495 Lolo Creek
Lolo, MT 59847
Duncan, Jim
692 "B" St.
Ashland, OR 97520
503/482-7629
134
-------
Attendee Address List
Eggers, JoAnne
W.E.T.
221 Granite St.
Ashland, OR 97520
503/482-3305
Eilett, Kathy
Alliance for Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Rd #100
Baltimore, MD 21212
410/377-6270
Ely, Eleanor
Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
1318 Masonic Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94117
415/255-8049
Engle, Steve
Enstrom, Mary
Nature Conservancy
9499 Overseas Hwy.
Marathon, FL 33050
305/743-2437
Euphrat, Fred
Sotoyome Resources
P.O. Box 1802
Healdsburg, CA 95448
707/433-5544
Faha, Lori
Unified Sewerage Agency
150 N. First Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
503/640-3532
Farrell, Joseph
U. of Delaware Sea Grant
700 Pilottown Rd.
Lewes, DE19958
302/645-4250
Faulkner, Chris
US EPA
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA94114
415/744-2012
Fedje, Steven
USDA-SCS
2115 SE Morrison
Portland, OR 97214
503/231-2270
Feldman, Alan
TERC
2067 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 01940
617/547-0430
Ferguson, Wenley
Rl Save the Bay
434 Smith St.
Providence, Rl 02908
401/272-3540
Fiorillo, Jessica
AMI
1301 S. 46th St.
Richmond, CA 94804
510/231-9539
Firehock, Karen
Izaak Walton League
707 Conservation Ln.
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
800/BUG-IWLA
Fischer, Chris
Coyote Creek Riparian Station
P.O. Box 1027
Alviso,CA 95002
Fishman, Paul
Fishman Environmental Svcs.
434 NW 6th #304
Portland, OR 97209
503/246-9832
Fitzgerald, Carmen
Galveston Bay Foundation
17324-AHwyS
Webster, TX 77598
713/332-3381
Fox, Carie
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2946 CENPP-PE-RP
Portland, OR 97208-2946
503/326-6998
Frances, Ivy
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-5326
Francis, Don
Urban Waterway Activists
Fraser, Karel
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45228
513/231-7719
Fritsch, Mark
Confed. Tribes Warm Springs
P.O. Box C
Warm Springs, OR 97761
503/553-3233
Furfey, Rosemary
Metro
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
503/797-1726
Galbreath, Dodd
TN State Planning Office
500 Charlotte Ave.
Nashville, TN 37243-0001
615/741-5782
Gale, Jim
Naturalist, Mount St. Helens
Galen, Christie
17585 SW Chippewa Trail
Tualatin, OR 97062
503/692-8212
Galovich, Gary
OR Dept. Fish & Wildlife
7118NEVandenbergAve.
Corvallis, OR 97330
503/757-4186
Gannett, Marshall
17585 SW Chippewa Trail
Tualatin, OR 97062
503/692-8212
Gillen, Jim
Green City Data/Sat Academy
19600 NW Von Neuman
Beaverton, OR 97006
503/690-1190
Gilroy, Mary
Lower Colorado River Authority
P.O.Box220-H202
Austin, TX 78767-0220
512/473-3333
Gilson, Lynne
Lower Esopus River Watch
6 Hill St.
Saugerties, NY 12477
914/246-1921
Godfrey, Paul
UMass Water Resources Ctr.
Box 30820 BlaisdellHse.
Amherst, MA 01003-0820
413/545-2842
Gottfried, Or Jeffery
Fans of Fanno Creek
7040 SW 84th Ave.
Portland, OR 97223
503/274-4579
Goeldner,Jo
King Co. Surface Water Mgmt
700-5th Ave. #2200
Seattle, WA 98104
206/296-8361
Goodman, Jack
Lower Colorado River Authority
P.O.Box220-H202
Austin, TX 78767-0220
512/473-3333
Goulsby, Janette
Green, Gregory
Stormwater/Watershed Div.
1120SW5th
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-5281
Green, Linda
University of Rl
210B Woodward Hall
Kingston, Rl 02881-0804
401/792-2905
Gregory, Dr. Stan
Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Nash Hall Rm 104J OSU
Corvallis, OR 97331-3803
Griswold-Wilson, Mark
Urban Streams Council
723 SE 33rd Ave.
Portland, OR 97214
503/234-2233
Guimond, Esther
Project Watershed
Site 41, C-50
Fanny Bay, BC
Canada VOR1WO
335-2978
Haberman, Rita
River Network
P.O. Box 8787
Portland, OR 97207
503/241-3506
Hagley, Cindy
MN Sea Grant Extension
2305 E. 5th St.
Duluth, MN 55812
218/726-8713
Hall, Joe
EPA
401 M St. SW (4504)
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-9082
Halstead, Pam
Fortuna Union High School
1515McFarlanSt.
Eureka, CA 95501
707/445-2465
135
-------
Attendee Address List
Halstead, Ted
Fortuna Union H.S.
1515 McFartan St.
Eureka, CA 95501
707/445-2465
Halverson,Wes
Colorado River Watch Found.
2111 Four Oaks Lane
Austin, TX 78704
512/326-4051
Hammel, Peggy
ID Water Resources Research
Morrill Hall 106 U. of ID
Moscow, ID 83844-3011
208/885-6429
Handley, Susan
US EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave. WD 139
Seattle, WA 98101
206/553-1287
Hansen, Nancy
Peninsula Stream Monitors
7307-43rd Ave. CtNW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
206/851-7636
Hardy, Jane
Chautauqua Northwest
1910 IBM Bldg.
Seattle, WA98101-1127
206/223-1378
Harris, Andy
C.LO.
380 A Ave.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503/635-0284
Harris, Susan
National Park Service
600 Harrison St. #600
San Francisco, CA 94107
415/744-3975
Harris, Richard
Harbor Watch
10 Loren Lane
Westport,CT 06880
203/226-4861
Hawks, Laurie
Georgia EPD
7MLKDr.SW #643
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-4988
Hayslip, Gretchen
US EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Heath, Elizabeth
Principal Morgan Heath
1019 Pacific Ave. #1701
Tacoma.WA 98402
206/272-5844
Herron, Elizabeth
Rl Watershed Watch
Woodward Hall Rm.210C
Kingston, Rl 02881
401/792-2905
Herz, Mike
San Francisco Baykeeper
Bldg. A Fort Mason Ctr.
San Francisco, CA 94123
415/567-4401
Hildreth, Dawn
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7767
Hinton, Diana
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7236
Hoenig, Liz
Stream Team
P.O. Box 1967
Olympia,WA 98507
206/753-8314
Holmes, Jenny
2325 NE 44th Ave.
Portland, OR 97213
503/281-8175
Holoch, Rich
Clackamas Co. Utilities Dept.
902AbernethyRd.
Oregon City, OR 97045-1100
503/650-3473
Hopkins, Dale
Water Quality Board
2101 Webster St. #500
Oakland, CA 94612
510/286-4398
Horn, Barb
CO Division of Wildlife
6060 Broadway
Denver, CO 80216
303/291-7388
Hotaling, Liesl
NJ Marine Sciences Consort.
Bldg. 22
Fort Hancock, NJ 07732
908/872-1300
Houck, Mike
Urban Streams Council/Metro
600 NE Grand
Portland, OR 97232
503/797-1730
Hunter, Gwen
Water Women
2524 Victor St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
206/734-8415
Hurley, Patricia
Alabama DEM
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
205/271-7938
Ison, Jeanne
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45228
513/231-7719
Jackson, Jacqueline
OR Community Foundation
621 SW Morrison #725
Portland, OR 97205
Jackson, John
Unified Sewerage Agency
155 N. First Ave. #270
Hillsboro, OR 97124
503/648-8621
Jackson, Angela
RiverWatch/NWEA
133 SW 2nd #302
Portland, OR 97204
503/295-0490
Jacoby, Jill
St. Louis River Watch/MPCA
320 W. 2nd St. #704
Duluth,MN 55802
218/723-4927
Jarosz, Jim
Indianola Land Trust
20762 Hemlock St.
Indianola, WA 98342
206/297-7011
Jennings, Jannine
Yakima Indian Nation
P.O. Box 151
Toppenish,WA 98948
509/865-5121
Jerrick, Nancy
Oman/Jerrick Associates
319 SW Washington #309
Portland, OR 97204
503/224-1245
Jockers, Mark
Unified Sewerage Agency
155 N. First Ave. #270
Hillsboro, OR 97124
503/640-3525
Johnson, Phillip
OSCC
605 SE 37th
Portland, OR 97214
503/238-4450
Johnson, Steve
PSU Urban Studies
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
503/725-4019
Jones, Cliff
Tech Assist for Community
SvcS
1903SEAnkeny
Portland, OR 97214
Judd, Harry
Utah DEQ/DWQ
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
801/538-6146
Karnopp, Lisa
NWPPC - Oregon Office
620 SW 5th #1025
Portland, OR 97204
503/229-5171
Kathey, Scott
NOAA Sanctuaries & Reserves
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
206/526-4295
Kennel, Leigh
City of Bainbridge Island
625 Winslow Way East
Bainbridge Is., WA 98110
206/842-2552
Kenwood, Cliff
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Fund
P.O. Box6965
New Orleans, LA 70009
504/836-2215
Kenworthy, Steve
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7100
Kepler, Richard
OR DEO
811SW6th
Portland, OR 97204
503/229-6804
136
-------
Attendee Address List
Kerr, Meg
Coastal Resources Center
South Ferry Rd.
Narragansett, Rl 02882
401/792-6224
Kerst, Gary
City of Eugene
410 River Ave. "~
Eugene, OR 97404
503/687-5236
Kishbaugh, Scott
NYSDEC/CSLAP
Lavigne, Pete
River Network
P.O. Box 8787
Portland, OR 97207
503/241-3506
LeCavalier, John
Friends of Fanno Creek
Lee, Virginia
Coastal Resources Center
Grad School Oceanography
Narragansett, Rl 02882
401/792-6224
Long, Jack
City of Eugene Public Works
1820 Roosevelt Blvd.
Eugene, OR 97402
503/341-5803
Lubczenko,Vera
Conservation/Natural
Resources
5/250 Victoria Parade
Victoria, Australia, 3002
Lyon, Anne
TVA
McArdle, Betty
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7236
McGhee, Gordon
Clackamas Water District
9100 SE Mangan Dr.
Clackamas, OR 9701 5
503/655-6143
Meeker, Sharon
Sea Grant/Coop Ext/U-NH
50 Wolf Rd. #301
Albany, NY 12233-3502
518/457-7470
Kling, Ann
Harbor Watch
P.O. Box 812
Westport, CT 06881-0812
Kotter, Lucy
Sotoyome Resources
P.O. Box 1802
Healdsburg, CA 95448
707/433-5544
Kramer, Lynn
Herring Run Watershed Assoc.
8516GradienDr.
Baltimore, MD 21236
410/668-3626
Kramer, Kathryn
AH I
1301 S. 46th St.
Richmond, CA 94804
510/231-9539
Ladak, Din
128EdgebrookRd. NW
Calgary, AB
Canada T3A4N3
Landry, Natalie
NH Dept. Environmental Svcs.
6 Hazen Dr.
Concord, NH 03301
603/271-2658
Lanier-Phelps, Ellen
Pacific Outdoor Alliance
45 SE 82nd Dr. #100
Gladstone, OR 97027
503/650-5412
Lathrop-Davis, Joyce
UMBC
9731 Early Spring Way
Columbia, MD 21046
410/455-3480
Lev, Esther
Urban Streams Council
729 SE 33rd
Portland, OR 97214
Lev, Deborah
SWRP Saturday Academy
P.O. Box91000
Portland, OR 97291-1000
503/690-1275
Levensaler, Martha
NWF
750 W. 2nd Ave. #200
Anchorage, AK 99501
907/258-4800
Levine, Beth
Urban Creeks Council
1250AddisonSt. #107
Berkeley, CA 94702
510/848-2211
Leyden, Kathleen
ME Shore Stewards Partner-
ship
State House St. 38
Augusta, ME 04333
207/287-3261
Linde, Michael
National Park Service
P.O. Box 40115
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215/597-7946
Liptan, Tom
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th #400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7267
Loftin, Virginia
NJ Dept. Env. Protection
612CardezaAve.
Brielle, NJ 08730
908/223-3318
400 W. Summit Hill Dr.
Knoxville,TN37919
615/632-4713
Machorro, Eric
City of Portland BES
1120SW5th
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7740
Macpherson, Linda
CH2M Hill
825NEMultnomah #1300
Portland, OR 97232
503/235-5000
Maine, Neal
PSU/Ctr. for Science Education
5107 Hwy 101 N.
Seaside, OR 97138
503/738-4021
Mann, Bob
Markowitz,Abby
MDSOS
258 Scotts Manor Dr.
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
410/969-0116
Martin, Joan
Huron R. Watershed Council
11 DON. Main St. #210
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
313/769-5971
Maun, Chris
Nisqually River Ed. Project
P.O. Box 476
Yelm,WA 98597
206/458-6137
Mayio, Alice
USEPA,4503F
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-7018
Kingman Farm
Durham, NH 03824
603/749-1565
Mendelman, Eric
Texas Watch
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512/475-4595
Mendelman, Krista
US EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave. (WD-139)
Seattle, WA 98059
206/553-11571
Merritt, Regina
OR Natural Resources Council
522 SW 5th #1050
Portland, OR 97210
503/223-9007
Michaud,Joy
ENVIROVISION
1339 Quince NE
OIympia,WA 98506
206/754-1344
Miller, Jan
Unified Sewerage Agency
155 N. First, MS 10
Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
503/693-4493
Mimo, Alberto
CTDEP
79 Elm St.
Hartford, CT 06106
203/566-8108
Mitchell, Marty
DEQ Watershed Health
P.O. Box 440
Grants Pass, OR 97526
503/776-6010
Mixon, Susie
Alabama River Watch Assoc.
575 River Terrace
Hayden,AL 35079
205/647-1689
137
-------
Attendee Address List
Moen, Celeste
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921 WR/7
Madison, Wl 53707
608/266-8117
Moore, Elbert
US EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave. WD-139
Seattle, WA 98101
Moore, LuAnn
CWQMP
M Jenkins Bldg
E. Carolina Univ
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
919/757-6220
Moorman, Anne Marie
Mississippi DEQ
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
601/961-5394
Morgan, Jim
Metro
600 NE Grand
Portland, OR 97232
503/797-1700
Muir, Maya
Oak Lodge Surface Water
Mgmt.
15314 SE Rupert
Milwaukie, OR 97267
503/652-3909
Muir, Tom
USGS-NAWQA
413 National Center
Reston,VA 22092
703/648-5114
Mullen, Michael
CERS - Troy State University
207 Gail St.
Troy, AL 36081
205/670-3624
Murdoch, Tom
Adopt-A-Stream Foundation
P.O. Box 5558
Everett, WA 98206
206/388-3487
Murff,Trey
Texas Watch
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78628
512/463-8177
Myers, Eric
Indiana DNR
402W.Washington #271W
Indianapolis, IN 46206
317/232-4070
Neely, Mary Ann
LCRA/CRWN
P.O. Box 220 H220
Austin, TX 78767
512/473-3261
Newton, Bruce
US EPA
511 NW Broadway #248
Portland, OR 97209-3489
503/326-4127
Nielsen, Michele
Project Watershed
RR#1,Site41,C-50
Fanny Bay, BC
Canada VOR1WO
604/337-5077
Niss, Michael
Tryon Creek State Park
11321SWTerwilliger
Portland, OR 97219
503/653-3166
Noble, Chris
Blue/Fairview Lake Land Trust
20118 NEInterlachenLn.
Troutdale, OR 97060
503/667-6042
Nodurft, Ray
Clackamas County Utilities
902AbernethyRd.
Oregon City, OR 97045-1100
503/650-3323
Nolle, Dave
BLM-Bring Back Natives Prgm.
6322 NW Atkinson Ave.
Redmond, OR 97756
503/923-3344
Norton, John
CA Water Quality Board
901 "P" St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
916/657-0522
Ochsner, Jean
Adolfson and Associates
Seattle, WA
Ogle, Phil
Wyoming DEQ
Herschler Bldg., 4W
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307/777-7079
Olive, Keith
Golbal Lab/TERC
Yakima,WA
Olson, Clarice
EPA Region 9
1301 S. 46th Bldg. 201
Richmond, CA 94804
510/412-2330
Orelove, Jonathon
Stream Team
P.O. Box 1967
Olympia,WA 98507
206/753-8563
Osis, Vicki
Hatfield Marine Center
2030 Marine Science Dr.
Newport, OR 97366
503/867-0257
Parrish, Jill
LCRA
P.O. Box 220 H202
Austin, TX 78767
512/473-3333
Parsons, Jenifer
WADept of Ecology
Mail Stop 47710
Oiympia,WA 98504-7710
206/407-6679
Patterson, Greg
AR Water Education Team
8001 National Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72209
501/562-7444
Payne, Joe
Casco BayKeeper
2 Fort Road
South Portland, ME 04106
207/799-8574
Pearson, Jonathan
MDSOS
258 Scotts Manor Dr.
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
800/448-5826
Penak, Brenda
Bedeque Bay E.M.A.
P.O. 2063 Summorside
P.E.I. Canada
C1N5L2
902/888-8000
Penrose, Dave
NC Division of Env. Mgmt.
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
919/733-6946
Perryess, Ellen
Friends of the Estuary
800 Santa Ysabel
Los Osos, CA 93402
805/528-4691
Peter, Susan
Tualatin Riverkeepers
24270 SW Farmington
Beaverton, OR 97007
503/628-1912
Peter, Mary
24270 SW Farmington
Beaverton, OR 97007
Peters, Marc
ODA
635 Capitol St. NE
Salem, OR 97310
503/378-3810
Peters, Erin
Oregon Adopt-A-River
21711 SW Martinazzi Ave.
Tualatin, OR 97062
503/691-1872
Peterson, Richard
PSU - Biology Dept.
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
503/725-4241
Pettit, Greg
Oregon DEQ
1712 SW 11th
Portland, OR 97201
503/229-5983
Pfauth, Mary
PSU
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
Phillum, Annie
WA Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia.WA 98504-7600
206/407-6408
Picotte, Amy
VTDEC
103 S. MainSt.,10-N
Waterbury,VT 05671-0408
802/241-3777
Pjerrou, Mary
Greenwood Watershed Assoc.
P.O. Box 106
Elk, CA 95432
707/877-3405
138
-------
Attendee Address List
Plaisance, Elaine
WET
692 "B" St.
Ashland, OR 97520
503/482-7629
Power, Laurie
EWEB
P.O. Box 10148
Eugene, OR 97440
503/341-8525
Pratt, Beth
Wyoming OEQ
Herschler Bldg., 4W
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307/777-7079
Rigney, Mike
Coyote Creek Riparian Station
P.O. Box 1027
Alviso, CA 95002
408/262-9204
Rodney Pex, Deborah
CITE Creative Information
840 Rowe St.
Reedsport, OR 97467
503/271-2158
Rogers, Ralph
Portland BES/Parks
1120 SW 5th
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-5323
Savage, Robbi
ASIWPCA
7501stSt.NE#910
Washington, DC 20002
202/898-0905
Scanlin, James
Alameda County
951 Turner Ct.
Hayward, CA 94545
510/670-6548
Scarzello, Christina
PSU M.U.R.P.
1843 SW 16th #3
Portland, OR 97201
503/228-7931
Seibel, Steven
US Water News
230 Main
Halstead, KS 67056
316/835-2222
Shaffer, Janeen i
ASIWPCA
750 First St. NE #910
Washington, DC 20002
202/898-0905 !
Shattuc, Dan
Committee to Complete Refuge
907 W. Cardinal Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
408/245-5605
Preuss, Charles
Coyote Creek Riparian Station
2 Encina Ave.
Atherton, CA 94027
408/262-9204
Pritchard, Ken
Adopt-A-Beach
P.O. Box21486
Seattle, WA 98111
206/624-6013
Puffer, Drew
EPA/Gulf of Mexico Program
Bldg. 1103 #202
Stennis Center, MS 39520
601/688-3913
Reasoner, Russ
17830 SW Vincent St.
Aloha, OR
503/229-5910
Rector, Julie
WA Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47710
Olympia.WA 98504-7710
206/407-6680
Reese, Pat
Friends of the Fox River
P.O. Box 1478
Elgin, IL 60121
Reichle, Jim
Lassen High School
1110 Main St.
Susanville, CA 96130
916/257-2141
Reid, Ann
Great Bay Watch/UNH
Kingman Farm
Durham, NH 03824
603/749-1565
Rogers, Anne
Texas Watch Program
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Rose-Lewis, Laura
Defenders of Wildlife
4155 Upper Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
503/636-7666
Rosenberg, Ginny
George Middle School
Ross, Sue
City of Corvallis
P.O. Box 1083
Corvallis, OR 97339
503/757-6720
Rosselli, Helen
LI Sound Taskforce
185 Magee Ave.
Stamford, CT 06902
203/327-9786
Rothaus, Rochelle
Budd/Deschutes Project
GREEN
6128 Capitol Blvd.
Olympia,WA 98501
206/754-3588
Salazar, Luis
River Watch Network
7500 Viscount #147
El Paso, TX 79925
915/772-8650
Saunders, Stephen
WA Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia,WA 98502
206/407-6481
Schmauder, Al
Clover Creek Council
1602129th St. E
Tacoma,WA 98445
206/596-8222
Schoen, Jerry
MassWWP
Blaisdell House PO 30820
Amherst, MA 01003-0820
413/545-5532
Schrader, Carl
Alaska DEC
410WilloughbyAve.#105
Juneau,AK 94801
907/465-5304
Schuman, Joel
Lower Esopus River Watch
6 Hill Street
Saugerties, NY 12477
914/246-1921
Schweickert, Tina
Salem Public Works
555 Liberty St. SE #325
Salem, OR 97301
503/588-6211
Schwind, Sigrid
Oregon DEQ
811SW6th
Portland, OR 97204
Scull, Liane
City of Portland BES
1120SW5thAve.
Portland, OR 97204
Seavey, C.S.
Friends of Casco Bay
2 Fort Road
South Portland, ME 04106
207/799-8574
Sigman, Marilyn
Tiliamook Bay NEP
4000 Blimp Blvd.
Tiliamook, OR 97141
503/842-9922
Simms, Darrell
City of Portland Environmental
Services
1120SW5thAve.,Rm.400
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-7740
Simpson, David
Mattole River Restoration
P.O. Box 81
Petrolia,CA 95558
Singleton, Lynn
WA Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47710
Oiympia,WA 98504-7710
206/407-6699
Sjulin, Jim
Portland Parks
1120SW5th
Portland, OR 97204
503/823-5297
Smith, Amy
ADEC
610 University Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99709
907/451-2136
Smith, Suzette
MRWC
P.O. Box 602
Amherst, NH 03031
603/673-2940
Smyth, Maurita
Solomon, Allison
Merlo Station High School
139
-------
Attendee Address List
Spencer, Sherry
PSU
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
503/725-4266
Tally, Sid
MRWC
P.O. Box 602
Amherst, NH 03031
603/886-0011
Walk, Marie-Francoise
MA Water Watch Partnership
Univ. Mass Box 30820
Amherst, MA 01003-0820
413/545-5531
Williams, Dr. Robert
Rivers Curriculum Project
SIUE
P.O. Box 2222
Edwardsville, IL 62026
618/692-3788
Standoff, Esperanza
UME Coop. Ext
375 Main St.
Rockland, ME 04841
207/594-2104
Stapp, Bill
GREEN-U of Michigan
430 E. University Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115
Stimson, Jim
MT Natural Resource Info Sys.
1515 E 6th Ave.
Helena, MT 59620-1800
406/444-5356
Stoops, Kevin
Seattle Parks and Recreation
2911 Second Ave.
Seattle, WA 98121
206/684-7053
Stout, Beth
National Wildlife Federation
921 SW Morrison #512
Portland, OR 97205
503/222-1429
Stysse, Becca
Glencoe High School
Portland, OR
Suchy.Jana
P.O. Box 1913
Bisbee,AZ 85603
Sullivan, Marie
US Fish & Wildlife Service
3616 W. Thomas Rd. ft
Phoenix, AZ 85019
602/379-4720
Surrency, Melinda
Glencoe High School
Portland, OR
Sytsma, Mark
Portland State University
6312 Pony Ct.
West Linn, OR 97068
503/684-9097
Taccogna, Gary
Dept Fisheries & Oceans
555 W.Hastings #400
Vancouver, BC
Canada, V6B 5G3
604/666-3662
Taylor, Barbara
MDSOS
258 Scotts Manor Drive
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
410/969-0084
Thomas, Howard
SCS-WNTC
511 NW Broadway #248
Portland, OR 97209
503/326-4127
Thornbrough, Adam
Palouse-Clearwater Env. Inst.
P.O. Box 8596
Moscow, ID 83843
208/882-1444
Toepfer, George
Friends of Tryon Creek S.P.
11321SWTerwilligerBlvd
Portland, OR 97219
503/636-4398
Trautman, Nancy
Cornell Ctr. for Environment
452 Hollister Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853.
607/255-9943
Traylor, Elbert
Nebraska DEQ
1200 N Street
Lincoln, NE 69509-8922
402/471-4700
Turpel, Mark
Metro
600 NE Grand
Portland, OR 97232
503/797-1738
Uebel.Jeff
USFS
70220 E.Hwy 26
Zig Zag, OR 97049
503/622-3191
Vadnais, Gretchen
Friends of Cedar Mill Creek
2041 SW 58th
Portland, OR 97221
503/292-8713
Wagstaff, Barr
Alabama Coastal Foundation
P.O. Box 1760
Fairhope,AL 36533
205/928-2238
Wallemneyer, Lew
OR Water Resources
1916 Island Ave.
LaGrand, OR 97850
503/962-7504
Ward, Deborah
MDSOS
258 Scotts Manor Dr.
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
800/448-5826
Warren, Kelly
UW-Coop. Ext.
216 Ag. Hall
Madison, Wl 53706
608/262-3576
Watkins, Bill
St. John's River Water Mgmt.
P.O. Box 1429
PaIatka,FL 32178-1429
904/329-4345
West, Jay
Izaak Walton League
707 Conservation Ln.
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
800/BUG-IWLA
White, Terence
Community Streamwatch
36 Lambeth Place
St. Kilda, Victoria
Australia
03/537-1935
Whitney, Gail
Saturday Academy
OR-GIST
P.O. Box 91000
Portland, OR 97291-1000
03/690-1190
Wildberger, Steve
LaMotte/CRA
P.O. Box 329
Chestertown, MD 21620
800/344-3100
Williams, Gene
Snohomish County
2930 Wetmore Ave. #101
Everett, WA 98201
206/388-3464
Williams, Susan
Habitat for Humanity
5220 SE 42nd
Portland, OR 97206
503/775-6166
Willis, Pat
Jackson Bottom Wetlands
123 W. Main St.
Hillsboro, OR 97123
503/681-6206
Wilson-Dean, Lynn
Milwaukie H.S.
1930 SE 89th Ave.
Portland, OR 97216
503/254-9314
Winans, Joby
State of Washington Dept of
Community, Trade, and
Economic Development
P.O. Box 48300
Olympia,WA 98504-8300
206/753-9684
Winter, Cynthia
Habitat for Humanity
2934 NE 20th
Portland, OR 97212
Wirkman, Debra
Surfrider Foundation
235-A Owen St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
408/457-1831
Wolf, Linda
Glencoe High School
2700 NW Glencoe Rd.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
503/640-8971
Yount, Betsy
OR Shores Conservation Coalit.
P.O. Box 707
South Beach, OR 97366
503/867-3372
Zuckerman, Larry
KS Dept Wildlife/Parks
RR2Box54A
Pratt, KS 67124
316/672-5911
140
------- |