Promoting Watershed Stewardship
August 3-7,1996
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin

Cover photo: Members of the El Paso Youth at Risk Program monitor
the Rio Grande. Photo by Wayne Baker.
Back cover: Texas Watch monitors along the Gulf of Mexico.
Photo by Wayne Baker.
This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement #CX824599-01
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. It has not been subjected to the Agency's required
peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of
the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Promoting Watershed Stewardship
Augusts-?, 1996
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
Conference Sponsors:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension

 National Conference Steering Committee
 Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
 Eleanor Ely, The Volunteer Monitor newsletter
 Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of America
 Linda Green, University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension
 Barb Horn, Rivers of Colorado Water Watch Network
 Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center
 Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters Board
 Abby Markowitz, Maryland Volunteer Watershed Monitoring Association
 Alice Mayio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
 Celeste Moen, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
 Rebecca Pitt, Maryland Save Our Streams
 Anne Rogers, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
 Jeff Schloss, University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
 Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership

 Thanks to the following people, who served on subcommittees to help plan workshops:
 Sharon Behar, River Watch Network; Bob Carlson, Kent State University; Sharon Clifford, Missouri
 Department of Natural Resources; Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch; Joan Drinkwin, Puget Sound
 Water Quality Authority; Wenley Ferguson, Save The Bay; Wes Halverson, Colorado River Watch
 Foundation; Susan Handley, U.S. EPA Region 10; Laurie Hawks, Georgia Adopt-A-Stream; Steven
 Hubbell, Lower Colorado River Authority; Joan Kimball, Massachusetts Riverways Program; Libby
 McCann, Adopt-A-Lake/Project WET; Christy Williams, Izaak Walton League of America

 Special thanks to Kelly Warren, Environmental Resource Center; CALS Conference Office staff;
 Memorial Union staff; and Jim Vennie, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Proceedings Editor: Eleanor Ely
Associate Editors: Abby Markowitz, Richard Ely, Margaret Nugent
Design and Layout: Julia Keel
                                                                  Map courtesy of Ken Cooke

                                                                                     Table of Contents
      Gaylord Nelson -Environment-Population-Sustainable Development	   1

  Building a Sustainable Organization
      Sharon Behar	   4
  Effective Use of the Media
      Barry  Tonning - Creating a Ripple Effect on Watershed Issues	   5
      Kristin Merriman-Clarke - Media Strategies for Cheapskates	   6
  Restoration 101: Planning Restoration Projects
      Karen Firehock - The Stream Doctor Project	   9
  Monitoring Aquatic Vegetation
      Elizabeth Herron & Stanley Nichols	  12
  Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in Extracurricular Settings
      Steven Lee - The Gwynns Falls Wildlife Habitat Program	  14
      Mandy Richardson - A Watershed Partnership	  15
      Keith  Wheeler — Environmental Monitoring and Education	  16
  Designing Effective Adult Training
      Meg Kerr - Designing and Delivering Effective Adult Training	  16
  Water on the World Wide Web
      Ken Cooke	  19

  Incorporating Stewardship in Your Monitoring Program
      JoanKimball	  20
  Using Monitoring to Set Restoration Goals and Evaluate Success
      Geoff Dates -Measuring Success	  22
  Creating Watershed Monitoring Networks
      Anne E. Lyon - The TVA Clean Water Initiative Networking Experience	  24
  Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in the Classroom
      Michael Beauchene & Lisa Wahle - Project SEARCH	  27
      Wilbert Odem - Verde Watershed Watch Network	  28
      LibbyMcCann-Adopt-A-Lake.....	  29
  Getting in Step: A Pathway to Effective Outreach in Your Watershed
      Charlie MacPherson & Barry Tonning	  32

  Youth-Designed Restoration Projects
      Rich Mason - School Yard Habitat Restoration Program	  35
      Esther Lev - Unlikely Partners	  35
  Monitoring Wetlands
      Mitch Keiler — Maryland's Wetland Monitoring Program and Methodology	  37
      Sara Kneipp & Mike Buttram - Monitoring Wetlands	,	  40
  You Too Can Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan
      Abby  Markowitz, Linda Green, Sharon Clifford, Chris Lehnertz, & Geoff Dates	  41
  Dealing with Your Data, Part 1: The Basics
      Barb Horn — Dealing with Your Data: Basics of Data Management	  41
  Monitoring in Our World: Students Connecting Globally
      Rosie Rowe — Streamwatch 5 to 8: Murder Under the Microscope	  42
      Wes Halverson — The CRWF Experience with the Russian/Texan Exchange	  43

 Table of Contents
   Making Stewardship Measurable
        Joan Martin — Adding Stewardship to Volunteer Monitoring	  45
        Joseph G, Farrell - Linking Monitoring to the Community	  45
        Mary Ellen Wolfe — Know Your Watershed, Montana-Style	  46
   Restoring Wetland and Lake Habitats
        Esther Lev - "Wetland Restoration: Steps to Success"—A Video on Wetland Restoration	  49
        Louis N. Smith & Dale Claridge - A Watershed Approach to Lake Restoration	  49
   Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
        Jerry Schoen - Data Presentation Strategies	  51
        Bill Deutsch — Presentation Strategies for Different Audiences	  54
        Steven Hubbell - Taking It to the Street: Going Public with Volunteer Data	  55
   Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
        Geoff Dates & Jeffrey Schloss	  56

   Watershed Indicators: A Closer Look
        Geoff Dates — Brief Overview of Watershed Ecology and Indicators	  62
        Cynthia Lopez - A Closer Look at Human Health Indicators	  64
   Innovative Observations
        Diane Calesso - Reef Fish Monitoring by Divers	  66
        Jill Goodman Bieri - The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program	  66
        Valerie Jane Brennan — Monitoring Construction Sites	  67
   Restoring Stream Habitats
        Dennis O'Connor - Enhancing Stream Habitats	  69
   Interdisciplinary Studies and Monitoring
        Sandy Fisher - Interdisciplinary Studies and Monitoring by the Students of Eagle Eye, Inc	  70
        Patty Madigan — Engage Yourself in the Elements: Service-Learning	  71
   Communicating Data Through the Digital Highways and Byways
        Vera Lubczenko & Michael Cassidy - Data-Down Under	  72
        Brian R. Embley — Displaying Your Data and Beyond	  74

   Innovative Data Presentation and Reporting Techniques
        Jerry Schoen & Robert Craycraft	  76
   Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
        Geoff Dates — An Introduction to Monitoring Macroinvertebrates in Rivers	  78
        Connie Fortin — Macroinvertebrate Education and Monitoring	  81
        Denise B. Stoeckel - The Development of Macroinvertebrate Collection Procedures	  82
   Restoring Estuarine Habitats
        Clifford M. Kenwood - Volunteer Sea Grass Restoration in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana	  85
        Robert E. Musser, Jr. — Estuarine Habitat Protection and Restoration in Tampa Bay 	  86
        Aimee Guglielmo - Santa Saves the Marsh	  87
   Setting Program Goals That Incorporate Stewardship
        Molly MacGregor - How the Public Perceives Stewardship of the Mississippi River	  88
        Jeanne Heuser — Monitoring for Stewardship on the Missouri River	  89
   How to Assess Nonpoint Source Pollution
        Anne Rogers - Urban Watch: A New Approach	  91
        Jeffrey Schloss - "Following the Flow": Watershed NFS Evaluation	  92

   Program Roundtable A
        Stacy L. Daniels & Thomas Osborn - Managing and Presenting Lake Monitoring Data	  95
        Jay Sandal — Superior Lakewatch: The First Five Years	  96
        Cindy Kreifels - Groundwater Guardian: A Program for Community Watershed Protection	  96
        Karel M. Fraser - Monitoring Watersheds of Large River Systems	  97


                                                                                    Table of Contents
  Program Roundtable B
      Mac A. Callaham & Susan P. Gannaway - Multiagency Partnerships	:	 99
      Daniel M. Kush - Building Grass Roots Support Through Citizen Action Funding	 100
      Mark Van Patten - STREAM TEAM ... What Is It?	 100
      Jennifer Myers - Oklahoma's Blue Thumb Water Pollution Education Program	 101
      Tina Laidlaw - The Volunteer Monitor Coordinator	 102


  Strategic Planning Session	 103
  Topical Breakouts
      Educators	 104
      Forming Statewide Volunteer Monitoring Associations	 105
      The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter	 105
      Working with Youth Groups	 106
      Monitoring Rivers and Streams	 107
  Regional Breakouts
      Region 1	 108
      Regions2&3	 108
      Region 4	 109
      RegionS	 110
      Region 6	 110
      Regions 7 & 8	 111
      Regions 9 & 10	 111



                                                                                              Opening Plenary
                 Gaylord Nelson
 Founder of Earth Day, Counselor ofThe Wilderness Society
    The Wilderness Society, 900 Seventeenth Street, NW,
        Washington, DC 20006-2596, 202/833-2300

      Where Do We Go from Here?

The history of man has been influenced by many revolutions,
but none more important than the Agricultural Revolution
followed by the  Industrial Revolution. We are now at the
threshold of a third great revolution, the transition to a sus-
tainable society  . . . which  can be described as  "one that
meets the  needs  of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
    Forging and maintaining a sustainable  society is THE
challenge for this and all generations to come. At this point
in history, no nation has managed, either by design or acci-
dent, to evolve into a sustainable society. We are all pursuing
a self-destructive course of fueling our .economies by con-
suming  our capital—that is to say, by degrading and de-
pleting our resource base—and counting it on the income
side of the ledger. That, obviously, is not a sustainable situ-
ation over the long term.
    The bottom-line question is obvious and critical: Can we
as a nation evolve into a sustainable society during the next
four or five decades? That is to say, a sustainable society
which we would  view with approval. The answer is yes—if
we have strong political leadership and the support of a soci-
ety  imbued with  a guiding environmental ethic. The evolu-
tion of such an ethic within our culture is happening now at
an accelerating pace.
    Increasingly, we have  come to understand that the
wealth of the nation is its air, water, soil, forests, minerals,
rivers, lakes, oceans, scenic beauty,  wildlife habitats, and
biodiversity. Take away this resource base and all that is left
is a wasteland.
    The Worldwatch Institute states the same case in another
    Three  biological systems—croplands, forests, and
    grasslands—support the world economy. Except for
    fossil  fuels  and minerals,  they supply  all  the raw
    materials for industry; except for seafood,  they provide
    all our food.

    In short, that's all there is. That's the whole economy.
That's where all the economic activity and all the jobs come
from. These biological systems contain the sustaining wealth
of the world. All around the planet these systems are under
varying  degrees  of stress and degradation in almost all
places, including the United States. As we continue to de-
grade them, we are consuming our capital. And, in the pro-
cess, we erode living standards and compromise the quality
of our habitat. It is a dangerous and slippery slope.
    One of the major political  obstacles  to environmental
progress is  the widely held and mistaken belief that protec-
ting the  environment threatens jobs. That's  why we so fre-
quently hear political and business  leaders, economists, and
others who should know better vacuously asserting they "are
for the environment if it doesn't cost jobs." That has been a
favorite cliche among politicians and leaders of both political
parties. It discloses a failure to understand the fundamental
connection between the environment and the economy. If we
are going to manage our economy intelligently, it must be
understood that jobs are inextricably tied to the environment
and totally dependent upon it.
    I have a friend whose guiding theology for all political
matters is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. He
could never quite understand that there is a direct and bene-
ficial connection between a healthy environment and a pros-
perous  economy until I described the connection in the jar-
gon of  his business world. I said to him, "Look at it this way
and  the connection becomes  obvious. The economy is  a
wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. All economic
activity is dependent upon that environment with its under-
lying resource base. When the  environment is finally forced
to file under Chapter 11 because its resource base has been
polluted, degraded, dissipated, irretrievably compromised,
then  the economy goes down into bankruptcy with it because
the economy is just a subset within the ecological system."
    Professor Donella Meadows states the case in  another
    Some day the media will learn that the environment is
    not an intermittent news story, not a special interest, not
    a win-lose sports event, not a luxury, not a fad, not a
   movement, not discredited, not faltering, and not some-
   thing to pay token attention to one day a year. It is a beat
   far more important than Wall Street or Washington. Its
   laws are stronger than Newt's, its moves are more im-
   portant than the Federal  Reserve's,  its  impact over-
   whelms that of the stock market or the next election.

   The environment is not one player on the field; it is the
   field. It holds up, or fails to hold up, the whole economy
   and all of life, whether the spotlight is on it or not.

   In  a dramatic and sobering joint statement (1992), the
United  States National Academy of Sciences and the Royal
Society of London, two of the world's leading scientific bod-
ies, addressed the state of the planet in the following words:
   If current predictions of population growth prove accu-
   rate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain
   unchanged, science and technology may not be able to
   prevent either irreversible degradation of the environ-
   ment or continued poverty for much of the world....

   The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable
   development can be achieved, but only if irreversible
   degradation of the environment can be halted in time.
   The next 30 years may be crucial.

   Is there any other single issue even a fraction as impor-
tant as  this? Yet, the leaders of both political parties will go
through this campaign in silence about sustainability and the
disastrous consequences of continued exponential population
   If our political system is unable to engage in an honest,
forthright discussion of the major challenge of our time, is it
any wonder there is widespread disillusionment with the sys-
tem? The public can distinguish between real substance and

 Opening Plenary
 inconsequential political puffery. Yes, forging a sustainable
 society will involve all kinds of controversy. Achieving that
 goal will require that we move vigorously to stabilize our
 population. That of necessity requires that we address the
 immigration rate and the fertility rate, and that we signif-
 icantly reduce both.
    When experts are asked to list the most critical environ-
 mental problems, they are practically unanimous in ranking
 at the  top of the list the calamitous consequences of contin-
 ued exponential population growth.
    For the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau popula-
 tion projections for mid-next century range from about 400
 million to 522 million. To be on the safe side, it would be
 wise to use the Census Bureau's high projection. Indeed, in
 the 55 years between 1940 and 1995, U.S. population dou-
 bled and is likely to double again by mid-next century. Grap-
 pling with these numbers and understanding what they mean
 requires that we try to think of the human situation measured
 in terms of millions and billions—a challenge that boggles
 the mind.
    Proponents of the cornucopian unlimited-growth school
 of thought, represented by the Cato  Institute, The Heritage
 Foundation, and the Julian Simons of the world, are not wor-
 ried about resource depletion because, they claim, science
 and technology will create substitutes for anything we need.
 Neither are they concerned about population growth, because
 with the help of science, we can feed 10 or 20 billion or
    Some of this stuff may sound convincing if you don't
 think about it too hard.
    In any event, arguing about how  many people the world
 can feed is a meaningless exercise. The important question
 is, What will be the quality of life if the population doubles
 or triples? The answer: Life  on the planet will continue in
 some sort of condition regardless of population levels, but
 certainly not in a condition that we would find tolerable.
    In the debate over population, the country seems to di-
 vide roughly into three groups:
    Group One
    Those who are alarmed by the prospect of continued ex-
    ponential population growth;
    Group Two
    Those who are alarmed that Group One is alarmed;

    Group Three
    Those who don't give a damn about any of the alarms.

    In  fact, there is something to be alarmed about—it is
called exponential population growth. While an annual popu-
 lation growth rate of 1 or 2 percent looks small, it is indeed
quite substantial. A 1  percent annual  growth will double the
population in 70 years; a 2 percent rate will double it in 35
years;  a 3 percent rate will double it in 23-plus years. The
current U.S. growth rate is 1.1 percent per year. At that rate,
U.S. population will double in 63 years.
    It took 3 million  years for world population to reach 1
billion  around 1825. Since then, it has taken:
    100 years to reach 2 billion — 1925;
     35 years to reach 3 billion — 1960;
     15 years to reach 4 billion — 1975;
     12 years to reach 5 billion — 1987;
     13 years to reach 6.2 billion — 2000 (est.)

    Those alarmed about world  population are strangely
 complacent about U.S. population. They think population is a
 problem in China, India, Africa, and elsewhere, but not in the
 U.S. The facts tell a different story.
     Lost in the endless  arguments over how  many people
 can be sustained on the planet is another question of greater
 import—What is the optimum population of the world or the
 United States? Have we  not already exceeded  it? What will
 the world or the United States look like with twice as many
 people?  What will be the impact on the  quality of life? On
 freedom of choice? Let's take a  look close to home. What
 will be the political, cultural, and social consequences of
 doubling the current U.S. population? The high-range Census
 Bureau population projection indicates  an increase in the
 U.S. population from 260 million  to 522 million by mid-next
     With twice as many people projected, it will be neces-
 sary to double the total  U.S.'infrastructure in a little more
 than 60 years. A few examples:
     •  Twice as many cars, trucks, planes, airports, parking
       lots, streets, and freeways
     •  Twice as many traffic jams
     •  Twice as many houses and apartment buildings
     •  Twice as many grade schools, high schools, colleges,
       and trade schools
     •  Twice as many hospitals
     •  Twice as many prisons

     In short, twice as much of everything.
     What happens to wildlife habitat? Population growth has
 already destroyed half the nation's wetlands and a major por-
 tion of habitat for birds and other animals.
     There is something wrong with a society which remains
 complacent while this kind of irrational destruction erodes its
 life-sustaining resource base. With twice the current popula-
 tion, will there be left any wilderness areas, remote and quiet
 places, habitat for song birds, waterfowl, and other wild crea-
 tures? Certainly not very much.
    New cities, suburbs, housing developments. With double
 the population, it will be  necessary to take over and develop
 in the next 50 years an amount of farm land and scenic coun-
 tryside equal to the total already  developed in the past 200
 years.  That will be the case if we  continue to utilize land in
 the future as we have in the past. The result will be an urban-
 ized area of some 312,000 square  miles—an area larger than
 Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan com-
    National Parks, National Forests,  Wildlife Refuges,
 BLM Lands and Wilderness Areas. With twice the popula-
 tion, what will happen to the last  of our great natural areas,
 which are already experiencing  serious  degradation from
 population pressures? The short answer is, they  will be
 gone—rare and special places like our national parks  and na-
 tional  forests  will evolve into modified  theme parks and
 Disneylands. The process is already under way.
    Look at the numbers. Annual National Park visitations,
 for example, have ballooned since 1950 from 30 million to
 almost 300 million—a tenfold increase in  45 years. The park
 system is already in a state of decline and deterioration from
 people pressure  and  commercialization. What will  this re-
 markable natural heritage be like and look like  when visita-
 tions double or triple in the next couple of decades?
    Will the quality  of life be better?  With twice as many
people? Will  mega-cities  twice  the size of New York,

                                                                                                   Opening Plenary
Miami,  Chicago,  Detroit,  and  Los  Angeles  be  more
manageable, more livable, and safer? The answer is obvious.
Some are already borderline ungovernable. The question is
this: Do we have the wit clearly to perceive the long-term
implications  of continued exponential population growth
soon enough to effectively address that issue within our own
    Mainstream economists have  dominated economic
thought with comfortable assurances that there is no fore-
seeable limit to economic expansion; that exponential popu-
lation growth is an asset, not a liability.
    It is little wonder that the economics profession, except
for a small number of resource economists,  has made itself
irrelevant to the central issue of our time. The extent of their
irrelevance was aptly put by Amory Lovins when he said,
"Economists are those people who lie awake nights worrying
about whether what actually works in the real  world could
conceivably work in theory."
    Ironically, an issue of at least equal importance to popu-
lation is rarely  noted or mentioned anywhere. Yet, it is the
key to our environmental future. The absence of a pervasive,
guiding conservation ethic in our culture is the issue and the
problem. Society's answer must be to focus its attention and
energies on nurturing a conservation generation imbued with
a conservation ethic. Without such a guiding cultural ethic,
society will not have the  understanding, motivation, convic-
tion, or political will to persist in addressing the truly hard
questions that will confront us in the decades to come.
    Fortunately, there are encouraging signs that we as a so-
ciety are rapidly beginning to develop a conservation ethic
that will ultimately flower into a powerful social, political,
and economic force. The sooner the better.
    We are dealing with a social, ecological, and economic
challenge unlike any other in our  history. It is a challenge
that begs for the kind of dedicated, inspirational leadership
provided by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in
their pursuit of victory in the Second World War. This chal-
lenge is far more  serious than the military threat to  the
democratic West in World War II. Nations can recover from
lost wars—witness  Germany and Japan—but there is no re-
covery from a destroyed ecosystem.
    The opportunity for  a gradual but complete break with
our destructive environmental history and a new  beginning is
at hand.
    Reaching a general understanding that sustainability is
the ultimate issue will finally bring us face-to-face with the
political challenge of forging a sustainable society during the
next few decades. It is a challenge we can meet if we have
the leadership and the political will to do so. Indeed, none of
the so-called sacrifices required to forge a sustainable society
would be considered unduly burdensome by our grandpar-
ents. We have evolved willy-nilly into a frenzied, consumer
throwaway society,  and in the process, we are dissipating our
sustaining resource base.
    As we contemplate our consumer throwaway society, we
are reminded of a comment by Socrates, who  died in 399 BC.
Asked why he bothered  to regularly visit the open market
when he never seemed to buy anything, he replied that he did
so because he was always amazed by how many things were
for sale that he didn't need.
    The bottom line is this—a sustainable society at some
bare subsistence level will ultimately evolve even if we as a
society  simply do nothing. Unfortunately,  at that stage we
will end up debating over earth-friendly solutions to scarcity.
    All of this will be enormously complicated and contro-
versial far beyond anything ever before attempted. The de-
bate and controversy are vital to the process of developing
public understanding  and support for making the  hard de-
cisions and the right decisions. If we fail to make the neces-
sary decisions, nature will make them for us  and for all future
generations—but there is no good reason to fail, provided the
public does its part and the government assumes responsibil-
ity for enlightened leadership.
         Gaylord Nelson, the former Governor of Wisconsin
        and founder of Earth Day, addressed the participants
        of the Fifth National Citizens Environmental Monitoring
        Conference and urged volunteer monitors to advocate
                  for sustainable prosperity.

 Concurrent Session 1: Building a Sustainable Organization
       Building  a  Sustainable  Organization
 Workshop Leader: Sharon Behar, River Watch Network

                  Sharon Behar
 River Watch Network, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602,

 In most cases, environmental and conservation organizations
 need to create vital and long-lived groups in order to address
 a community's needs. Usually, the efforts to monitor and im-
 prove water quality, prevent a  new source of community
 pollution, build an environmental educational program, pro-
 tect community land resources, create economic viability for
 a community, etc., take much longer than two to three years.
 To have true impact and then to maintain what has been won
 or created, these efforts require groups who can sustain their
 work over a period of 10 to 40 years.
    What does  it take for environmental, conservation, and
 community groups to create organizations that can truly sus-
 tain themselves and their critical work for the long haul?
 How can current volunteer and staff leaders modify and
 structure their work so that future leaders will have a dy-
 namic and stable organization? What types of processes en-
 able groups to  adapt and change in  accordance with the
 needs and context of their community issues?
    The following "ingredients" are one outline for organi-
 zational leaders to consider as they grapple with these ques-
 tions and seek to create sustainable organizations.

 Ingredient #1: Strong programs with a clear focus
 The program of your organization or your project is at the
 core of your success. A good program attracts people, which
 then attracts funding. Programs must serve a need, be well
 thought out, be doable, and have  the ability to involve many
 people. Sustainable organizations are able to take a program
 idea and implement it by creating a strategy with measurable
 steps. In our changing world, sustainable organizations are
 able to assess crucial program factors regularly and change
 approaches accordingly.

 Ingredient #2: Strategic planning
 that involves many and gets used
 An organization's purpose and goals are the magnet for the
 people, resources, and money that are needed  to make the
 organization effective. Whether the organization is clarifying
 goals for the first time, or is determining a new focus after
 years of operations, a strategic  plan is critical to success.
 Good strategic planning involves all the key players in the
 organization, plus possibly people you serve and those you
 wish to collaborate with. The planning process will include
 discussion of and decisions on the organization's mission; 3-
 to 5-year goals; objectives or strategies for each year that
 will move  the  group toward its goals; and a day-to-day
 workplan that implements the objectives. The strategic plan,
 once created, becomes an operations plan that should be used
 regularly (at least quarterly) to measure the organization's
 progress and then to make adjustments as needed.

 Ingredient #3: Key active people
 and volunteer leadership development
The "people resources" of an organization consist of volun-
teers and staff. Regardless of whether an organization has
staff or not, a sustainable organization has key leaders, active
people at all levels, and a way to develop leaders throughout
these different levels.
    Opportunities for participation at all levels are impor-
tant: from first-time volunteers at an event to working com-
mittees; from getting a mailing out to speaking at a public
hearing; and from participation in an outing to serving on the
board for the first time. An organization may harness an in-
dividual's interest in and commitment to the organization's
mission, and then match the individual's availability with the
work that needs to be done. This includes  cultivating and
training volunteers as well as developing leaders.
    For organizations that have staff, attention to hiring pro-
fessional staff and creating a healthy working environment
for them is key. On a day-to-day basis, staff are often the
most visible players on behalf of an organization's mission
and goals. Once staff (or leading volunteers) are engaged,
systems to create clear expectations, workplans, evaluation
procedures, and personnel policies are key to seeing this in-
vestment mature and grow over time. Staff (or the lead vol-
unteers) also need professional development (training, new
positions, cross-training, etc.), an abundance of positive
feedback, and policies that  support their administrative and
program work and help motivate them on a day-to-day basis.
These are key elements for volunteer development as well.

Ingredient #4: An effective governing body
The governing body of a nonprofit is called a  Board of Direc-
tors; for a monitoring project, it is the Steering Committee.
This governing body helps to create a larger group of people
who are invested in the organization. In our experience, vol-
unteer monitoring projects that do not have a Steering Com-
mittee  dissolve when the key leader leaves. Organizations
without effective Boards of Directors are limited.
    The Board of Directors or Board of Trustees is legally
and ethically responsible for an organization and its effec-
tiveness. Every Board of Directors works a little differently
based on how it was founded, its age, the size of the organi-
zation, the types of programs,  and the availability of  staff.
Most effective governing bodies, however, carry out at least
the following responsibilities: (1) determine program and
budget, (2) see that the program is carried out, (3) give and
get money, (4)  support public relations, (5) choose, support,
and evaluate lead staff, (6) replace and train themselves, and
(7) evaluate the organization's effectiveness.
    The Steering Committee is not a legal entity, as is the
Board  of Directors. However, its role is similar in that it
helps determine program and budget, assess the effectiveness
of the program, support and develop the lead  volunteers, and
create visibility in the community.

Ingredient #5: Diverse fundraising efforts
The most stable and sustainable biological systems  have
often evolved with an amazingly diverse number of species.
Likewise, sustainable organizations need diverse sources of
income in order to weather the harsh "drought years" and the
pestilence of a changing economy. Solid fundraising efforts
create plans to have money coming in from  as many places
and as many people as possible, and for sources to be added

                                                                 Concurrent Session 1: Effective Use of the Media
every year. In addition, the fundraising efforts are led by a
diverse pool of people within the organization so that owner-
ship and expertise are shared.
Ingredient #6: Clear and accurate
financial management
Clear and accurate financial management provides the need-
ed management tools for decision-making and planning for
the future. The Board of Directors (or Steering Committee in
an all-volunteer project) and the Executive Director (or pro-
ject director) have the responsibility to create and manage the
following elements of a good financial system: (1) a com-
plete and conservative budget, (2) correct accounting re-
cords, (3) timely financial reports  (at least monthly), (4)
financial reports in an understandable form, (5) projections
and budget revisions when needed, (6) compliance with gov-
ernment reporting and deadlines,  (7) checks and balances,
especially for cash management and check signing, (8) ade-
quate insurance coverage, and (9) an adequate filing system.
Ingredient #7: Clear communication and
a "learning environment"
In natural biological systems, adaptation cannot occur with-
out a feedback  loop. Sustainable  organizations model this
biological wisdom by consistently creating opportunities for
learning and change to occur. Practices such as written and
verbal evaluations of meetings and training programs, peri-
odic program reviews, and annual assessments and evalu-
ation processes provide a constant feedback and learning
loop. By regularly and openly asking "How are we doing?"
organizations create an organizational culture where actions
are not "mistakes" or "wrong," but instead are an opportunity
to learn  how to do things better for the next project or the
next step.

Ingredient #8: Community networking and visibility
Strong partnerships with a broad base of other organizations
help to build visibility for the organization in the community
and smooth the way for implementation of action projects.
Networking and collaboration will vary according to the or-
ganization and type  of project. Collaborations can include
businesses, clubs, schools,  agencies, key decision makers,
and other organizations.
    Organizations need to  let the community  know what
they are  doing (program) and that the community is welcome
in every stage of a project (volunteers). An important com-
ponent of visibility is the cultivation of media coverage. In
addition to media coverage, organizations have a large vari-
ety of tools for providing information about their projects to
a lot of  people. Examples include: holding special events,
postering, setting up a table at a local  fair or at the library,
and presenting the results of your monitoring program by
giving presentations to groups (e.g., Rotary Club, Con-
servation Commission). Don't forget the power of word of
mouth as volunteers talk  with friends  and family. It is
important to make sure your  volunteers are kept informed
about the most recent events and issues.
The above framework was adapted from work with The Institute for
Conservation Leadership,  6930 Carroll Ave. Suite 420, Tacoma
Park, MD, 20912, 301/270-2900.
                   Effective  Use of  the  Media
Moderator: Barry Terming, Gateway District Health Dept.
Speakers: Barry Tonning, Gateway District Health Dept.;
Kristin Merriman-CIarke, American Fisheries Society

                 Barry Tonning
 Gateway District Health Dept, P.O. Box 555, Gudgell Ave.,
          Owingsville, KY 40360, 606/674-6396

       Creating a Ripple Effect on
              Watershed Issues:
  The  Care and Feeding of Reporters

Limited  financial resources demand that water monitoring
and nonpoint source (NFS) programs get "the most bang for
the buck." Since many aspects of NFS pollutant elimination
involve informing and educating various publics for the pur-
pose of modifying personal behaviors and commercial activ-
ities, it is essential that a conscious, planned public informa-
tion and  education process accompany NFS and other water-
shed remediation projects.
    Furthermore, by communicating directly with the public
through its media, we can put information into the hands of
the ultimate decision makers, and provide a venue for report-
ing some data (such as volunteer monitoring results)  that
may get "lost in the shuffle" by local reporters, politicians, or
    The  idea of dealing with the media may sound formi-
dable—even threatening—to volunteers unaccustomed to re-
porters, as well as to staff and consultants more comfortable
plying their trade quietly behind institutional public informa-
tion  policies. Indeed, most of our public information  and
education thus far has been disseminated through carefully
composed brochures, pamphlets, slide shows, and videotapes
aimed at  targeted audiences. However, in order to reach the
masses of people who need to be informed on water quality
issues, we must preach to the sinners as well as to the choir.
    Therefore, telling the local watershed story to the local
press is important. And despite the normal fear of reporters,
cameras,  and microphones, it need not be an unpleasant ex-
perience. Using the mass media—radio, television,  and
newspapers—is a powerful and very inexpensive way to get
the water quality message across to the huge numbers of
people who need to be exposed to it. Familiarity with the
basic principles of communication—and the needs of the
media—is all that is required  to understand  how this vital
public information and education service can be employed to
help clean up the nation's waters.

What the media want from you
Although there are considerable  differences among news-
papers, radio stations, and television stations, all three share
some important similarities:
 1. They want  a story.
    It can be anything—"Agency Concerned  about Siltation

Concurrent Session 1: Effective Use of the Media
    in Rolling River"; "Group Seeks Funds to Clean Up
    Goose Lake"; "Citizens Urge Study of Livestock Impact
    on Bear Creek." A good story can be developed from
    nearly anything related  to  watershed work. Feature
    stories on volunteer monitoring activities  and/or data
    reporting are excellent examples. Just because no major
    event (i.e., grant award, enforcement action, hospitaliza-
    tion, death) has occurred doesn't mean that a story  is
    unwarranted. Indeed, much of what's covered  in the
    "news" consists of press releases from various sources.
    Your watershed story can be about anything, but it has
    to be about something. Focus it. The story is the most
    important thing to consider: it will dictate what kind of
    coverage is devoted to your message. A dozen or more
    stories can be developed from nearly any  project that
    lasts 12 months. Weekly updates or even weekly col-
    umns present an excellent format for continuing cov-
    erage. And remember: news consists of the good, as well
    as the bad and the ugly. Feature stories on successful
    solutions are great ways to cover NFS issues in a posi-
    tive light. In fact, focusing on real, achievable solutions
    implemented by the wide variety of  runoff pollution
    players often provides the best format for presenting the
    technical details of the problem, its impacts, and possi-
    ble solutions, while at the same time improving science
    literacy among the public.
 2. They want a local angle.
    Don't send them a general press release from some na-
    tional or state  office and expect them to localize it.
    That's your job. Take them out to film some badly
    eroded river or creek banks. Call the water plant and get
    the manager to talk to a reporter about  the effect of sol-
    ids on treatment costs. Have a few fishermen on standby
    who can  talk about spawning bed siltation problems, or
    the effect on macroinvertebrates (fish food). Feature a
    local farmer who has just installed a new animal waste
    system. Do a story  on the wide availability of  oil re-
    cycling options, and the effects of dumped oil on surface
    and ground water.
 3. They want you to do most of the work.
    Face it: reporters are trained in retelling a story. You've
    got the story, they've got the expertise and the means to
    retell it. Don't expect them to sift through two-inch-
    thick documents on impaired uses of surface waters—
    compile the information for them. For best results,
    consider writing up the story yourself! It's not too
    difficult, and you'll be making sure that the story says
    what you want it to say. Tell them (or better yet, show
    them) where to take pictures or videotape. Give them the
    names and phone nujnbers of people to interview. Make
    it easy for them, so*'easy they can't resist running your
    Story—and so easy that they'll call you when the news is
    slow (summertime) and they need a story. Finally,
    develop a personal relationship with the press. Faxes and
    phones are nice, but there need to be faces and people
    behind them. Developing relationships early will ensure
    that you'll be called to comment on breaking news
    stories or to put the local spin on regional or national

    A wide-scale effort to utilize the mass media in  water-
shed projects will mark a considerable transition from the
current approach, which usually involves  media coverage
based on a significant (and usually very public) event. This
type of coverage is most often about a point source, and is
generally negative: fish kills, oil spills, etc. What's lost in
event-based coverage is the significant contribution of non-
point sources to water quality degradation, and the positive
message that solutions exist; the public education function is
not fulfilled. The limited NFS news that has been covered in
the local/mass media seems to lack the local angle, probably
due to its origin as a regional or national press release.
    The format for these releases is pretty straightforward: a
"headline-able" news nugget, followed by some detailed
information  about the issues at hand,  written in  layman's
terms. (Important note: calling phosphorus "P" in  a presen-
tation, as in  "P is one of our biggest water pollution prob-
lems," may lead  to some rather gross misinterpretations of
what you're talking about.)
    Obviously, institutional barriers to open  communica-
tions—if they exist—need to be addressed. Of interest in this
regard  is EPA's  brochure (EPA-87-020) entitled "Seven
Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication." Rule Number One:
"Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner...
The goal of risk communication should be to produce an in-
formed  public that is involved, interested, reasonable,
thoughtful, solution-oriented, and collaborative; it should not
be to diffuse public concerns or replace action."
    A final  note: use common sense.  Cows standing  in a
creek can be photographed from the public right-of-way, so
there's no need to trespass. And avoid naming  names. Iden-
tify problem areas by watershed, not by landowner. The only
exception is a story on an enforcement action, which has vast
deterrent potential and should be tastefully, but definitely,

Communicating to change behaviors
The reasons for advocating more news coverage  of water-
shed issues are: (1) to inform the public about the extent of
the problem, and (2) to educate people on how to  eliminate
the problem.  Both, of course, imply an underlying goal of
prompting action. Communicating to produce  a desired ac-
tion requires a clear, concise message; repetition of the mes-
sage employing varied approaches; and linking the message
to something the audience values. By taking local watershed
and nonpoint issues directly to the locals through their media,
you will help create an awareness and understanding of the
problem among the ultimate decision makers, and also build
public support for policies that address pollutant  reduction
and remediation.
           Kristin Merriman-Clarke
  American Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite
     100, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301/897-8616 ext. 220

   Media Strategies for Cheapskates

Why should you have a media strategy?
A survey three years ago found that  81 % of Americans get
their environmental information only from the news media.
In 1993, readers responding to 10 newspaper studies iden-
tified environmental issues as the fastest-growing topic of
news interest. In every major media market, interest in envi-
ronmental news ranked in the top 25% of all topics tested. In
response, environmental coverage is increasing across the
    In  1994, the Foundation for American Communications

                                                                   Concurrent Session 1: Effective Use of the Media
(FACS) published a survey of 512 newspaper and TV re-
porters and editors that showed environmental coverage had
expanded by 46% in the past two years. In fact, every very
large newspaper in the United States has at least one reporter
assigned to  the environmental beat. Sixty-eight percent of
medium  and large newspapers—and even 38%  of  small
newspapers—also have at least one such reporter. In ad-
dition, one-fourth of local TV stations have someone spe-
cializing in conservation stories.
    This is  all good news. The bad news is that 72%  of
reporters say that they  think reporters lack the training and
background  needed to  cover environmental issues well.  In
fact, only 2%  of the surveyed environmental reporters had
studied science in college. Another problem the survey re-
vealed was that more than half the reporters had trouble fin-
ding experts who speak in plain English rather than scientific
jargon and who also are not biased toward environmental
activism  or business. So the good news is that media want
conservation stories; the bad news is that they don't  know
what they're talking about or where the stories are.
    That's where you all come in. News coverage for your
group can translate into many benefits, including:
 •  free publicity for events, products, and meetings
 •  new members
 •  increased community support for conserving streams
    and water  resources
 •  visibility as a source of scientifically based water quality
 •  better public understanding of your organization, its
    goals, and its involvement in local conservation issues
 *  pressure on public officials and other policy makers to
    act on a problem.

Why are you newsworthy?
I am always being told  by  scientists and grassroots  activists,
"We're not doing anything that is newsworthy." I  go  crazy
trying to convince my own members, who are fisheries scien-
tists, that what they do is news. True story: Two of our mem-
bers were driving back from a  chapter meeting  and saw
smoke coming out of a  hotel. They stopped and ran in,  woke
up and evacuated everyone on the floor, called the fire de-
partment, and  rescued a mother and child who were almost
overcome by smoke in their burning room. The chapter ran a
blurb about  it  on  the second-to-last page, after the call for
papers for their meeting next year! And the members were
surprised that I called them for a story!  It's an extreme
example, but I'll tell you what I tell them.
    First, a local  angle is  essential even when a reporter is
writing for a national publication or network. You as a local
citizen and group can be that angle, as can the issue or event
you want covered.
    Second is  the matter of timeliness. You should keep up
with trends in environmental and community news  coverage
so that if you see a story on, say, reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act, you can call the reporter about a follow-up article
on the effects  of water pollution  on local streams or rivers.
Tie your group's activities in to current news.
    Third, you are newsworthy because you have good data
and experience and can give interesting quotes.  You just
need to decide  which facts  and focus will best "hook" a jour-
nalist's interest. Say your group is starting a riparian restora-
tion project. Outline details such as why riparian zones are
important, why your group decided to take on the project,
whom you hope to involve locally, which waterways you are
working on, and what the heck a riparian zone even is. Avoid
jargon like "riparian zone" in your statements. I talked to
Save Our Streams guru Karen Firehock the other day about
this presentation, and she suggested  using  analogies and
making the issue relevant. The statistic she likes to use is that
50% of Americans get  their drinking water from surface
water, and in many cities that figure  is 100%. Therefore,
stream pollution should be relevant and of great importance
to anyone who drinks a glass of water.
    Fourth, you're newsworthy  because you can provide
specific examples of, and possible solutions to, a local prob-
lem. You remember the 98% of reporters without a scientific
background? Take a journalist to a healthy stream and then
to one that is polluted or of lesser quality. Show her how to
use a kick-seine, fill out  a bug card with him, point out ero-
ded streambanks and sparse vegetation. Provide helpful de-
tails such as how to recognize good and poor qualities in
streams, and then describe what local citizens can do.
    In that  1994 FACS survey, reporters said they use
environmental and consumer activists or government  as
sources 80% of the time. However, in  order to gain this at-
tention, you must use different approaches  with different

Okay, you all know now  that you are newsworthy, but you're
broke. Who cares? Forget all those glossy media kits, all
those expensive video news releases, etc. You don't need 10
grand to get a reporter to  call. Most of your cost is in time.
    First, make a complete list of all local  newspapers and
magazines (daily, weekly, and monthly), TV, and radio sta-
tions. The aim is to make "contacts"—editorial page writers,
local news broadcasters,  journalists who regularly cover the
environment or community beats. Your local library should
have two reference books that make this job easy: the latest
issues of Editor and Publisher Yearbook and Broadcasting
Yearbook. Both list, by state, all the media outlets and their
addresses, phone numbers,  and even the beat reporters'
names. Don't forget to add any publications distributed by
state natural resources agencies and commissions. Look in
the  blue government section of the phone book for those
numbers. Also, list any wire service correspondents and free-
lance outdoor writers who have written about or shown an
interest in streams. You can also check on whether your state
has an  outdoor writers  group. The Association of Great
Lakes Outdoor Writers, for instance, has 350 members. Call
the  Outdoor Writers Association of America at 800/692-
    The cost of this part of your strategy is zero, except may-
be one or two long-distance phone calls.
    Second, appoint one of your members or officers to be
the media liaison. This member is responsible for developing
regular contacts  with journalists, maybe inviting them to
attend your organization's meetings or events. Reporters are
more likely to call people they know and trust  for infor-
mation, so mail them copies  of your  newsletter and offer
yourself as a "source."  Make sure your organization has
clearly chosen its position. A unified front is the best front.
    The cost to you? Again—zero.
    Third, make a list of events or products you want the
media to cover this year. This is an annual exercise. Ideas
might be officers' elections, reports, proposed legislation,
monitoring events, training sessions,  group anniversaries,

Concurrent Session 1: Effective Use of the Media
annual cleanups, a new fact sheet, whatever.
    Cost to do this: zero.
    Fourth, in  addition to your list of story ideas, decide
whom you most want to reach and what your key messages
for the year will be, then build a strategy around getting the
messages  out to those people. Decide what media would be
most likely to  cover it—for visual activities like stream
cleanups,  think TV as well  as newspaper. For a new fact
sheet, go with a weekly or daily paper. For a major report, try
the state wire service and state papers. You can save money
for your group by doing targeted media outreach. Don't just
send a release to anyone.
    Now, in putting  together your strategy, please think
about the following approaches. First, let's talk about news-
papers and print media. Regardless of what you read on the
Internet, print publications are not dead. In  1996, the number
of daily newspapers was 1,532. Weeklies totaled more than
5,000. One newer medium is on-line newspapers and maga-
zines. The number of on-line newspapers tripled last year to
175 and might  total 350 this year. Their audience is almost
limitless. Seek  out these publications and add them to your
media list.
    One of the most important tips I can give you in terms of
involving newspapers in your media strategy is to  give
reporters from  different departments of the newspaper dif-
ferent stories. That means pitch a feature story to the feature
editor—say, a story about a senior citizen who is helping to
restore important stream habitat and convince other seniors
to get involved in conservation. Senior citizens are terrific
demographics for newspapers and advertisers; papers like old
people. The same goes for children—kids sell. Is there any-
thing better than a big photo  of  a grinning boy eagerly
showing off a crayfish he found under some stream rocks?
    Then  pitch a news story to the news department—on
something like  sediment problems caused by development
near local Jones Creek. That might end up in the front or
metro section. Next comes an outdoor story about what a
great family activity stream monitoring can be, and showing
anglers and boaters getting involved. This might  end up on
the Sunday outdoor page in the sports section.
    You can even try the business editors with a pitch about
something like the increasing cost of flood insurance due to
diminished numbers of naturally protective wetlands—or, on
a positive  note,  how greenways and healthy streams can add
value to homeowner property. Even the crime reporter could
find a story in whether state laws are being enforced to re-
quire developers to construct barriers to prevent sedimen-
tation of nearby streams.
    In addition  to these newspaper sections, don't forget the
easiest way to get in the paper: write a letter to the editor. Be-
sides the front page, the letters page is the most-read page of
the paper. You  can also contact the editor about writing a
short opinion piece.
    Another idea: the 1993 FACS survey found that few
environmental stories  discuss the health risks or economic
consequences of environmental decisions. So if you can find
an angle along those lines, pitch that as well.
    I also want to point out that if you are an urban stream
group, you should know that TV and print media are hungry
for positive stories about minority groups and individuals.
Sadly, a recent  study prepared for the National Association
of Hispanic Journalists shows that only 1% of news stories
are focused on Latinos and issues related to Latinos. Of
those, 85% focused on crime, immigration, affirmative ac-
tion, and welfare. Yet the U.S. census predicts a huge growth
in the Latino population in the next decade, so media and ad-
vertisers are eager to reach these consumers. The same with
African-Americans. Media outlets such as Black Family To-
day, a bimonthly magazine in Florida that covers African-
Americans at work and play, are excellent possibilities for
    I strongly urge you all to consider creating a Rolodex
card that you mail to reporters each year. You write the text,
and then for around $25-$30, you hire a graphic artist to de-
sign the card. To print up 500 Rolodex cards in Washington,
DC, where you're sure to  be gouged,  costs less than $100.
I'm sure it's cheaper elsewhere.
    Now I'll turn to TV and cable. I confess a bias against
them because I think many TV reporters are lazy  and use the
evening news to entertain rather than inform. Essentially, if
you get covered by your local or state newspaper, you likely
will get a call from  a TV station. In May, a company called
Wirthlin Worldwide surveyed  a group of TV journalists
about how they come up with their stories. Almost one-third
of them said they used the newspapers often, very often, or
all the time to determine what to cover. Another 47% ad-
mitted that they  occasionally use newspaper articles to de-
termine what to air. Personally,  I think they're lying—if
more than five minutes of a newscast is devoted to original
stories I'd be surprised.
    For you, though,  this follow-the-lemmings attitude is
good—if you get into the newspaper first. What's really go-
ing to  help you get airtime is how visual your water moni-
toring  activities are. Unlike the talking heads of politicians,
you all are out there, feet wet, in the picturesque stream,
holding intriguing, scary-looking bugs—and you might be
only six years old! Or 96! Either way, you're local, you're
timely, 'you've identified  a  problem, and you've got re-
commended solutions. You're news! So when you're think-
ing of pitching a story to TV, think about how to get your
message across visually.
    Cable  TV  represents the  future of  communication:
reaching niche  audiences. Don't ignore this outlet. Many
cable stations have local talk shows that want local people to
discuss local issues.  Call them and offer to be a guest. This is
a great way to get TV experience  before pitching to the
network affiliates.  It  also is especially good  at  reaching
minority and international groups, so you should  identify
members in your group who  speak other languages and can
reach a multicultural audience in your community.
    Another way to use cable is to ask a college communi-
cations class to prepare your group's PSA as a project. Stu-
dents can write and produce  the PSAs for you for free or a
very low fee; then you only  have to deal with distribution.
Try to tie in your TV PSAs with your radio PSAs. Using
multiple media outlets  at the same time strengthens the mes-
sage impact.

Radio is great. It's underused by environmental groups, but
the potential audience is tremendous. It's also very easy and
inexpensive to get coverage. You have'several routes:

 1. Write up a few PSAs about different issues or problems
    that relate to the station's audience, maybe a PSA about
    frugal use of lawn chemicals to reduce runoff or one that
    has five tips on how citizens can conserve water. Write
    up a 10-second, 30-second and one-minute spot on each
    topic, practicing each aloud and timing it for length.

                                               Concurrent Session 1: Restoration 101'—Planning Restoration Projects
    "Write a cover letter introducing your group and why it
    wants the station to run the spots. Include the scripts and
    a self-addressed, stamped postcard or envelope and ask
    stations to let you know if they will use the PSAs or not.
    Your media list of radio stations should focus on station
    formats geared to talk, news, public access, country-and-
    western, and middle-of-the-road. I've had good success
    with these formats.
 2. You can produce the spots yourself on tape. Go to a
    commercial audiotape place and ask for recycled tapes,
    which are cheaper. Ask a local university or taping
    company to donate 15 minutes of studio time to produce
    the tapes. Students can be helpful with the how-to. The
    problem is that this approach costs more and also
    doesn't contain the station's radio personality, who
    always has a better chance of getting airtime. This is a
    good choice, though, if you have a celebrity willing to
    be the voice.
 3. Pitch stories to the radio news reporter and offer to take
    her out for a monitoring demonstration.
 4. Keep a list of all local radio talk shows and contact
    appropriate ones for a possible guest appearance. Call-in
    shows are particularly good and often have large

    Another tip I want to share about creating a media strat-
egy expands on a point I made earlier regarding the student-
produced PSA: Let others do your work. When I was at the
Izaak Walton League, we had to raise $350,000 to buy a
helicopter  for Fish and Wildlife Service to stop duck
poachers in Louisiana.  I asked senators and congressmen
from the state and throughout the duck fly way if they'd be
willing to do a public service announcement for TV about
the effort. Every one said yes. We wrote up the scripts, and
their offices produced the spots, distributed press releases
about them, satellited the PSAs to every TV station in their
state,  and even used the voice-overs as radio actualities,
which they also distributed free for us. Legislators in your
state might be willing to do something similar, perhaps for
National Wetlands Month, especially during this  election
    When  I handled media as  a volunteer for the Alz-
heimer's Association, I often turned to the local Chamber of
Commerce  or Lions Club for outreach help with our annual
walkathon.  The chamber had excellent press lists and con-
tacts, and because their members  wanted to participate, they
sent out their own press release about the event. Thus,  the
media received  two press releases from  two  different
groups—a double hit to get their attention.
    I want  to conclude by urging you to be proactive rather
than reactive with the media. By taking time to think through
media opportunities, you're more likely to  generate positive
coverage and have a say in responding to negative stories.
                                Restoration  101:
              Planning  Restoration  Projects
Moderator: Karen Firehock,  Izaak  Walton League of
Panelists: Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of Amer-
ica; Dennis O'Connor,* Restoration Ecologist

                Karen Firehock
    Izaak Walton League of America Save Our Streams
Program, 707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878,
           301/548-0150 or 800/BUG-IWLA

       The Stream Doctor  Project

Stream Doctor is the watershed restoration project of the
Izaak Walton  League of America's Save Our Streams pro-
gram. Stream Doctor helps people diagnose stream problems,
write a prescription for recovery, and initiate a physical fit-
ness program for long term care.
    Stream Doctor takes a holistic approach to stream
health, which includes the chemical, physical, and biological
health of the stream. Stream Doctor helps volunteers first as-
sess the health of their stream by looking at how well the
stream is  able to support optimum physical, chemical, and
biological values, and then take steps to help the stream
    Stream Doctor involves looking at all aspects of the wa-
tershed and determining what is  achievable for your stream.

*No paper submitted
For example, if 60% of the watershed is covered by imper-
vious surfaces, such as roads and rooftops, bringing back
trout is probably not a realistic restoration goal. However,
improving public access, managing groundwater, and plant-
ing trees may be feasible for your stream.
    Stream Doctor uses techniques such as bioengineering to
help Mother Nature heal. Bioengineering involves the use of
woody vegetation with deep and branching root systems in
concert with specialized planting patterns or other structural
support, such as logs, to help anchor vegetation in place.
Streams are dynamic and do not function properly when they
are constricted. These life systems are able to move and ad-
just to changes in stream flow, shape, and function and also
provide other benefits such as fish and wildlife habitat, fil-
tering of polluted runoff, bank stabilization, and aesthetic
    The most important aspect of the Stream Doctor  ap-
proach is partnering. Stream Doctor does not advocate vol-
unteers or amateurs taking on a restoration project. Rather,
Stream Doctor encourages  volunteers to enlist appropriate
technical expertise to design a project, apply for necessary
permits, build and install restoration  plantings, and monitor
and maintain the project.

Slide show script
Note: Karen Firehock's conference presentation consisted of a slide
show. Following is a slightly modified version of the script that ac-
companied the slide show.

Concurrent Session 1: Restoration 101—Planning Restoration Projects
Save Our Streams: Save Our Streams (SOS) is the national
stream monitoring  and restoration  program of the Izaak
Walton League of America. The League is a national non-
profit conservation  organization of 50,000 members dedi-
cated to  the conservation of America's  soil,  air,  woods,
waters, and wildlife. The League works on a variety of con-
servation issues including outdoor ethics, sustainable com-
munities, clean air, clean water, and restoration  of public
lands. SOS was founded in 1969 to help  League members
and the public learn  to protect and restore America's streams
and was spread nationwide through the Water Wagon, which
traveled to the lower 48 states teaching people how to mon-
itor and protect their rivers.
Stream Doctor: Prescriptions for Stream Health
 •  Examine Your Watershed
 •  Diagnose Your  Stream's Health
 •  Cure Your Sick Stream
 •  Provide Long-Term Care

STEP ONE:  Examine Your Watershed
Watershed Boundary Map: The first step is to learn your
watershed address. A watershed is an area of land that drains
to a particular stream, river, lake, or estuary.
Watershed Mapping: Use topographic maps to determine
the land  that drains to your stream. Streams are the true
landscape architects, carving  out valleys, floodplains, and
landscape features.  Determine the watershed area of your
stream and inventory the existing land uses.
Stream Survey and  Inventory: Walk  your  stream and
record the condition of your stream and its watershed. Work
with other stream partners and  enlist technical expertise from
government agencies, businesses, schools, and volunteers.
Healthy Stream: A healthy stream has good instream habi-
tat for aquatic life and fish, such as overhanging vegetation,
woody debris or rocks, and organic matter. The floodplain is
the flat area adjacent to the stream and plays a  vital role in
stream health. Flood  plain vegetation, such as trees and
woody shrubs, provide shade to keep the stream cool and
oxygen levels  high.  Roots  from vegetation also filter
pollutants from rainfall runoff and groundwater.
Stream Features: Identify and map physical features in your
adopted stream segment such as point bars, riffles, floodplain
areas, pools, sand bars, and meanders.
Bank Full Area: In a stable stream you will recognize low
areas where the stream has carved a shallow floodplain.
Riparian Zone Vegetation: A healthy stream has a buffer of
native vegetation  on both sides  that provides stream shade
and wildlife habitat, and filters polluted rainfall runoff and
Animals: Streams also provide  habitat for animals and a
vital corridor for wildlife. Look for signs of animal life such
as animal tracks. Beaver also rely on streams  for habitat.
Trees provide food for the beavers.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Stream Doctors also look  for
runoff pollution coming from the land,  such  as erosion,
spills, or illegal dumps.
Urban Areas: In  urban landscapes, large paved areas
prevent rainwater from soaking into the ground. Instead,
rainwater runs off  the streets in great volumes  and high

velocities, carrying with it pollutants from the streets.
Storm Drain: Rainwater runs into storm drains and carries
pollutants,  such  as oil, into the sewers and into streams.
Cities and parishes of greater than 100,000 people must be-
gin to treat the sources  of this runoff under the 1987 Clean
Water Act Amendments, but most cities are a long way from
meeting this goal.
Streambank Erosion:  High volumes of urban stormwater
can enter creeks with great velocity, gouging out the bottom
of the streambank and causing streambanks to collapse. Walk
your stream to look for problems such as streambank erosion.
Eroding streambanks can contribute over 40% of the
sediment entering streams. Excess sediment can clog fish,
smother bottom-dwelling insects, and block light to under-
water plants.
Floods: Floods can also cause streambank  erosion. Flooding
is  a "natural" event and serves  an important role in de-
positing nutrient-rich soils along floodplains. However, the
frequency of large floods can increase when land is cleared
for development, tree harvesting, or fanning. The draining of
wetlands can also increase downstream flooding  because
rainwater is no longer stored in wetlands.
Point Source Pollution: Stream Doctors search for pollution
problems in their watershed, such as point source pollution
from pipes, and determine what type of discharge is coming
from the pipe. The types of pollution will be different depen-
ding on whether the pipe drains a farm, a shopping mall, or a

STEP TWO: Diagnose Your Stream's  Health
Kick-Seining: Volunteers can use a fine mesh net known as
a kick seine to trap stream organisms living on rocks, sub-
merged roots, silt, and logs. Instructions in the SOS kit and
SOS handbooks  tell you how to collect your samples, and
how to identify aquatic organisms such as insect larvae and
crustaceans to help you find out if the stream is clean enough
to support a healthy aquatic community.
Dip Netting: In  muddy-bottom streams in coastal or low-
lying areas, a D-frame net can be used to collect organisms
from submerged roots, woody debris, organic  matter, and
stream bottom.
Bug Picking: Next you will pick aquatic  larvae from your
net to determine what you have in your sample, and then use
the SOS bug card to identify your sample. The presence of
macroinvertebrates will help you determine if the stream is
healthy. A  healthy stream has a  variety of stream macro-
invertebrates and crustaceans,  most of which are in the pol-
lution-sensitive category.
Stonefly: The stonefly is a very pollution-sensitive organ-
ism. The stonefly has two tails and two antennae, has gills on
the upper part of the body, and is smooth on the lower half.
Aquatic Worm:  The aquatic worm is very  pollution-tolerant
and can live for a few days with no oxygen  at all.
Chemical  Monitoring: Volunteers can conduct  simple
chemical tests, such as  tests for dissolved oxygen, pH, and
temperature, to learn about stream water quality. Kits de-
signed to be used by laypersons can be purchased from
several companies.
Stream Vegetation: Stream vegetation can provide clues to
stream health. This  slide shows a liverwort growing on a

                                                 Concurrent Session 1: Restoration 101—Planning Restoration Projects
 rock, indicating a healthy  stream. In fact, trout were con-
 gregating just below.

 Stream Channel Morphology: Other calculations concern-
 ing your stream's channel, gradient, substrate, and stream-
 bank erosion should also be conducted.

 STEP THREE: Cure  Your Sick Stream
 People Working Together: Once Stream Doctors have in-
 ventoried watershed land uses and monitored stream quality,
 it's time to take action! By working together, you can make
 sure that pollution problems in your watershed are solved.
 You can work with neighbors, landowners, businesses, and
 local government to improve land management practices and
 regulations  and educate  the public. For example, you can
 stencil storm drains to remind people not to dump their used
 oil. Americans pour the equivalent of 16 Exxon Valdez spills
 down storm drains every year!

 Stream  Restoration: Stream Doctors can also perform
 surgery to help the stream heal. Replanting woody shrubs
 and using structural techniques such as logs staked into the
 bank will help the plants  re-establish and restore stream
 buffers and habitat. This technique is called "bioengineering"
 because  it combines live  materials with some structural
 support to help damaged  streams heal quickly.  Bioengi-
 neering does not improve on Mother Nature  but helps
 streams heal quickly from damage wrought by people.

 Channelized Stream: One approach to stopping bank ero-
 sion is armoring  streambanks and bottoms with concrete.
 This destroys stream habitat and causes water to move down-
 stream faster, causing bank erosion downstream.

 Riprap:  Stream Doctor  does not advocate using riprap to
 restore stream banks, holes, and gullies. Rip-rap is unsightly,
 provides no habitat value,  and tends to wash away during
 flooding. It is also expensive and usually requires heavy
 equipment. Riprap can be used at the bottom of the bank to
 prevent undercutting in very unstable urban streams.
 Stream Slope: Stream slope may have to be changed to a
 more gentle angle to accommodate plantings and improve
 bank stability.

Dogwood:  Red osier dogwood (Cornus  stolonifera)  is  a
frequently used streambank plant. Red osier dogwood grows
well in moist soils and provides good wildlife habitat.
Willow: Trees selected for bioengineering should have deep
and branching root systems. For example, the black willow
(Salix  nigra) is native to this area and readily  available.
Plants for projects should be harvested from the area when
they are dormant and  installed in the early spring or late fall.
Live Stake: Willows can be used to create live stakes.
Dormant willow  posts 2-10 feet long and 1-4 inches in
 diameter can be driven into the streambanfc, leaving one-third
 of the stake above ground. These live stakes will sprout roots
 and form a dense root mass. New willow shoots will  grow
 from the top and shade the stream.

 Brushlayer Fill: Small, whiplike cuttings and alternating
 layers of soil can be used  to fill excavated holes. These
 brushlayers create a dense mat of roots and foliage.
 Live Fascine: Live fascines are sausage-like layers of dor-
 mant cuttings, also known as waddles, that are laid in shal-
 low streambank trenches. Because the plants are buried, they
 dedicate most resources to root  production during the first
 year and  form a dense intertwined  root mass to hold the
 streambank securely.

 Brush Mattress: Brush mattresses are dense mats of cuttings
 woven together and staked into the streambank. They can be
 used to cover large bare areas of soil on steeper slopes.

 Filter Fabric: Fabric called Geo  Jutte is a natural plant fiber
 used to hold the bank while vegetation establishes. Even-
 tually this  biodegradable material  will break down and
 become part of the bank.

 Grass: Grass usually  is planted over the site  to prevent ero-
 sion while the cuttings take root and begin to grow.
 To Restore or Not to Restore: Consider these issues before
 planning a stream restoration project:
     1. CHANGING STREAM DYNAMICS. Your stream may be
       unstable due to land use changes, such as increased
       paving of upstream areas,  that affect your stream's
       hydrology, causing frequent widening  and bank
    2. EXTREME STORMWATER FLOWS. If much  of your
       watershed is paved, your stream may experience
       frequent flooding. This may make successful stream
       restoration difficult.
    3. LACK OF EXPERTISE. If you are unable to get adequate
       information about your stream from government
       agencies and/or you cannot afford to hire technical
       consultants, postpone your project until you have
       enlisted technical assistance.

STEP FOUR: Provide Long-Term Care
A Stream  Doctor's job is never done. Stream Doctors work
to examine, diagnose,  cure, and provide care for  their
streams on  an  ongoing basis. Become a Stream Doctor
today! Adopt and cure a stream in your neighborhood.

This slide show is funded by grants from the AT&T Foundation,
Lowrance  Electronics, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Script and photos by Karen Firehock, Christy Williams,
and Julie Vincentz. SOS also wishes to thank the Natural Resources
Conservation Service for several slides.

Concurrent Session 1: Monitoring Aquatic Vegetation
             Monitoring  Aquatic  Vegetation
Moderator: Linda Green, University of Rhode Island Coop-
erative Extension
Panelists:  Elizabeth Herron, University of Rhode Island
Cooperative Extension, and Stan Nichols, Wisconsin Geo-
logical and Natural History Survey

                Elizabeth Herron
     University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension,
Watershed Watch Program, 210B Woodward Hall, Kingston,
                RI02881, 401/874-2905

                 Stanley Nichols
Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, Wisconsin Geological and
 Natural History Survey, 3817 Mineral Point Rd., Madison,
                WI53705, 608/262-6556

Aquatic plants serve a variety of ecological functions that are
being increasingly appreciated by lake scientists and others
with a vested interest in lakes, ponds, and streams. Plants
provide habitat, shade, oxygen, and food for fish, inverte-
brates, waterfowl, and other animals.  Aquatic plants also
have direct and indirect economic importance. Some species
control  shoreline erosion, or impact water  body aesthetics
and use. Species such as wild rice produce commercial prod-
ucts, while Eurasian watermilfoil costs communities signifi-
cant amounts of money to control.
    Aquatic plants are also good long-term monitoring tools.
Plants are primarily non-mobile, so they cannot flee rapid
environmental change. Many species  are perennial, inte-
grating environmental change over periods  longer than one
year. Plants can integrate the cumulative effects of many dis-
turbances. Aquatic plants respond to nutrients, light, com-
petition or impacts from exotics, and management stresses.
Because the ecology of many species  is fairly well known,
reasonable interpretation of habitat impacts can be made
from plant community responses.
Monitoring objectives
The type of information a volunteer water quality monitoring
program collects largely depends upon the program's data
objectives—in other words, how they intend to use the data.
Different uses require differing amounts and types of infor-
mation. Prior to determining  which  monitoring protocol
volunteers will follow, it's  important to identify just what
information  is needed. If the intention is to pass on the data
to other users, it is advisable that those users be consulted as
early  as possible  in the program development process. There
are advantages and disadvantages to most of the established
plant monitoring  protocols for volunteer programs.
    Nuisance or exotic plant  identification is one of  the
simplest monitoring efforts groups can undertake. Because
volunteers need to be able to identify only one or two
different plants, little training is required. Typically, volun-
teers  look for these nuisance species during their usual water
monitoring  activities, so no additional time is required to
perform this type of monitoring. However, while nuisance
plant monitoring can  be very useful in monitoring and
managing the spread of invasive species, very little addition-
al information is  collected with this type of monitoring.
    Plant bed assessments or general surveys also require
little training. This type of monitoring requires volunteers to
visually assess and map the type (immersed, submersed, etc.)
and extent of aquatic plant beds. Completing a map requires
a fair amount of time,  especially on larger water bodies. In
order to be useful, bed assessments need to be repeated at
regular intervals, such as yearly. Because of natural fluc-
tuations in plant beds,  general surveys provide only limited
information. They are best used to manage recreational areas,
such as beaches or marinas.
    Transects, or detailed surveys, require extensive training
and time to complete,  but provide valuable information on
species composition and abundance. This type of monitoring
uses maps created through a plant bed assessment to identify
areas from which  to collect and identify plant samples. In
addition to being able to map plant beds, volunteers must be
able to identify  different plant species and estimate species
    Focused mapping, such as identification of rare, en-
dangered, or invasive species, typically requires more exten-
sive training. For this type of natural history survey, an entire
water body needs to be  sampled, not just select transects.
This requires a greater commitment on the part of volunteers,
and  may require specialized equipment. The information
gathered can be  very valuable, and may justify the additional
resources if your  data needs require such extensive infor-

Technology and data preservation
Technology provides some tools which, if properly utilized,
may be useful in aquatic plant monitoring. Geographic Posi-
tioning Systems (GPS) allow for precise mapping of beds or
locations of rare  species. Depth sounders  or fish finders
enable volunteers to map submerged plant beds that may not
be visible from the surface. However, both of these systems
require a great deal of training to be used accurately for aqua-
tic plant monitoring, and it is very easy to misinterpret the
information they provide. Additionally, precise GPS equip-
ment and base stations (for calibration) can be very expen-
sive. As technology improves, it is likely that these systems
will become better suited for volunteer programs, and thus
gain greater acceptance.
    Computer technology has also expanded data sharing
opportunities. By posting aquatic plant data on the Internet or
World Wide Web, it is possible for volunteer-collected data
to be widely used. Due to this expanded use, it is crucial that
quality control issues be dealt with throughout the program,
and that established protocols for labeling and storing of data
sheets and preserved plant samples be followed. Therefore, it
is strongly recommended that programs interested in making
their data available consult with the scientific or academic
community regarding  appropriate protocols. Do not forget
low-tech data preservation techniques such as maintaining
pressed plant specimens in a centrally located herbarium or
collection. Herbaria  provide excellent opportunities to
compare plants across time and regions.

Setting  up an  aquatic plant monitoring program
There are three key  considerations in setting up an aquatic
plant training program. First, determine what information is
needed. Second, determine how much time you will have,

                                                                Concurrent Session 1: Monitoring Aquatic Vegetation
and v/hat resources are available, to collect the information.
Third, and of considerable importance, determine how much
time and energy volunteers are willing to spend training and
monitoring. The answers to these  questions will frame the
development of the monitoring program.
    Numerous aquatic plant monitoring resources and refer-
ences  are available to help in program development. The
EPA's Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual, the
New  York Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program
Sampling Protocol, the Wisconsin Department  of Natural
Resources' Aquatic Plant Monitoring Procedures Self-Help
Lake  Volunteer Training Manual, and the University of
Rhode Island Watershed Watch's Advanced Training for
Water Quality Monitors: Aquatic Plants Manual can provide
useful guidance.  In  addition,  numerous individuals are
willing to act as resources.  These include federal, state, and
local agency personnel; university staff; professional organ-
izations; plant management companies; and environmental
groups. The University of Florida Center for Aquatic Plants
is a national resource that can help identify potential regional
contacts, as  well as a  wealth of other valuable aquatic plant
information. These resource contacts can provide assistance
in finding appropriate regional plant identification guides,
books, and keys, or suggest monitoring methods and labeling
protocols. Often, many of those same individuals will be
potential data users, so it is especially useful to  have their
input as early as possible.

Equipment and expenses
Aquatic plant monitoring equipment needs  and  costs will
vary with data needs  and protocols  used. Typically, plant
mapping tools will include a boat, view tube or diving mask,
lake map, range finder, weighted measuring tape or Secchi
disk, and possibly a GPS,  or depth finder. Plant-gathering
tools  range  from SCUBA  to weighted rakes, anchors, or
grappling hooks. Often,  volunteers  already own many of
these tools, keeping program costs down.
    The  time and resources needed to develop and  im-
plement  an  aquatic plant monitoring  program also vary.
However, expect to devote approximately 10 to  20 hours per
week  for approximately three months  to develop the pro-
gram.  The time can  be reduced through efficient  use of
existing information and resources. For a monitoring pro-
gram that involves volunteer identification of aquatic plants,
it is advisable  that multiple repetitive plant identification
sessions be held. A minimum of four 2-to-3-hour sessions is
strongly  recommended. Volunteer time required for data
collection will, of course, vary with the type of information
being  gathered.

Training techniques
An effective aquatic plant training program should rely on a
variety of training  techniques in  order to provide sufficient
repetition. Also, having several different people present ses-
sions allows material to be  repeated without becoming bor-
ing. Generally, introductory sessions held in classroom envi-
ronments reduce distractions, enabling volunteers to focus on
the construction of aquatic plant identification keys, plant
ecology,  and similar topics. Plant  identification  from pre-
served or live species in water-filled trays in a laboratory set-
ting is the next step. Once program participants have gotten
comfortable  with the subject, it is imperative that training be
moved to the field.
    Plants appear  quite different in  their  natural environ-
ments, and many  species look alike. It is important that
 volunteers learn to recognize Che various species in the field,
 since that is where they will  be monitoring. Several field
 sessions in different settings  should be scheduled. Earlier
 field sessions could include an aquatic plant expert guiding
 the group through identification. At later sessions, volunteers
 should  complete the identifications either in groups or on
 their own. This type of training sequence provides enough
 repetition of information to allow volunteers to fully grasp
 the concepts and processes, while building their confidence
 in their abilities.

 Data interpretation
 Once your trained volunteers have begun collecting aquatic
 plant data, the amount of information that needs  to be
 collected depends on your program needs. First,  prior to
 training, you should determine what information is needed,
 and how accurate it needs to be. Second, the amount of data
 collected often depends upon the resources available for
 collecting the data. Frequently,  intentions  and ambitions
 exceed the time and materials available, so set realistic goals.
    Concentrate your efforts  on the  most variable  areas.
 They are the  most difficult to describe. Do not base your
 sampling scheme on rare plants unless you are specifically
 looking for them. Rare plants are seldom sampled ade-
    Remember, often the majority  of  the cost or effort in
 sampling is fixed, so collecting  extra samples costs little
 more. Think in round numbers to make life easier for data
 analysis. A couple of guidelines  to help decide when you
 have enough data are species/area curves and running aver-
 ages. When you are no longer finding any different species
 or much average change,  you  have  probably collected
 enough samples.
    Assessing plant community change  usually requires
 some multiple sampling regime, generally at annual or longer
 intervals. Things to look  for in determining change are
 maximum  depth of plant growth, percentage vegetated lit-
 toral area, species diversity, relative percentage of submersed
 plants,  relative percentage of sensitive submersed plants,
 total taxa, and presence of exotic species.
    How much change between sampling periods is caused
 by seasonal and sampling variability and how much is real
 change? Some guidelines developed in Wisconsin suggest
 that real change has occurred if the difference between two
 sampling periods is greater than: 0.8  meters in  maximum
 growth  depth;  13% in the  proportion  of open area in the
 littoral  zone; 0.04 in  Simpson's  diversity or 4 in species
 number; and/or if floral or community similarity is less than
 0.70. Values for your region may be different.
 Aquatic plant  monitoring  can be a valuable project for
 volunteer programs. The information collected frequently re-
presents the only information available for many locations.
The key to developing a volunteer monitoring program is to
 determine what information is  needed,  and whether the re-
 sources  are available to collect it.
    Volunteers have successfully been trained to identify
 aquatic  plant species with plant guides and keys, and have
 been particularly valuable for monitoring nuisance and exotic
plants. Repetition is key to  getting participants comfortable
 with aquatic plant identification. Combining classroom with
field training  provides a good environment and hands-on
training opportunities.
    For  aquatic plant data to  be most useful, monitoring

Concurrent Session 1: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in Extracurricular Settings
needs to be done over time. Changes in plant communities
provide information regarding both community health and
water quality.  However, some changes due to  season or
sampling regime are expected. Determining  what changes
are significant requires a fair amount of data, and reliance on
statistical  methods.  Understanding  and  recognizing the
limitations of volunteer plant monitoring is important in
establishing a successful program.
   Basics  of  Using  School-Aged  Monitors
                  in   Extracurricular  Settings
Moderator: Barb Horn, Rivers of Colorado Water Watch
Speakers: Steven Lee, The  Heritage Museum;  Mandy
Richardson, Maryland Save Our Streams; Keith Wheeler,
Global Rivers Environmental Education Network (GREEN)

                   Steven Lee
    The Heritage Museum of Art, 4509 Prospect Circle,
          Baltimore, MD 21216, 410/664-6711

        The Gwynns Falls Wildlife
               Habitat Program

The Gwynns Falls Wildlife Habitat Program (GFWHP) is a
model project in stream and wildlife conservation for urban
areas. This is a program  for the revitalization and preser-
vation of the indigenous natural resource that is the Gwynns
Falls stream valley forest.
    Originally land of the Seneca, the Gwynns Falls stream
valley forest is a large wooded area of public and private
lands bordered by a diverse array of neighborhoods. The
park is made up primarily  of Gwynns Falls and Leakin Park,
together comprising  over  1,200  acres.  Features of the
Gwynns Falls/Leakin Park include two streams, steep cliffs,
open meadows, and a virgin forest.  This is  a unique and
remarkable wilderness area, with wildlife communities sel-
dom, found in large urban settings. While some of the park's
areas are frequently visited, other  more isolated areas are
rarely impacted by human contact.
    Through the years of burgeoning city growth, this
wilderness park has faced a barrage of threats: encroaching
development, dumping,  hunting,  highways, and stream
degradation. Through it all, many wild species, like the
hawk, deer, and fox of our native area, have  survived. But
many of our native fish, waterfowl, and upland bird species
have become critically endangered.
    The health and future of urban communities are manifest
in the quality, planning, and promise of the region's natural
systems—streams, air, natural areas, and wildlife—that we
barely notice, for all the concrete. However,  the quality of
the environment is just as crucial for cities as for rural areas.
Unfortunately, the quality  of many of our city environments
has been deemed a lesser priority, sometimes to the point of
their endangerment.
    Using a comprehensive approach, the Gwynns  Falls
Wildlife Habitat Program was conceived to stimulate new
cooperative thinking about human and wildlife communities
in city planning. Based on the premise that the health of the
city's forest is a prime indicator of the environmental health
of the city, the GFWHP brought together governmental
agencies, historical and environmental groups, community

organizations, and schools in an interactive plan to preserve
the native wildlife, plant species, and stream quality of the
Gwynns Falls stream valley forest.
    This project of the Heritage Arboretum (the environ-
mental programs initiative of The Heritage Museum of Art)
combined public park land, community organization-owned
land, and individually owned land of neighbors into a part-
nership for wildlife habitat conservation. Each of these part-
ners was critical, not just toward enabling a complete stream/
forest/periphery area, but also toward the evolution of a sup-
portive spirit among all levels of the community.
    The GFWHP, working in cooperation with the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, the Baltimore Department
of Recreation and Parks, and neighbors, initially  designated a
fairly isolated 75-acre segment of the park area for wildlife
habitat conservation. The area's primary characteristics in-
clude a stream with narrow riffles and wider calm sections, a
linear island, meadows, rocky banks, a steep cliff,  and dense
woodland slopes. The area serves as  a frequent  rest stop for
many migratory birds, and as a homeland  for several varie-
ties of waterfowl and wetland species.

Youth initiatives
A prime directive of the GFWHP, from its inception, has
been to provide initiatives that profoundly reestablish a bond
with nature for inner city youths. Through the Service-Learn-
ing School Programs component, youth are offered sustained
involvement and training in ecology and forest conservation,
leading in turn to the cultivation of a new generation of en-
thusiasts for the future preservation of our city parks.
   In microcosm, the construct of our schools initiatives
reflects the interactive, cooperative approach of the GFWHP
as a whole, again engaging various aspects of community to-
ward the dual purpose of habitat conservation and youth edu-
cation. Student involvement has  been significant and inte-
gral, in both long- and short-term programs, for which stu-
dents receive community service credits toward graduation.
   Short-term programs are Special Projects in conser-
vation. These are generally one-day events, such as tree and
shrub plantings, stream cleanups,  or conservation trail main-
tenance, where students from a number  of schools work
alongside other members of the community.
   The GFWHP's main thrust for students are its  long-term
projects, currently the Bird Housing Program and the Bio-
logical Stream Monitoring Project. More highly structured
than the Special Projects, these programs  are developed in
conjunction with classroom teachers, thus  enabling them to
incorporate  ecological experiential learning  into  their cur-
ricula. The teachers are the key to the programs' continuity
in their commitment toward long-range goals.
   Each school project is also teamed with a professional

                                  Concurrent Session 1: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in Extracurricular Settings
 environmental organization that serves as project leader and
 mentor to the students, particularly in field sessions. Through
 directed classroom and field studies, students achieve hands-
 on experience in the ecology of the watershed and its con-
 servation. For instance, the GFWHP Bird Housing Program
 is developed in conjunction with the carpentry teacher of an
 area high school, and with the Baltimore Bird Club of the
 Maryland Ornithological Society as the class's mentoring or-
 ganization. Carpentry students construct bird houses- for sev-
 eral threatened species. On field trips, under the direction of
 the Baltimore Bird Club, the students install and monitor the
 houses in the wildlife conservation range. Lecture sessions
 with DNR forest rangers are also included in the field trips.
     In conclusion, the Gwynns Falls Wildlife Habitat Pro-
 gram provides environmental interaction and training rarely
 made available to  urban youths, who, in turn, help to pre-
 serve our wildlife communities of today and tomorrow.
               Mandy Richardson
     Maryland Save Our Streams, 258 Scotts Manor Dr.,
    GlenBumie, MD 21061, 410/969-0084, 800/448-582
                    or 410/969-0084

          A Watershed Partnership

 Project Heartbeat is a biological stream monitoring program
 developed for volunteers by Save Our Streams (SOS). The
 methodology is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency's recommended Protocol II for rapid bioassessment,
 outlined  in  Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for  Use in
 Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish
 (EPA-440-4-89-001). Project Heartbeat monitoring includes
 collecting macroinvertebrates using a kick-seine, performing
 a visual habitat assessment, and identifying the organisms to
 the family level in the lab. These are the same procedures
 that are used for the stream monitoring  component of the
 Gwynns Falls Wildlife Habitat Program (GFWHP) of the
 Heritage Museum.
    Student volunteers were solicited to work on the moni-
 toring portion of the program through two interested science
 teachers at local Baltimore City Schools (Edmonson and
 Walbrook High Schools). Organizational meetings were set
 up between the teachers, Heritage Museum personnel, and
 Save Our Streams staff. Because this was the first year of the
 program,  we decided to start with a small number  of stu-
 dents—three from each school.
    Participation in the program was offered to sophomores
 and juniors who  excelled in sciences. The students were
 selected because they were responsible, interested in the pro-
ject, and able to pass on the project to incoming students.
 The goal for the students was that they develop a sense of
 ownership and a desire to be responsible for the continuation
 of the project.
    The monitoring  year was planned during the organi-
 zational meetings. Specific dates were planned for  stream
monitoring events, laboratory identification training, and lab
identification sessions. The stream monitoring portion of the
GFWHP was scheduled for fall 1995 to fall 1996, with a mo-
nitoring session during each season, including winter.
    The training  event and first monitoring session were
scheduled for the same day. The morning was an intro-
duction to stream  ecology, leading  into an explanation of
how and why streams are monitored. After lunch, we divided
 into three teams to collect samples.
     We planned both events on the same day for two rea-
 sons.  First, it was easier and more convenient. Second, we
 wanted the procedures to be fresh in the students' minds for
 the first monitoring event,, thus ensuring greater confidence
 on the part of the students.
     We also planned the first training to be'more SOS-staff-
 intensive than any  of the following sessions. Three SOS
 staffpersons acted as guides at each training site. The morn-
 ing training session took place inside, away from the roaring
 stream, and where visual aids could be used. The students
 saw the monitoring procedures performed, though not in a
 realistic setting. Next, each staffperson was assigned to lead
 a monitoring team through its first actual collection. During
 subsequent seasons, the trainings were less SOS-staff-
 intensive. Instead, those trainings were refreshers, with teams
 composed of two to three students, a teacher, and sometimes
 a community volunteer.
     After each collection activity, the students met back at
 the  training site to compare samples and ask any remaining
 questions. This was a good time to reiterate concepts of
 stream ecology and  watershed dynamics. For instance, you
 could  initiate discussion by  asking about insect diversity in
 the sample, and discussing why students did or did not find a
 good representation of different types of bugs. What are the
 possible pollution sources that could be affecting this particu-
 lar stream? Teachers may also lead a reflection activity. For
 this project, students were asked to fill  out an evaluation
 stating, "I liked...," "I did not like ...," "I learned
 and "I wish I had learned ...."
     Laboratory identification of the insects is another facet
 of this project. Students were trained by a volunteer profes-
 sional  biologist to identify samples to the family level, thus
 giving students the opportunity to follow  their sample from
 collection to identification. Save Our Streams'  partnership
 with a local university, The University of Maryland-Balti-
 more County, helped secure a facility for laboratory identi-
 fication. SOS regularly utilizes the university's labs for these
 purposes. The GFWHP has  discussed moving lab sessions
 from the university into the high schools where students at-
 tend classes.
     As in all programs, some things worked well,  while
 others  needed improvement over the course of the project.
 One of the challenges has been to get the same students to at-
 tend each monitoring event and lab session. Due to schedule
 conflicts and other unforeseen circumstances,  there were
 often as many new students as experienced students at an
 event.  Such  a problem challenges the continuity of the pro-
ject. Another challenge has been to relate the monitoring to
 the  students'  neighborhood streams. Although we  are
 monitoring in their watersheds, many times the students do
 not get to see the lower-order streams that run underground
 or through channels in their parts of the city. A bus tour of
 the Gwynns  Falls watershed  or similar activity with accom-
 panying maps would help the students understand exactly
 how they relate to  the  Gwynns  Falls Wildlife Habitat
    In  conclusion, there are many benefits to using student
 volunteers as stream monitors. Students are enthusiastic and
 bring a great deal  of creativity  to the monitoring process.
They are also the stewards of today and tomorrow, and for
 that reason, it is necessary that they be incorporated in the
 national volunteer monitoring effort.

Concurrent Session 1: Designing Effective Adult Training
                 Keith  Wheeler
Global Rivers Environmental Education Network (GREEN),
    206 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 150, Ann Arbor, MI 48104,
        313/761-8142,, Web site

        Environmental Monitoring
      and Education in Non-Formal
           and Informal Settings

The Global Rivers Environmental Education Network has
developed an educational model for watershed sustainability
that works  to weaken the  barriers between formal, non-
formal, and informal education. GREEN's model focuses on
thepremise that education is  lifelong, and that if
one  is  going to  educate  with  empowerment,
change,  and action  as the major outcomes, then
having convergent strategies that address the same or similar
audience is key if we are going to achieve our vision. Our
focus is that watershed education needs  to be community
based, i.e., a learning community.  This means that schools,
civic organizations, businesses, governments, youth groups,
senior groups, etc., all need  to be involved and  that this
involvement needs to  be integrated, with integrated learning
    Monitoring for the sake of monitoring is a meaningless
exercise! Monitoring  with youth or adults must be put into
context, at both a personal and a community level. Some key
components to all education programs that have monitoring
as one of their elements include:
 •  Creating a vision with all stakeholders—youth, leaders,
    outside community members, etc.
 •  Defining goals and creating the necessary elements to
    achieve those goals (training, communication strategies,
    partnerships, mentoring opportunities, etc.).
 •  Maintaining community partnerships (for funding,
    technical expertise, local communication, and greater
    public awareness).
 •  Linkage of outcomes in the non-formal or informal
    setting to learning  opportunities in formal settings.
    Empowerment in youth needs reinforcement from as
    many avenues as possible. Educational research has
    shown that if youth are empowered before age 15, they
    will become empowered, action-taking adults. But if
    they do not have this critical learning experience, then
    the probability of their becoming involved adults
    diminishes significantly. '

    GREEN has assisted in developing over 25,000 water-
focused learning communities worldwide. Each community
has a different initial entry point, such as through a school-
based program, a youth group, a business organization,  a
governmental organization, a religious group, etc. The end-
point in mind is our evolving to the point where all of these
groups are working together  as communities of learners,
whose goal is watershed sustainability.
    In the non-formal and informal areas, GREEN has many
case studies in which  our work with international religious
organizations, international  youth groups, scouting organi-
zations, World Wide Web-based distance learning initiatives,
and media-based initiatives has led to monitoring activities.
        Designing  Effective  Adult  Training
Workshop Leader: Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Center

                    Meg Kerr
   University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center,
    S. Ferry Rd.,  Narragansett, RI02882, 401/874-6522

         Designing and  Delivering
          Effective Adult Training

Training is an  essential  component of any volunteer
monitoring project, yet volunteer training is rarely given the
time and attention that it deserves. Program coordinators
wear many hats and work hard to hone their skills as
environmental scientists, media specialists, community orga-
nizers, and data analysts. Equal attention should be paid to
working on training skills.
    When we train volunteers, we achieve many objectives.
Our primary objective is to teach volunteers the scientifically
correct way to perform monitoring tasks. During the training,
volunteers learn  the ecological concepts behind the moni-
toring tasks. They are given the tools and information they
need to "do the job right" and to explain their activities to
their family and friends. Good training is the first component
of a monitoring program's quality assurance process. Train-
ing sessions also build essential connections between pro-
gram volunteers and the program staff. Training sessions are
important social events, providing volunteers with an oppor-
tunity to meet staff and other volunteers in the program. For
many volunteers, training sessions are an important reward
for participating in the program.
    Good training takes planning, and this paper discusses
four critical steps for designing effective adult training. The
first step is delineating  a target audience. For monitoring
programs, the audience is our volunteers, but we need to
understand who they are and what their needs  are as  adult
learners. The next step is to write clear, measurable, and rea-
sonable training objectives that acknowledge constraints  on
time and staff. Third, the training session is designed, and
finally, in step four, it is evaluated.

STEP ONE: Understanding adults as learners
Professional educators understand that there are certain  ways
that children learn, and classroom curricula are designed with
these  concepts in mind. Similarly, a good volunteer monitor
trainer needs to appreciate the learning process for adults and
design training  programs to take  advantage of these
    Four pertinent characteristics of adult learners are listed
below. Accompanying  each characteristic  are suggested
ways  to address adult learning during the training process.
1.  Adults  are mature  and  need  to  control their
    learning. Traditional  classroom learning gives the

                                                            Concurrent Session 1: Designing Effective Adult Training
    teacher the power while the student is passive. Adult
    training should allow the students to have a key role in
    directing the learning process.
    •  When beginning a training session, present your
       training objectives and session agenda to the
       volunteers. Give them an opportunity to discuss and
       adjust the plan for the day.
    •  Get to know your volunteers before or during the
       training. Find out why they are participating in the
       monitoring program and try to design their "job" to
       satisfy their interests.
2.  Adult learning requires a climate that is collabo-
    rative, respectful, mutual, and informal.  Adults
    bring a vast personal experience to the learning process.
    It is essential that the trainer recognize  and use this ex-
    •  Minimize lectures. Studies have shown that learning
       retention is increased when we become actively
       involved in the learning process. For example, it has
       been found that over a period of three days, adults
       remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they
       hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they see
       and hear, 70% of what they say and write, and 90%
       of what they say as they do. Monitoring training
       sessions should be paced to allow time for volunteers
       to hear about the monitoring program, perform the
       monitoring techniques themselves, and then reflect
       on the learning by asking and answering questions.
    •  Provide  opportunities for group work. Use your
       experienced volunteers to mentor newer volunteers.
       Reinforce your instruction by designing problem-
       solving exercises for groups to work on. Design role
       plays to  reinforce the learning. Traditional classroom
       teaching assumes that students learn well by
       listening, reading, and writing. In reality, people have
       a variety of learning styles. Some people learn best
       through logic and problem solving, some through
       pictures, charts, and maps. Some people work best on
       their own and others work best in groups. Learning
       styles are very individualized, and group exercises
       can be designed to provide a variety of learning
    •  Encourage volunteers to share experiences and
       expertise. Provide volunteers with additional learning
3.  Adults need to test  their learning  as they go
    along, rather than receive background theory
    and general information.  Adults need  clear con-
    nections between content and application so they can
    anticipate how they will use their learning.
    •   Start your training session with kits and techniques,
       and save the lecture on ecology for later. Use the car
       salesman technique—take it for a ride, then supply
       the details.
    •   During the training, work with your volunteers to
       devise an action plan for using their data. With whom
       will they share their data? What do they think needs
       to be done to improve the water body? How will the
       monitoring help them achieve these goals?
    •   Provide time in the training to discuss how the
       volunteers  will use their new knowledge. Remember
        that volunteers are in Che field and are often asked
        questions about what they are doing and why. Use
        role-playing to build their confidence so they can
        educate their communities about the resources they
        are monitoring.
     •   Use volunteers as trainers. Provide other
        opportunities for volunteers to take on new

 4.   Adults need to expect  performance  improve-
     ments to result from their learning. Adult learning
     needs to be clearly focused in the present and be
     "problem centered" rather than "subject centered."
     •   Help volunteers evaluate your training and their own
     •   Train volunteers in groups. Encourage them to set
        goals for themselves and then mentor each other to
        achieve those goals.

 STEP TWO: Preparing  training objectives
 Before beginning a training program, carefully consider what
 you are trying to teach. Monitoring programs focus on skills.
 It is essential that volunteers learn how to perform moni-
 toring tasks with skill and accuracy. But we are often in-
 terested in teaching  more than just skills. We want to
 enhance volunteers' knowledge of safety, scientific methods,
 and basic ecological concepts. We may want them to com-
 prehend the importance  of nonpoint source pollution  and
 understand the  relationship between water quality  and
 personal actions  such as fertilizer application. We may want
 them to be able to trouble-shoot equipment problems, or
 analyze results collected during their monitoring. Identify
 what you are trying to teach, then design a training program
 that moves from the simple topics to the more complex.
    Training should be  designed  to achieve training  ob-
jectives. A training objective is  a brief, clear statement of
 what the participant should be able to do as a result of the
 training. Usually, a training objective includes three parts:
  1. A statement of the participants' terminal behavior. Try
    to write this with an action verb so you can design ways
    to evaluate your success. If you are teaching ideas, think
    about what you want the participants to be able to DO
    with the ideas. Examples could be: "Participants will  be
    able to analyze the dissolved oxygen content of river
    water"; "Participants will be able to list home lawn care
    best management practices (BMPs)."
 2. A statement of the standards that the trainee is expected
    to attain. Include information on quantity and quality,
    and make the standard time-bounded. For example,
    "Trainees will analyze two dissolved oxygen replicates,
    obtaining results that are within 0.6 mg/1 of the known
    value in 30 minutes"; or, "Trainees will list four of the
    BMPs that are among the 10 most effective methods for
    controlling NPS pollution from home lawns in 20
 3. A statement of the conditions under which the trainee is
    expected to perform—for example, "in the field with  a
    LaMotte kit."

    For monitoring skills, it is often necessary to conduct a
task analysis  before  writing training objectives. A task
analysis is  a sequential listing of all the steps necessary to
perform a task. Monitoring manuals often contain task analy-
ses. A task analysis provides the  logical sequence of all  the

Concurrent Session 1: Designing Effective Adult Training
steps needed to perform a monitoring job and also identifies
potential problems that could occur. The task analysis can be
used to identify prerequisite skills and knowledge.
    Once the monitoring tasks have been analyzed, training
objectives are written to identify the steps that are to be
learned and the standards and conditions under which they
are to be performed.
STEP THREE: Designing a training session
Planning a skill session
Skill training takes time. Monitoring trainers frequently try to
teach too much in too little time, and do not give volunteers
the opportunity to adequately understand unfamiliar tech-
niques. A carefully planned skill session has three parts:
Introduction. This should be a short introduction to the skill,
    not an introduction to the  monitoring program or to
    ecological concepts.
Body. The body of the skill session should include four sec-
    •  Show: The skill should be demonstrated to the
       volunteers. The demonstration should accomplish the
       learning objective you have written for the
    •  Show and tell: Repeat the demonstration a second
       time, explaining the technique as you proceed. It is
       not important to accomplish the learning objective
       this time. This demonstration is shown slowly, step
       by step, allowing the volunteers to follow along with
       their own equipment.
    •  Check of understanding: Ask volunteers to review
       the steps and the points you have emphasized.
    •  Practice: Provide volunteers with adequate time to
       practice. Give them a task analysis to follow and
       adequate materials to work with.
Conclusion. Review the steps and key points. Answer the
    volunteers' questions. Find out what steps they found
    difficult, and critique your task analysis.
    Training sessions should provide a full skill session for
each technique that is being taught.

Coordinating the training program
Planning a training session requires attention to detail. The
following list provides a reminder of things to check as you
plan and conduct the training.
Before the training:
 I. Communicate with volunteers. Give them the time,
    place, and duration of the training. Send directions. Tell
    them what to bring (pen, paper, lunch), how to dress,
    what to do in case of rain. Provide them with the name
    and phone number of someone to contact with questions
    about the training. Outline the training content and
    provide them with pre-training readings.
 2. Arrange guest speakers. Provide them with the same
    information you are providing the volunteers attending
    the training.
 3. Prepare materials (sampling kits, manuals, data sheets,
    overheads, slides, food).
During the training:
 1. Arrive early to set up and prepare. Volunteers will often
    arrive early, and you want  to be there to greet them.
 2. During the first hour:
    •  Introduce yourself to each volunteer as they arrive.
    •  Introduce volunteers to each other.
    •  Try to have a key person in your organization open
       the program.
    •  Cover basic  administration.
 3. Ask volunteers  to jot down personal objectives for the
    training and for participation in your program. Take time
    to listen to these and, when possible, adapt the training
    plan to achieve  volunteers' objectives.
 4. With guest speakers:
    •  Make sure they are still available immediately before
       the date of their presentation.
    •  Introduce them personally.
    •  Don't leave the training room during their remarks.
       They may need your assistance.
    •  Make sure all handouts are ready.
 5. Organize regular reviews and tests of learning.
 6. When closing a program:
    •  Review objectives and ask volunteers if those
       objectives have been met.
    •  Briefly review each major session.
    •  Ask volunteers to complete an evaluation.
    •  Thank volunteers for attendance and interest.
After the training:
   Take care of administrative details:
    •  Clean up the training room and return materials.
    •  Store all handouts and materials. Retain a master
    •  Pay bills.
    •  Write thank-you letters.
    •  Note and file suggestions for improvement.

STEP FOUR: Evaluating a training program
Evaluation is an essential part of any training program, and it
is a key part of training for volunteer monitors.  Evaluations
allow trainers to  assess whether they have met their training
objectives.  For training designed to  teach  monitoring
techniques, evaluations are conducted to assess the com-
petency of the volunteers. Coordinators need to  be sure that
volunteers can collect data  that meets  the data requirements
established by the program.
    Evaluations  also allow trainers to assess the strengths
and weaknesses of their training programs. Good trainers are
always revising and improving their training sessions in re-
sponse to participant feedback.
    Trainers should consider  three  types of  evaluation:
within-training evaluations, terminal evaluations, and post-
training evaluations.

Within-training evaluations:
Evaluations of volunteers' ability to conduct each monitoring
test should be conducted during the training session. Trainers
should not move ahead to a new concept or method until they
know that all the participants understand the material already
covered. If one or two volunteers are having difficulty with a
method, the trainer can make  arrangements for mentoring or
tutoring after the training is  completed.

Terminal evaluations:
Every training session should conclude with an evaluation of
the participants'  learning and the trainer's teaching. Written

                                                            Concurrent Session 1: Water on the World Wide Web
surveys are often used for these evaluations, but trainers can
enhance the written survey by leaving time at the end of the
training for discussion.

Post-training evaluations:
Monitoring coordinators cannot assume that information
learned at the end of a training session will be retained by the
volunteers for a long time. Most of our adult volunteers are
busy  with other  activities  and may forget  or  become
confused about information presented at the training. Quality
assurance  plans should include provisions for periodic
evaluation and retraining of volunteers. These sessions are
often conducted one-on-one, in the field at the monitor's
sampling site.
    Coordinated group discussions or focus groups can be
used to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of non-technical
volunteer training. These sessions can also be structured to
provide useful feedback on the scope and goals of the
monitoring program.
              Water  on  the World  Wide  Web
Workshop Leader: Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch

                   Ken Cooke
   Kentucky Water Watch, Kentucky Division of Water, 14
      ReillyRd., Frankfort, KY40601, 800/928-0045

This session was conducted as a hands-on tour of the Inter-
net, using the facilities at a University of Wisconsin com-
puter lab. Participants navigated through a tour designed by
workshop leader Ken Cooke, which took them to a variety of
water-related sites on the World Wide Web.
    To view the tour, visit Web site:
    For a report on the national conference itself, visit the
main conference site at:
                                                                             — End of Concurrent Session 1 —

 Concurrent Session 2: Incorporating Stewardship in Your Monitoring Program
                Incorporating  Stewardship  in
                     Your  Monitoring  Program
 Workshop Leader: Joan Kimball, Massachusetts Riverways

                  Joan Kimball
 Massachusetts Riverways Program, Department of Fisheries,
 Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement, 100 Cambridge
    Street, Room 1901, Boston, MA 02202, 617/727-1614,
                       ext. 384

 Note: This session was conducted as an interactive workshop.
 Following is a summary of the discussion.
    My objective for this workshop was to involve all the
 participants in an interactive discussion of stewardship and
 volunteer monitoring. I  have attended many  conferences
 where the "audience" knows as much as, or more than, the
 workshop presenters, yet there are few  opportunities for
 people to share their knowledge. The longer I give work-
 shops and training sessions in Massachusetts, the more I ap-
 preciate the interactive approach. However, as a facilitator, I
 find it a challenge  to design an interactive workshop that
 meets the needs of  all the participants and allows for inter-
 action and sharing of experiences and insights. The facilitator
 must be creative in planning for each workshop, considering
 both the purpose of the meeting and the interests and skills of
 the participants. I believe that workshops are always better
 when participants share their thoughts and experiences. The
 sum of this group knowledge is greater than the individual
 parts. I always learn a great deal in an interactive workshop.
    The goals of this workshop were,  as a group, to (1) de-
 fine stewardship,  (2) discuss the barriers that prevent
 stewardship from being the objective of water quality moni-
 toring programs, (3) find  ways to help existing groups
 incorporate stewardship into their work, (4) present a model
 that incorporates stewardship from the beginning, and (5)
 suggest strategies for new groups.

 Defining stewardship
 First, we broke into small groups to discuss the concept of
 stewardship. After coming back together  as a larger group,
 we created the following definition of stewardship:
    Stewardship is a long-term commitment  to a river,
    wetland, or other natural resource.  Stewards—those
    who serve to protect and restore rivers, ponds,  and
    wetlands—speak on behalf of a resource that cannot
    speak for itself,

    We also developed a list of characteristics  of stewards
 and stewardship:
    •  Based on historical context, stewards look to the
      future when they work on behalf of the resource.
    •  Stewardship  is based on knowledge about the
      resource and what the resource requires to be healthy.
    •  Stewards learn skills and strategies that encourage
      involvement from a broad base to achieve protection
      for the resource.
    •  Stewardship  includes advocacy. Advocacy may
      include confrontation, but it may also be non-
      confrontational and educational.

 Barriers to stewardship
 In answer to the question of why some monitoring organiza-
 tions are unable to move from data collection to stewardship,
 we came up with a number of barriers. A lack of vision
 and/or a lack of mission can make it difficult for groups
 starting a project to look at outcomes that lead toward
 protection of a river, pond, or wetland. If people involved
 only want to "do the science," it can be hard to move toward
 stewardship. Often groups lack the knowledge of how to be
 advocates for a water resource. Fears of political repercus-
 sion (for example, a teacher who fears losing his/her job if
 students raise questions that challenge important people), of
 stirring up controversy, of seeming radical,  of being crit-
 icized, of turning people off, or of scaring away funding can
 be additional obstacles to stewardship. On the other hand,
 many groups report that taking appropriate action brings in
 active  members and creates respect. Also, a proven track
 record facilitates future funding.

 Incorporating stewardship
 for an existing monitoring group
 Using  an example, we considered  how an existing water
 quality monitoring  group can change its  focus  and
 incorporate stewardship. The example we used was this: Two
 years ago, a group of ten people  decided to begin a moni-
 toring program. They chose easily accessible sites. Recently,
 the group found high fecal coliform at two of the sites. They
 made several calls to officials at the state level, but nothing
    Based on this example, workshop participants made
 several recommendations designed  to help monitors  in an
 existing monitoring group incorporate stewardship in their
    The first step is for the water quality monitors to realize
 that no one else will fix the problem (in this case high fecal
 coliform) if they themselves do not get involved. A second
 step is  to identify the sources of the problem and to look at
 possible solutions (the group may want to bring in experts).
 The monitoring group should use the problem as an op-
 portunity to revitalize the group by reconnecting with  the
 original purpose of forming the  group and connecting the
 monitoring work more closely with the resource. The moni-
 toring group may also wish to broaden its base and involve
 other groups including abutters, civic organizations,  town
 officials, canoeists, anglers, colleges, and schools. Workshop
 participants suggested that the monitoring program start an
 "Adopt-A-Stream" group in order to strengthen the moni-
 toring program. Strategies discussed included holding work-
 shops, bringing in individuals with people/leadership skills,
 and learning how to arrive at consensus.
    We discussed ways to use the high fecal coliform levels
as an opportunity to involve and mobilize the community by
publicizing the problem and making it relevant. It is im-
portant to tell  the story in a way that engages officials,
community, and media, and to share with the public  what
will happen  if nothing  is done  to correct  the problem.
Strategies include holding a press conference with allied or-
ganizations or partners.

                                           Concurrent Session 2: Incorporating Stewardship in Your Monitoring Program
     ^s the monitoring group works on solving the problem,
it should stick to facts (not personalities), do the necessary
homework, consider bringing in experts to overcome ob-
stacles, conduct additional monitoring to further define the
issues, redesign the monitoring program if necessary, leave a
paper trail, and bring in allies (for example, collaborate with
other resource users such as canoeists, anglers, abutters, etc.).

Stewardship model: Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, the Riverways/Adopt-A-Stream Program
works with groups  to  create Stream  Teams  that provide
stewardship for rivers and streams. We have found that
"Shoreline Surveys" (visual surveys) are an effective tool  to
help groups focus on stewardship. Drawing on a broad base
of community people (anglers, canoeists, river landowners,
business persons, and local officials), Stream Teams have
worked to protect or restore water quality, adequate  flow,
habitat, and land adjacent to rivers. Massachusetts Stream
Teams  use Shoreline  Surveys  to  (1)  build a strong con-
stituency for the river, (2) generate baseline data from field
observation, (3) determine priorities for protection, (4) create
community consensus on an action plan for the river, and (5)
assist local citizens, municipal governments, businesses,
civic organizations,  and state agencies to work together  to
achieve successes in river protection.
    The Massachusetts Riverways  Program holds a training
session for each group. Using an interactive slide show, fa-
cilitators go over each of the data questions. By essentially
doing a Shoreline Survey in the room, participants gain a
shared view of what a river needs to be healthy. The Stream
Team determines the purposes of their survey. Each group  is
different, but the goals can include developing baseline data,
determining water quality monitoring sites, creating a consti-
tuency for the river; agreeing on  an action plan, and im-
plementing the plan.
    Using data sheets, cameras, and maps, people go out on
the river to look for problems (such as evidence of nonpoint
source pollution, pipes discharging in dry weather, erosion)
and assets (important habitat, land that might be protected,
potential trails, canoe and fishing access points). Once  these
lists have been compiled, the Stream Team determines their
priorities for action. At a subsequent meeting, the group re-
views each of the priorities and comes to consensus  on an
action plan. Then the group begins  to take action, based on
the plan.
    Because surveyors include landowners, business per-
sons, and municipal officials, as well as  other people who
use the river (e.g., canoeists, anglers, hikers, and naturalists),
the Shoreline Survey process is educational and cooperative.
After learning in general what rivers need Co be healthy, and
in particular about conditions on their river, group members
work together on  solutions and avoid the pitfall of finger
pointing. Because town officials are brought in during the
planning stages, they will be allies in helping to find so-
lutions when problems are found. There are many benefits in
using this approach. The river gains additional protection,
businesses feel more connected to the community, town of-
ficials feel satisfaction when constituents understand their
work, constituents  understand how they can work effectively
with others, and landowners can learn better ways to manage
their lands to  protect rivers. We have found that following
this process leads  people to bond to each other and to the
river. From the first stages, stewardship is the goal of the
Stream Team.

Stewardship suggestions for new groups
The last group exercise we did involved identifying issues to
consider when designing a new program. When you begin,
consider whom to invite to join your group. Include a broad
base from your community. Think about inviting people with
a range of skills including leadership skills, people skills,
technical skills, writing skills, and telephoning skills. Groups
may want to organize around the shoreline survey process, in
which you develop a common understanding about what the
river needs  to be healthy and participants create a plan to
improve the river.  At a preliminary  meeting, do a visioning
exercise in which people think about what the river could be
like in 20 years in  the  best-of-all-worlds. Seek the per-
spectives of a broad base of people, including old-timers,
anglers, and landowners. Always connect individuals directly
to the resource. Don't always be adversarial. Use different
strategies for different problems. If you are in a contentious
situation,  you may want to get a  facilitator  to help find
common ground for working through problems.
    If you decide to  set up a water  quality monitoring pro-
gram, determine your mission before you start and make sure
stewardship  is  the focus. Set achievable goals and make sure
your monitoring is aimed at solutions. Take time to design
your monitoring program so that your monitoring is credible.
Utilize data effectively, and know how and where to get help
when you need it.
    Make sure that volunteers are  adequately trained and
receive positive feedback. Set priorities when taking action
by  examining choices and using consensus to  determine
which choices will be most effective. Use active listening
skills  and assign  tasks to people  who  have  appropriate
interests and skills. Take credit and give credit where it is
due. Celebrate  successes, be positive, and always have fun!

Concurrent Session 2: Using Monitoring to Set Restoration Goals and Evaluate Success	

     Using Monitoring to  Set  Restoration
              Goals and  Evaluate  Success
Moderator: Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of
Speakers: Tamara McCandless,* U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Geoff Dates, River Watch Network

                 Geoff Dates
   River Watch Network, 153 State Street, Montpelier, VT
                05602, 802/223-8080

           Measuring Success:
    Monitoring the Effectiveness of
 Agricultural Management Practices
        in Restoring  Stream Biota

Project description
Morris Brook is a small stream that flows through the Rocky
Hill Farm, an active dairy farm owned and operated by Dale
Lewis in Haverhill, NH. Beginning in 1991, Agricultural
Best Management Practices (ABMPs) were implemented on
this farm to reduce contamination of Morris Brook by sedi-
ment, cow manure, and fertilizers. Beginning in 1992, vol-
unteers and staff of the Connecticut River Watch Program
(CRWP) and  River Watch Network monitored water and
bcnthic macroinvertebrates (bottom-dwelling  organisms such
as aquatic insect larvae) to determine the impacts of the farm
on Morris Brook and to see if the impacts were reduced over
time as the ABMPs were put into place.
    The agricultural waste management efforts included a
number of measures: (1)  construction of manure storage
areas to allow careful timing of the application of manure to
assure nutrient uptake by crops and avoid contaminating the
brook, (2) construction of concrete pads in heavy-use areas
*No paper submitted
to minimize soil disturbance, (3) guiding house and barn roof
runoff away from heavy-use areas, and (4) animal manage-
ment, including the construction of a stream crossing to keep
the animals out of the stream as they are going to and from
the pasture. The  stream monitoring included three types of
assessments from 1992 to 1994:
1. Water sampling and analysis for E. coli bacteria, total
phosphorus, and  turbidity. Water samples were collected in
presterilized bags and analyzed within six hours at a project
lab using "Standard Methods'."1 Samples were collected at
six locations above and below the main farm activity area
(see map on page 23) five to seven times per year from June
through October. Results for the sites below the farm were
compared with the sites above the farm and with the water
quality criteria in the NH Water Quality Standards.
2. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis using
a standard metal  frame net and a rigorous collection of three
samples2 at each of three sites (MoB017, MoBOlO, and
MoBOOl—see map). Samples of bottom-dwelling organisms
were collected once per year in mid-October. Samples were
preserved in alcohol  and the organisms identified  to the
family level for aquatic insects, and to higher taxonomic
levels  for mollusks and worms. From these results, various
measures of the abundance, composition, pollution tolerance,
and diversity of the community were calculated. Results for
the sites below the farm were compared with the site above
the farm over the three-year period.

^'Standard Methods" is short for Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, a standard laboratory
reference manual produced by the American Public Health
2Each sample was  a composite of four collections in fast and slow
SiteMoBOlO Site MoBOOl
% Similarity to Reference Site (MoB017) % Similarity to Reference Site (MoB017)
1 UU /o -
OU/o -
4U/0 -
alU/o -
lU/o •


No Data


80% -
70% -
60% -
KQ% .
Af\0/ .
30% -
2O% -
10% -
i no/

^ ^
j ^~

* *£.
, V «


1994 1992 1993 1994
> 79% Non-impaired
29-72% Moderately Impaired
<21% Severely Impaired

                                  Concurrent Session 2: Using Monitoring to Set Restoration Goals and Evaluate Success
    Location of Rocky Hill Farm, Morris Brook, and the monitoring sites.
 3. Benthic macro!nvertebrate habitat assessment using
 visual estimates and measurements of stream characteristics
 that determine the quality of the habitat, such as the compo-
 sition of the river bottom, the current velocity, the extent to
 which the bottom was embedded with  sediment, and other
 factors. The assessment was done at the benthic macroinver-
 tebrate collection sites. The results were used to  determine
 the extent to which the benthic macroinvertebrate community
 is affected by habitat conditions versus  water quality and to
 assess changes in habitat conditions caused by the farm.

 In summary, the benthic macroinvertebrate community of the
 brook downstream of the farm has improved, but a bacteria
 contamination problem remains. It's interesting to note that if
 this assessment had relied solely on water sampling,  we
 might have concluded that no improvement in the  brook had
 resulted from implementation  of agricultural best manage-
 ment practices and expenditure of public funds. On the other
 hand, had water sampling not been carried out, the bacterial
 contamination problem would have been missed. Clearly,
 there is a benefit to using both approaches in assessing the
 effectiveness of pollution control projects. Specifically,  we
 found that:
 1. Water sampling and analysis showed elevated bacteria
 levels in Morris Brook at all  sites throughout  the sam-
 pling period. Sixty-eight of the 88 samples collected exceed-
 ed the bacteria criterion (406 colonies per 100 mL)  in the NH
 Water Quality Standards. While this is reflected mostly at the
impact sites, it was also true in 28 out of 43 samples at the
three reference sites (MoB017, MoB016, MoB015). This pat-
tern was consistent under wet and dry conditions despite the
installation of agricultural best management practices. This
suggests that the bacteria problem is not runoff-related, but
comes from a relatively constant source, such as defecation
 by farm animals directly into the brook, or a failing septic
 2.  Water sampling for total phosphorus and turbidity
 showed somewhat elevated levels below the farm most
 of the time. Total phosphorus levels were occasionally very
 high, but not necessarily in connection with wet weather.
 Turbidity was usually low, with slightly higher levels below
 the farm. Neither indicator appears to be a significant prob-
 lem at this time.
 3.  The brook's benthic macroinvertebrate community
 showed significant improvement over the three years at
 the sites downstream of the farm.  The community at the
 downstream sites became more like that at the reference site,
 with greater diversity and fewer pollution-tolerant organisms.
 In  1993, the impact site (MoBOlO) was in the  moderately
 impaired category, while the recovery site (MoBOOl) was at
 the better end of the range of the "moderately impaired" cat-
 egory. By 1994, both sites fell  into the "non-impaired"
 category. This suggests that the agricultural best management
 practices implemented on the farm reduced organic pollution
 and improved the quality of the brook's ecological integrity,
 despite consistently elevated bacteria levels. The two graphs
 on  page 23  illustrate the percent similarity between  the
 communities  collected at the two downstream sites (MoBOlO
 and MoBOOl) and the reference site (MoBOl?) upstream of
 the farm.

 The following conclusions all point to the need for routine
 monitoring of the benthic macroinvertebrate community as
 part of the assessment of the effectiveness of agricultural best
 management  practices. The conclusions also  illustrate  the
 importance of careful project and site selection.
 1. The Rocky Hill  Farm appears to be causing elevated
 bacteria levels in  Morris Brook. These levels did not
 change significantly over the three-year period. In gener-
 al, the water sampling and analysis showed elevated bacteria
 levels in Morris Brook at the impact sites below the farm
 throughout the sampling period. This pattern was consistent
 despite the installation of agricultural best  management
 practices. Especially puzzling is that bacteria levels were
 high during dry weather sampling. The site with the lowest
 three-year geometric mean was the recovery site.
    The  agricultural  best management practices  on the
 Rocky Hill Farm were designed to reduce sediment, manure,
 and nutrients carried into the brook  during runoff events.
 Bacteria carried into the brook during the relatively  few
 runoff events  would not be expected to survive for days, and
 even if they  did, they would be carried downstream into
 Oliverian Brook within a few hours. It's very  unlikely that
 our dry weather sampling would have picked them up. This
 suggests that  the bacteria problem is not runoff-related, but
 from a relatively constant source. Possibilities include defe-
 cation directly into the brook by farm animals, or a failing
 septic system.
 2. The agricultural best management practices appear to
 have improved the benthic macroinvertebrate community
 in Morris Brook over the three-year period. The brook's
benthic macroinvertebrate community showed  significant
improvement  over the three years at the impact  and recovery
sites.  Diversity  and representation of  organic  pollution-
intolerant organisms increased. The community at these sites
became more like  that at the reference  site.  This was

Concurrent Session 2: Creating Watershed Monitoring Networks
particularly true at the  recovery site  (MoBOOl), which
improved dramatically over the three years. This suggests
that the agricultural best management practices implemented
on the farm reduced organic pollution and improved the
quality of the brook's ecological integrity, despite consist-
ently elevated  bacteria levels.
    Conditions at the reference site in 1992 were not optimal
but did  improve over the study  period. Bacteria results
suggest that even  this upstream  site receives  fecal con-
tamination. Yet, it's unclear why the benthic community at
this site improved since bacteria results did not improve over
the three-year period. The change in sampling method could
be a partial explanation. Since more organisms and more
representative samples were collected in 1993, a better mix
may have been collected.
    Conditions at the recovery site improved over the study
period. This improvement was likely due to the implementa-
tion of ABMPs, since all other conditions on the farm were
the same. The  improvement from 1992 to 1993 could be due,
in part, to the improved collection method. But the improve-
ment that occurred during the  next year suggests that this is
not the sole explanation. In summary, the benthic macro-
invertebrate community of the brook downstream of the farm
has improved, but a bacteria contamination problem remains.
3. Water monitoring and benthic macroinvertebrate mon-
itoring are both important in  assessing the effectiveness
of pollution control projects. It's interesting to note that if
this assessment had relied solely on water sampling, we
might have concluded that no improvement in the brook had
resulted from  implementation of agricultural best manage-
ment practices and expenditure of public funds. On the other
hand, had water sampling not been carried out, the bacteria
contamination problem would have been missed. Clearly,
there is a need to use both approaches, when possible, in as-
sessing the effectiveness of pollution control projects.
4. A good demonstration site is essential. We  also note
that the Grafton County Conservation District chose a good
demonstration site—a dairy farm on a small stream with no
other apparent pollution sources. The small size of Morris
Brook clearly shows impacts. A larger stream might not have
shown impacts the  same way, since more water would have
diluted contamination. Further, small brooks tend to contain
macroinvertebrate communities that are naturally less toler-
ant to organic pollution than larger streams, because they are
naturally less productive. Therefore, these communities tend
to be more sensitive to changes.
    The presence  of riffle habitats in the  right  locations
above and downstream of the farm was also fortunate. These
factors made it possible to isolate and demonstrate impacts
from the farm.
5. Family-level identification  of benthic  macroinverte-
brates is essential. Family level identification of the ben-
thic macroinvertebrates was essential because several critical
metrics—precise family-level richness, pollution tolerance,
dominant families, functional feeding groups, and commu-
nity similarity—could not have been calculated from major
group/order-level data. These metrics were essential to ana-
lyzing the results.

Dates, Geoff. 1995. The Impact of Agricultural Best Management
    Practices on Morris Brook; 1992-1994 Monitoring Report.
    River Watch Network, Montpelier, VT.
                           Creating  Watershed
                          Monitoring  Networks
Moderator: Mike Rigney, San Francisco Estuary Institute
Panelists: Mike Rigney,* San Francisco Estuary Institute;
Todd Running,* Houston-Galveston Area Council; Anne
Lyon, Tennessee Valley Authority

                 Anne E. Lyon
  Tennessee Valley Authority-Clean Water Initiative, 1101
    Market St., CST17D,  Chattanooga, 77V 37402-2801;

     The TVA Clean Water Initiative
          Networking Experience

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),  in an effort to
address water quality issues on a local  level, formed the
Clean Water Initiative (CWI) in 1993 to identify the root
causes of water resource problems and bring together the
people and organizations  necessary to fix them. Besides as-
sessing conditions, CWI's River Action Teams (RATs) work
involves forming partnerships, watershed committees, citizen
monitoring networks,  and school-based volunteer moni-
toring/education programs,  and initiating best management

 No paper submitted

practices (BMP) demonstrations, habitat restoration projects,
stream bank stabilization projects, storm drain stenciling pro-
grams, and shoreline cleanups. CWI RATs work with com-
munities to provide the services, skills, and expertise groups
need to get started, implement and fund projects, and become
    Since CWI's inception 4 years ago, RATs have become
involved in starting or participating in the development of a
variety of unique water monitoring/restoration networks.
They include the Middle Fork Holston Watershed Commit-
tee's Adopt-A-Watershed project, the Second Creek Task
Force/AmeriCorps Partnership, the Chattanooga Summer
Volunteer Monitoring Program, the Trout Unlimited Vol-
unteer Sediment Monitoring and Trout Stream Restoration
Project, and the Friends of the North Chickamauga Creek
Greenway School-based Acid  Mine Draining Monitoring
Project. The following is a brief description of how and why
the groups formed, how they are organized, and what they
achieved. TVA initiated most of these networks to meet a
CWI goal, but they have continued or evolved  to address
additional issues because of community needs and support-
for the programs.

                                                      Concurrent Session 2: Creating Watershed Monitoring Networks
 Middle Fork Holston Watershed
 Committee's Adopt-A-Watershed Program
 Taste and odor problems were plaguing the water supply in
 Marion County, Virginia. In 1986, the Middle Fork Holston
 Water Quality Committee formed and determined that poorly
 managed livestock operations were responsible for 90% of
 the problems. Within 5 years, the committee worked with
 fanners to install 48 BMPs on 15 farms. The remaining chal-
 lenge was to get reluctant farmers to buy in, so in 1993 the
 committee decided to start an Adopt-A-Watershed program.
 After consulting with local schools, they decided to: (1) turn
 the program into a teacher enrichment/ development activity
 and give teachers new tools to make teaching required sub-
 jects  more exciting; (2) provide teachers access to resource
 professionals who would work with them and their classes;
 (3) provide a 40-hour summer teacher training course to train
 teachers in every aspect of the program and give them
 experience  using classroom instructional activities;  (4)
 provide 3 hours of college credit which could be applied
 toward teacher recertification requirements; (5) provide the
 school with equipment and other resources that become
 school property; and (6) reward the school for completing a
 BMP project (using a Monsanto grant which would provide
 $100  per water quality improvement project completed to the
 school or school club  they  chose).  They  decided to pair
 agency professionals with teachers  and form  "watershed
 teams" to adopt small watersheds near their schools. Teach-
 ers and students work in their  teams to conduct watershed
 surveys, create primitive GIS overlay maps  of land use/land
 cover/pollution problems, develop and implement monitoring
 plans, pinpoint water quality problems, and develop plans to
 install BMPs. Since VA Adopt-A-Watershed formally began
 in 1995, they have secured an EPA Environmental Justice
 Grant which funded a full-time coordinator for the program,
 and the Holston RAT has taken a supporting role. The
 Holston  RAT is currently working with the California
 Adopt-a-Watershed program to adapt their, more urban-
 focused program for use in the tri-cities area of northeast

 Second Creek Task Force/AmeriCorps Partnership
 Ijams Nature Center was instrumental in  developing the
 Knoxville Annual River Rescue and in 1992, they convinced
 the City of Knoxville (Mayor, Planning Commission, Parks
 and Recreation Department, Stormwater Management Divi-
 sion), the Knoxville Utilities Board (KUB), TVA, the Uni-
 versity of Tennessee, and other environmental groups  to
 form the Knoxville Water Quality Forum (WQF) to evaluate
 the condition of urban creeks and to focus the attention and
 resources needed to clean them up. The group decided  to
 start with one creek—Second Creek, which was in extremely
 poor condition with fecal coliform counts of over 30,000! In
 1993, the Second Creek Task  Force  (SCTF) formed as a
 committee of the WQF. Within the first year, SCTF members
 identified a broken sewer line, which KUB replaced, and
held a small cleanup. In 1994, the Fort Loudon/Watts Bar/
Melton Hill RAT worked  with the SCTF to organize and
conduct Community Stream Walks from the headwaters to
 the mouth, using EPA Region 10's Stream Walk program to
document baseline conditions  and identify water quality
issues. In 1995 the President's AmeriCorps program was
formed  and the city decided  to apply for AmeriCorps
volunteers.  KUB, the city, and TVA agreed to fund four
positions to form an AmeriCorps Water Quality  Team
(AWQT) to work with the task force. The AWQT helped (1)
 organize community groups to attend "Recons" with CWI
 biologists to evaluate the fish and benthic community  at
 selected sites; (2) stabilize a steep eroding bank by planting
 over 500 trees; and (3) organize several stream cleanups and
 a community Second Creek Water Festival at a playing field
 located on the creek. A technical committee of the SCTF de-
 veloped a water monitoring program and KUB supplied the
 necessary supplies (HACK spectrophotometer, HACK tur-
 bidimeter, YSI multi-probe, and sterile containers/coolers to
 collect and transport fecal samples to KUB labs for process-
 ing). AWQT conducted the weekly (summer) and monthly
 (winter) sampling, and their data helped pinpoint problems.
 In 1996, the SCTF really took off when they obtained a
 multi-year 319 grant; currently, plans are under way to install
 a number of BMPs.

 Chattanooga Summer
 Volunteer Monitoring Program
 The Chickamauga/Nickajack RAT decided to expand the
 team's fecal monitoring program at swimming beaches along
 Chickamauga and Nickajack  Lakes.  Sites were selected
 using Recon data (fish IBIs and  macroinvertebrate EPT
 scores) where results were fair or poor and where fecal,
 turbidity, and nutrient data would be beneficial to understand
 the issues. The RAT asked the City Stormwater Management
 Division, the Tennessee Department of Environment and
 Conservation Water Pollution  Control Division, and com-
 munity groups to suggest other sites. We recruited volunteers
 by speaking about the opportunity at various meetings and
 placing  short announcements  in  publications  and local
 newspapers.  Volunteers were  asked  to  collect  10 fecal
 coliforms samples  in WhirlPak® bags  (plus one duplicate)
 and  5 water chemistry samples in  250 mL plastic sample
 containers (plus one duplicate) over a 4-week period in July
 1996. The Chickamauga/Nickajack RAT set up a laboratory
 and  used volunteers to help  process water samples  for
 nutrients, turbidity, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and
 conductivity. Duplicate water samples were processed in
 TVA's Water Chemistry Lab as part of the QA/QC plan. The
 biggest problems  with the program  were getting fecal
 samples to the lab  in time, poor WhirlPak® technique, in-
 complete data sets, heavy workloads in the lab, conflicting
 demands on volunteer time, interference bacteria from heavy
 rains, and lack of adequate communication. To improve the
 program, (1) volunteer time commitments need to be made
 clearer; (2) WhirlPak® collection  training should be im-
 proved (possibly certification), and (3) volunteer involve-
 ment in program planning should be initiated.
    The real value of the program turned out to be not the
 data, but the outcomes.  Here are some examples: (1) Wolf-
 tever Creek: Data showed fecal problems in two creeks—
 Little Wolftever and Long Savannah. The Natural Resources
 Conservation Services (NRCS) is working with a farmer and
 volunteers from the summer program to implement a BMP
 on Little Wolftever; (2) Signal Mountain, TN: Citizens were
 convinced that septic tanks were failing and contaminating
 their creeks, and did not believe city and state data which
 showed that fecals were not a problem. Data using a vol-
 unteer from the area to collect the samples supported other
TVA, city, and state data which showed fecal coliforms are
 not excessive; (3) Black Creek: Fecal  data confirmed the
impacts of a septic tank line break; (4) Mountain Creek: Area
residents claimed that wading and swimming in Mountain
Creek below Morrison Springs Road would make you sick.
While interference bacteria made the data unusable, the data


Concurrent Session 2: Creating Watershed Monitoring Networks
confirms the creek is filled with large numbers of some type
of bacteria and CMSD plans to investigate this problem; and
(5) North Chickamauga Creek: The data confirms that the
new sewer line on Middle Valley/Boy Scout Road is begin-
ning to have a positive effect on lowering fecal coliforms.
Trout Unlimited Volunteer Sediment Monitoring
and Trout Stream Restoration Project
The Hiawassee River supports excellent  trout and  small-
mouth bass fisheries and several threatened and endangered
fish species, but sediment was threatening  the resource.
Pinpointing the sources  of sediment loading is  very difficult,
time consuming, and costly. The team needed local volunteer
help and support if they  were to undertake the project.  Before
RAT teams were formed, TVA worked on a  Trout Stream
Restoration Project in this area to remove Rainbow Trout,
isolate upper stream reaches, and reintroduce native Brook
Trout with the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Local Trout Unlimited
(TU)  Chapter members  participated in the restoration.
Because local  interest in fly fishing had always been high,
TU members were happy to partner with the RAT to help
pinpoint sediment sources. In 1995, the Hiawassee RAT and
TU volunteers installed 12 sediment samplers vertically on
posts  in 12 tributary rivers to capture  sediment. The TU
chapter organized the volunteers to collect the samples after
rain events and  record rainfall data  to correlate with the
sediment data. Samples were analyzed at TVA's Environ-
mental Chemistry Lab  to determine suspended solid loads.
Using the results from the 1995 season, some samplers were
relocated to the mouths of other tributaries in 1996 and the
project continued. As a result of this project, sediment sour-
ces were located and areas for stream bank stabilization
and/or other BMP work identified. TU volunteers and other
community members are  an integral part of the restoration
efforts. The community has now formed a Hiawassee River
Watershed Association to address this and other issues.
North Chickamauga Creek Greenway School-based
Acid  Mine Draining Monitoring Project
The Friends of the North Chickamauga  Creek Greenway
(FNCCG), a  multi-agency task force,  applied for and
received several grants to control acid mine drainage by
installing constructed wetlands at  several key sites  at
abandoned shaft-type coal mines on Waldens Ridge at the
headwaters of North Chickamauga Creek. FNCCG  needed
data to demonstrate that constructed wetlands were working
and to qualify for a Tennessee State/EPA 319 grant. The
Chickamauga-Nickajack RAT and FNCCG decided the solu-
tion was to develop a school-based volunteer water  quality
monitoring  program to monitor the effectiveness  of the
BMPs and educate area residents  about the problems facing
North Chickamauga Creek. High quality water quality data
was needed which would be comparable  with professional
data being collected with a Hydrolab®. The Corning  Check-
mate®, a multi-sampler probe which tests for temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and total dissolved sol-
ids, was chosen because it would provide reliable data at a
relatively low cost and could be operated by teachers and
students. In 1995, a grant for $5,000 from the Fish and
Wildlife Foundation - Southern Rivers Council was obtained
to buy probes and begin the program. Five local schools and
the county Center for Advanced Sciences (CAS) agreed to
participate  and were trained in two 3-hour workshops.
Teachers collect samples 4 times a year with their students.
Probes and waders are loaned out from the CAS,  which
calibrates and  maintains them.  Supplies  and forms are
provided to each school at the training workshop. Teachers
send data to a  centralized point  and a report is prepared
annually. Participating students serve as ambassadors of the
creek and educate the whole community about its condition.
FNCCG has received a second grant of to expand the pro-
gram in 1996-1997.

Lessons learned
TVA CWI has learned a lot about networking since our in-
ception in 1993, and we continue to learn every day. The
most important lessons we have learned are to:
Find common ground: Use this as a basis for involvement.
    Once you have your foot in the door, take your lead
    from the community and go where they want to go. The
    community will eventually work on issues you think are
    important,  when they are ready (if the issues are im-
    portant to them).
A picture is worth a thousand words: Give community
    members  an opportunity to see problems  in their
    watersheds firsthand and to draw their own conclusions.
    Agency data sets don't mean much to the average  citizen
    despite our best efforts to make the information "user
    friendly." Seeing is believing!
Be flexible about QA/QC: Volunteer data may or may not be
    done with sufficient QA/QC for state, federal, and local
    agencies to accept,  but the quality  is  always good
    enough to spur additional volunteer interest. Set a goal
    to improve quality, but be understanding and flexible.
    As volunteers understand the importance of quality, their
    quality will improve. If volunteers'  data indicates a
    problem, you  can always find, a way to verify their
Let them "dial for dollars":  Resist the urge to use agency
    monies to solve problems. Let communities find their
    own resources to address the issues; help out with "seed
    money" and in-kind  services. People appreciate prob-
    lems more when they are put in the position of having to
    find their own solutions and resources.  This strategy
     keeps the  group independent and  makes it more likely
     the group will continue later without agency help.
Keep the faith: The most important thing we learned is to
     have faith in people. They care about their communities
     and their water resources. Even if they are slow to act,
     when they do, it will be for the long haul.

                                      Concurrent Session 2: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in the Classroom
   Basics  of  Using  School-Aged  Monitors
                              in the Classroom
Moderator: Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters
Panelists: Mike Beauchene and Lisa Wahle, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Education; Wilbert Odem,
Northern Arizona University; Herb Turner,* Conservation
Federation of Missouri; Libby McCann, Adopt-A-Lake and
Project WET

     Michael Beauchene & Lisa Wahle
    Project SEARCH, Science Center of Connecticut/CT
 Department of Environmental Protection, 950 Trout Brook
      Drive, West Hartford, CT 06119, 860/424-3655

      Project SEARCH: A Practical
      Application of  Environmental!
   Science for High School Students

Generally, Americans have a poor understanding of scientific
methods and principles, especially with respect to the study
and management of ecosystems. This lack of understanding
may be attributed to a lack of exposure to the subject. In to-
day's society environmental regulation, utilization, and con-
servation are daily headlines. The general public is some-
times skeptical or mystified by the  environmental research
which leads to the management of natural resources. In order
to alleviate this "scientific anxiety," exposure to the science
must come through nonconfrontational education. Although
some high schools offer elective ecology courses,  students
taking required science classes are rarely exposed to ecologi-
cal studies. This is due to curriculum constraints and teachers
with little or no experience in conducting field research.

What is SEARCH?
Project SEARCH is a National Science Foundation (NSF)-
funded teacher enhancement program administered through
the  Science Center of Connecticut (SCC)  and the Con-
necticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP).
Specifically, the grant provides teachers from public and
private high schools with 144 hours of training in water
quality monitoring, wetland evaluation, and effects of land
use on water quality over a three-year period. Under the
guidance of the trained teachers, students use monitoring
equipment and scientific techniques to produce valuable
water quality data. This data is then assimilated into formal
reports (including the 305(b) Report to Congress) which are
usable  by public  and  private agencies to compile water
quality information on Connecticut streams.
    The goals of the project are twofold. First, SEARCH
strives to provide comprehensive training and equipment to
high school teachers so that they can implement a water qual-
ity monitoring program in their schools. Through the trained
teachers, the program then provides students with valuable
hands-on education about scientific data collection and
analysis. Secondly, the project aims to provide community
organizations such as watershed associations, environmental
organizations, and municipal commissions, as well as the CT

 No paper submitted
DEP, with "red flag" data for use in initial water quality
    Two teachers per school are trained and equipped to
perform stream monitoring and wetland delineation and
evaluation. Stream monitoring involves chemical, bacterial
and macroinvertebrate sampling based on a rigorous quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan. Wetland delineation
exercises are based on criteria developed by the Army Corps
of Engineers. Functional wetland evaluations are conducted
using a CT DEP procedure. SEARCH staff review school
data and annual reports for accuracy, and alert CT DEP
Water Bureau  personnel  to sites showing abnormalities.
Teachers are encouraged to provide water quality data and
wetland evaluations to municipal commissions. SEARCH
staff provides ongoing support through workshops, field
visits, and regular contact.
    Since the summer of  1994, 136 teachers from 77 high
schools have been trained. Seventy-four of those schools
have active programs. Through Project SEARCH, many stu-
dents have developed an  awareness of stream ecosystems
and the human impacts on these watersheds. Students  are
often more  inspired  and  conscientious about  their work,
knowing their data will be submitted to CT DEP officials.
Several students have gone on to pursue college degrees in
related fields.
    While teachers embrace the goals of the project, many
express frustration at the amount of time it requires and at the
ambiguities inherent in field investigations. The macroinver-
tebrate studies and scientific report writing aspects of  the
program have proved to be the most challenging to imple-
ment. Despite these concerns, formal independent evaluation
has documented curricular change in all case study schools.
The two largest changes are newly designed lesson plans
which foster critical  thinking skills, and interdisciplinary
connections across both science and non-science disciplines.
Long-term sustainability  of the program will depend on
having an internal and external support structure in place
prior to the end of the grant.
Parameters measured
stream corridor, local land use, riffle habitat
evaluation, stream flow, water temperature
dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen
demand (5-day), pH, alkalinity, hardness
(total, calcium, and magnesium), ammonia-
nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, and orthophos-
fecal coliform bacteria and riffle-dwelling
benthic macroinvertebrates
Physical, chemical, and biological parameters measured by students
participating in Project SEARCH.

Concurrent Session 2: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in the Classroom
How does SEARCH work?
To meet the first goal of the grant (i.e., hands-on science edu-
cation), each school first selects a site of local interest. Once
a site  has been identified,  the students begin to collect
information on various physical, chemical, and biological
parameters established by the SEARCH staff (see table). The
students are responsible for monitoring their specific stream
location twice in the fall and twice in the spring.
    To meet the second goal (producing usable data), three
issues  need to be addressed. First, in order for SEARCH
schools to draw accurate conclusions about water quality, the
site must meet minimum requirements—specifically, it must
be a riffle (a shallow, fast-moving section of a stream which
has a heterogeneous inorganic substrate). Students select an
appropriate monitoring site by  following methodologies for
Protocol 3 set by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency  (EPA) in  Rapid  Bioassessment Protocols for
Streams and Rivers (Plafkin et al., 1989).
    Second, the data generated must  be reliable. To ensure
reliable data, the project follows a quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) program according to EPA QA/QC project
plan recommendations. A major component of this plan
involves taking duplicate  samples at each site. SEARCH
staff collect a water sample alongside the students. The du-
plicate sample is then tested by the State of Connecticut Pub-
lic Health Laboratory for chemical parameters and fecal coli-
form bacteria. If discrepancies are found between the two,
project staff identify possible causes.
    Finally, rigorous hands-on teacher training covers all fa-
cets of water quality monitoring. Details of the training are
described in the Project SEARCH Water Quality Monitoring
Manual.  Each school receives the  necessary equipment to
perform the monitoring  tasks, and staff assistance in the field
is provided to assure standard protocols are followed.,

What has happened  with Project SEARCH to date?
The following is excerpted from the executive summary for
the 1995 annual report to NSF:
    This 1995 report will provide a complete analysis of the
    project's first year, and preliminary information on
    planned activities for the upcoming year.  To date,
    project expenditures total  $484,533  and the project is
    tracking as planned. A current budget analysis is also
    included in this report.
        Project SEARCH is in its second full year of activity
    with 136  trained  science teachers representing 77
    Connecticut public  and private high schools. This repre-
    sents 57% of the project's goal of establishing Project
    SEARCH in 136 high  school science curriculums over
    the five year grant period. Preliminary data estimates
    that  upwards of 2,200  grade 9-12 students will be
    participating in Project SEARCH during the 1995-96
    school year.
        Seventy-one percent of  the first-year  schools
    submitted final reports or data on stream water quality
    to the CTDEP. Results of the project's QA/QC program
    have found  scientific  data  (four chemical test
    parameters) produced by the students to be consistent at
    the 90% confidence level. Accuracy of macroinver-
    tebrate identification to  the family level has increased
    by 65% to be 90% accurate (primarily due to a dichoto-
    mous key produced by SEARCH staff).

    Although SEARCH content and methods are rigorous in
nature, understanding of the scientific concepts and pro-

cedures is not the primary problem. Rather, the main prob-
lem is difficulty on the part of teachers in integrating the pro-
gram components within the constraints of current science
curricula. Project staff are looking to address this issue in the
coming year.

Further issues
Points that were emphasized in a formal evaluation of Project
SEARCH included:
 •  SEARCH provided an institutional rationale for change
    from a conventional, abstract curriculum with an anti-
    quated vision of science to one which is active, relevant,
    and dedicated to current techniques and strategies of
    scientific process of inquiry.
 •  A continuing tension is the focus on excellence with re-
    gard to the reports submitted to CT DEP. This concern
    with report quality may be taken as a focus on product,
    whereas a greater contribution of SEARCH is to imbue
    knowledge and appreciation for the scientific process,
    i.e., the asking and researching of questions with curios-
    ity, rigor, and accuracy. If the focus remains on quality
    reports, some teachers may write the report themselves,
    short-cutting the process for something that "looks
 •  How can SEARCH assist schools that have financial
    burdens which could make the program impossible?
 •  Teachers' responses indicate high quality in training and
    in onsite field assistance, which they felt was crucial.
    SEARCH staff helped them also on pedagogical proces-
    ses, which led to experimentation with different group-
    ings of students and expanded evaluation techniques to
    include the participatory process. The implementation
    provided much greater variance than anticipated. How
    might SEARCH assist in disseminating the different
    models of implementation and help floundering teachers
    to network with successful ones?
 •  The effects of SEARCH on low-achieving students were
    positive, yet teachers need encouragement to continue
    working with a range of students and to focus on process
    as well as product.

    In  summary, Project SEARCH has been successful at
meeting both of the project's  goals. Although work remains
to assist teachers in implementing the program  and becoming
comfortable with the rigorous standards, participants are pro-
ducing usable data (from 13  sites) as reported in the 1996
305(b) Report to Congress.

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: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish.
    EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Assessment and Watershed Assessment Protection Division,
    Washington, DC.
                  Wilbert Odem
 North Arizona University, 1911 N. Marion Drive, Flagstaff,
                AZ 86001, 520/774-7005

   Verde Watershed Watch Network

The Verde Watershed Watch Network (VWWN) is a con-
sortium consisting of Northern Arizona University and seven

                                         Concurrent Session 2: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in the Classroom
high schools in the Verde River Watershed. VWWN exists to
provide water quality monitoring along the Verde River to
detect nonpoint sources of pollution and to propose best
management  practices  that  can alleviate  and prevent
deterioration of the aquatic ecosystem(s). This effort is joint-
ly funded by  the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
(through Section 319 of the National Monitoring Program of
the Clean Water Act) and the Arizona Board of Regents
under the Eisenhower Science and Math Education program.
The project is funded for three years, during which time data
is given to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) for their records.
    Three teachers from each school (two science and one
social science) are trained  at workshops  in sampling, ana-
lysis, and quality control techniques. Teachers are introduced
to data management approaches,  geographical information
systems (GIS), telecommunications, and regulatory concerns.
In turn, the teachers incorporate this training into their school
curricula, teaching their students to perform the sampling and
analyses. In addition, the teacher training workshops discuss
integration of water resources with socioeconomic issues in
the watershed  and how decisions on water issues  can affect
community growth and activities.  The funding provides sti-
pends for teachers  to attend the workshops, travel costs,
sampling and analysis equipment, and computers. To date,
workshops have focused on sampling for macroinvertebrates,
flow measurements, GIS, water chemistry, watershed  issues,
and telecommunications.
    Each school is responsible for sampling two sites, with
each site consisting of an upstream (control) and a  down-
stream (impact) location. Sampling is done monthly for pH,
temperature, chlorine, dissolved oxygen, electrical conduc-
tivity, flow, turbidity, and nitrates.  Twice a year,  in the
spring and fall, each school samples macroinvertebrates. The
field data forms and samples are sent monthly to North Ari-
zona University, where the  data is compiled for submission
to ADEQ. A protocol has been  established for cases  where
measurements exceed allowable levels.  No excesses have
been found so far.  Sites were chosen  to allow for the
investigation of impacts from a variety of potential sources
including agriculture, mining, urban runoff, cattle grazing,
and on-site wastewater disposal.
    The following are some of the "headaches" or obstacles
we have encountered and have been able to surmount.

Funding issues
Matching funds, funding agency reporting disparities, cate-
gory constraints, individual school contributions, and account

Institutional issues
Each institution involved in the project operates differently.
The following  institutions participate in this project and thus
have input and some "control": U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Arizona Department of Environmental Qual-
ity, Arizona Board  of Regents, U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, Chino Valley High  School, Flagstaff High School,
Mingus Union High School,  Oak  Creek Ranch School,
Prescott High School, Sedona Red  Rock High School, Verde
Valley School, and North Arizona University.

Technical issues
Wide range of teacher backgrounds, variable comfort levels
with equipment, and wide range of competencies expected of
teachers for project execution.
Political issues
School boards, federal agencies, state agencies, and political
issues operating within institutions.

Curricular issues
How does this project get incorporated into curricula? into
science? into social science? Will state education standards
still be satisfied? Curricular differences between private and
public schools.

Social science issues
How will the science feed into social science? What types of
training needs exist?

    The project has experienced a variety of unexpected
turns, related to, among other things, political issues, insti-
tutional hurdles, and school schedules. But there have been
very positive effects on school curricula, teacher morale, and
watershed/water quality awareness. This conference will
allow us to learn from other projects, share the knowledge
we've gained, and reinforce the efforts to create a widespread
watershed-based involvement in water resources in the Verde
                 Libby McCann
 Adopt-A-Lake and Project WET Coordinator, University of
 Wisconsin College of Natural Resources, Stevens Point, WI
               54481-3897, 715/346-3366

 Adopt-A-Lake: A Unique Approach to
Classroom and Community Education

Adopt-A-Lake is a K-12, interdisciplinary, hands-on program
that encourages young people to learn about inland lakes in
Wisconsin while actively working to protect those resources.
The program also emphasizes collaboration between youth
and adults to protect lakes in their community. Youth groups
have been involved  in a variety of Adopt-A-Lake projects,
often investigating lake management issues from a variety of
perspectives (e.g., ecological, social, and  historical points of
view) while working in conjunction with other concerned
citizens of all ages  within their community.  These youth
groups and their adult leaders or teachers have been involved
in water quality monitoring, field trips, independent and
group lake studies, litter cleanups, community  surveys, lake
ecology  workshops,  presentations  about their  lake to
community members, and other projects to help  increase
awareness about lake protection. The following information
helps  define how Adopt-A-Lake often goes beyond water
quality monitoring in the classroom to help build a sense of
community between  young people and adults concerned with
lake protection.
Wisconsin's watery jewels
Wisconsin citizens of all ages are highly  motivated to learn,
work  cooperatively, and take action on  behalf of lakes
because of the central role these "watery jewels" play in the
lives  of Wisconsin's  residents and visitors.  Wisconsin's
glacial history has left a legacy of over 15,000 beautiful
lakes. Most of these lakes are found in the  northern and
eastern regions of the state, dotting the path of the glaciers.
The people of Wisconsin,  and those who vacation here, have
long appreciated these lakes for their recreational, economic,

Concurrent Session 2: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in the Classroom
natural, and aesthetic values.
    In recent years, the demands on Wisconsin's lake re-
sources have increased dramatically. Shoreline development
is contributing to increased sedimentation and displacing
valuable habitat. Nutrients like nitrates and phosphates from
sewage and surface runoff are choking lakes with algae and
plant growth. The introduction of hazardous materials into
lakes also threatens these fragile aquatic communities. Such
phrases as exotic species, user conflicts,  and  cultural eu-
trophication (the accumulation of dissolved nutrients due to
pollution) have become common terminology in the strug-
gles to protect lake resources.  Educating people of all ages
and cooperating at the community level are vital to under-
standing and solving the complex issues involved with lake
    As water issues—and particularly lake issues—at the
local, national, and even global levels become more critical,
ordinary citizens and policy leaders are being asked to make
tough decisions. To participate effectively in the decision-
making process, citizens require accurate, current, and under-
standable information on the complex issues involved. Edu-
cation provides the link to effective public participation.
    As a youth education  initiative of the Wisconsin Lakes
Partnership—a collaborative effort among  the University of
Wisconsin-Extension (UWEX), the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and citizens, primarily represented by the
Wisconsin Association of Lakes (WAL), Adopt-A-Lake of-
fers an excellent framework for intergenerational education
as school and youth groups become involved with local lake
organizations and professional resource managers. Adopt-A-
Lake encourages young people to collaborate with these pro-
fessionals and volunteers who can be role models for lifelong
learning and mentors for environmental stewardship. Co-
operation  among youth and community organizations en-
hances commitment to the protection of lakes and develops a
stronger sense of common vision among those individuals
    With regard to water quality monitoring, a key advan-
tage of the Wisconsin Lakes Partnership is that students and
other youth groups involved with Adopt-A-Lake are able to
pursue monitoring through the Department of Natural Re-
sources' Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program. Over 900 citi-
zens statewide collect lake water quality and habitat data as
Self-Help Lake Monitoring volunteers. Self-Help Lake Mon-
itoring and Adopt-A-Lake staff work in collaboration to pro-
vide teachers, youth leaders, and youth with  the training,
materials,  and equipment necessary for lake monitoring. De-
pending on the age  and interests of the students, monitoring
can  include investigating  water clarity, water chemistry,
aquatic plants, and exotic species, among other  areas related
to the life of the lake. Monitoring a lake provides students
with "real world" experience as their data are  used in lake
management decisions at the local, state, and federal levels.

Adopt-A-Lake program primer
There  are a variety of unique and exciting Adopt-A-Lake
projects occurring throughout Wisconsin, ranging from orga-
nizing young people to interview community members about
their lake to designing educational programs to increase
community awareness about exotic species. Other projects
include litter cleanups and storm drain stenciling. Despite
variations in communities and approaches, there are common
requirements youth groups and schools interested in the
program should fulfill. The following lists  criteria by which
Adopt-A-Lake projects are recognized at the state  level.

These criteria are by no means an exhaustive list, but are
intended to help groups in developing their  lake projects
while also providing Adopt-A-Lake staff with guidance in
recognizing program participants and determining the ser-
vices they need.
    The following criteria are continually being  refined.
They are based primarily on the suggestions of participants
and are intended to give interested schools and other youth
groups an idea of what is unique about the Adopt-A-Lake

Community involvement
  We want youth to develop lake projects of interest and im-
  portance to them while also working with  others in the
  community (e.g., lake organizations, civic  groups, busi-
  nesses, etc.) interested  in lake protection. Cooperation
  among youth of a community and lake  management
  organizations will enhance community commitment to the
  protection of lakes.

  The idea of "adopting" a lake suggests  a long-term com-
  mitment to preserving,  protecting, and appreciating the
  value of that resource. Therefore, groups involved in  an
  ongoing Adopt-A-Lake project of two years  or longer will
  be given higher priority for receiving an Adopt-A-Lake
  sign than groups involved in one-time events. (Note: These
  Adopt-A-Lake signs, measuring 30 by 36 inches, identify
  the lake being  "adopted" as  well as the sponsoring
  group(s), and can be placed either at the lake site, near the
  town  sign,  or at another location the group  determines to
  be appropriate.)

Creative and  interdisciplinary approach
  We encourage youth to investigate lake issues from a vari-
  ety of perspectives, including historical, cultural, social,
  and ecological.

  We encourage youth to  be involved in  all stages of their
  project from planning to implementation.

  Lake  education and action are crucial for lake protection.
  Action projects include activities  like lake monitoring,
  letter-writing campaigns, litter cleanups, community sur-
  veys, presentations, and storm drain stenciling. Hands-on
  activities like these provide youth with the skills and moti-
  vation to protect their lake and be a positive force within
  their communities, now and in the future.

North Lakeland Elementary: A case study
North Lakeland Elementary School is in the northern region
of Wisconsin, where the state's glacial history  has dotted the
landscape with a  legacy of lakes.  The nearest  town is
Manitowish  Waters, a community  of approximately 650
located  in Vilas County—one of the densest areas of lakes in
the world, with over 1,327 lakes within its borders. The town
is situated in an idyllic setting amidst abundant wildlife,
spectacular lakefront vistas, and the peace and quiet that
accompany the slower-paced life in more rural American
    As  in many northern Wisconsin communities, the lakes
in this region are facing a variety of potential environmental
disturbances—increased use and shoreline development can
strain these unique water ecosystems by increasing sedi-
mentation and nutrients.  Other  problems associated  with

                                         Concurrent Session 2: Basics of Using School-Aged Monitors in the Classroom
lakes include toxic contamination, lake user conflicts, loss of
exotic species, and acid rain.
    As concern about protecting lake resources has grown
among  community members, so too has the concern and
interest of local teachers and students. In 1995, this interest
led to the pursuit of a lake protection grant through the
Department of Natural Resources to establish a "Mock Lake
Association" curriculum and  student  program  at North
Lakeland Elementary School. A $10,000 grant was awarded
in the spring of 1995, and since that time teachers, students,
and other community  members have become actively
involved in learning more about the lakes in their area and
how to protect these resources.
    Under the  guidance of Jan Watras, a Technical  Edu-
cation teacher at North Lakeland, a variety of activities have
been  undertaken to  interest students and teachers in lake
protection. Grades 5-7 and a multi-age classroom (1-4) chose
several lakes to be "adopted" for the project. The school
incorporated the Adopt-A-Lake program into their Outdoor
Education Curriculum for grades 5,6, and 7. Students spent
one day in the fall, winter, and spring seasons collecting data
on the lakes chosen. Younger students  made Secchi disks
(black and white disks used to measure water clarity) and
took readings using them. Others surveyed the lake shoreline,
measured water temperatures, collected water samples for
laboratory tests, learned the lakes' special features (e.g., size
and depth), and studied the types of plant and animal life in
the area. They also collected and identified macroinver-
tebrates (aquatic insects visible to the naked eye).
    An interdisciplinary approach is a key element to this
Adopt-A-Lake project. The school's Adopt-A-Lake activities
were incorporated into many areas of the curriculum before
and after the "field work." Students made graphs in math
classes, wrote about their findings, and incorporated  their
water testing into science class. Students also kept a journal
about their lake experiences and created three-dimensional
maps of the lakes, showing their depths, shapes, and other
    The 5th through 8th grades elected officials and formed
"mock lake associations," providing students an opportunity
to better understand some of the social and political dynam-
ics  that occur within these organizations. Students gained
civic  skills  by  learning how to conduct a meeting,  elect
officers, and accomplish  goals through their lake association.
    One of the  culminating events from  this Adopt-A-Lake
project was the students'  presentation at the Wisconsin Lakes
Convention in  Stevens  Point, WI. Every year, this  con-
vention attracts over 700  people—lake residents,  public
officials, lake association members, resource managers, and
other citizens interested in protecting Wisconsin's inland
lake resources.  Through their presentations, young people
have brought a new energy to lake protection in the state,
educating and inspiring  citizens of all ages to protect Wis-
consin's lakes.  Community members are excited to see and
hear from youth who are successfully implementing lake
protection projects, and the students are gaining valuable
skills to help them effectively participate in decision-making
    According  to Watras, "The students loved presenting at
the Lakes Convention and to the Parent  Teacher League
(PTL) in their community. Last summer they presented to the
 lake association and have encouraged other students to get
 involved." Most of the students mentioned that this exposure
 to scientific studies  made  them think about a career in
 science, while adopting a lake made them aware of the
 importance of preserving these natural resources.

 Making community-classroom connections:
 Opportunities and barriers
 Watras emphasizes the importance of having administrative
 and community support in the implementation of any edu-
 cational project like  Adopt-A-Lake. She suggests  calling
 local  newspapers and television stations with news about
 your project. "We worked to keep everyone informed," says
    Another component that helped make the North Lake-
 land Elementary School Adopt-A-Lake project successful
 was  the concerted effort among teachers, students, com-
 munity members, and lake specialists. According to Watras,
 "Most people were very excited about the project. The local
 lake associations provided pontoon boats and local resorts
 provided a place along the shoreline where students could
 have  access to the lake." The Department of Natural Re-
 sources also supplied extra Secchi disks and useful reference
 materials. University of Wisconsin-Extension agents and
 specialists spoke to students  about lakes. Lake experts from
 the University  of Wisconsin Trout Lake Research Station
 were brought in to explain water chemistry techniques.
    One of the first steps in the process was gaining teacher
 and community support. To  that end, two teacher trainings
 on lake ecology, water monitoring, and infusing water-based
 environmental education activities into the school curriculum
 were  offered to North Lakeland teachers. Lake association
 members, water quality specialists, and  other community
 members were also invited to attend these workshops, which
 helped build a camaraderie among project participants.
    "As far as  barriers," says Watras,  "we had trouble get-
 ting students onto the lake during bad weather and had some
 troubles with the boats that wouldn't operate, but we made
 alternate plans  when we couldn't get out on the lake."
 Despite the logistical barriers to the project, Watras and other
 teachers in the area hope to  continue to share their project
 and lake results with teachers, young people, lake association
members, and  community members on  an annual basis.
Hopefully, their enthusiasm and newly gained knowledge
 about lakes will help both students and teachers reach that

Adopt-A-Lake works to go beyond water quality monitoring
in the classroom to help build a sense of community among
young people  and adults concerned with lake protection.
Every community has unique natural features worth pre-
serving for  future generations  to  enjoy. From lakes and
streams to prairies, parks and garden plots, there are areas
that can provide a focal point for building a sense of com-
munity as people work together to protect those resources.
    Hopefully, other communities can learn from the Adopt-
A-Lake approach, adapting its successes to fit their  unique
needs. Such approaches can ultimately  result in  a more
informed citizenry with the skills, knowledge, and interest to
take a stake in their lakes and other natural resources that are
so vital to communities worldwide.

Concurrent Session 2: Getting in Step—A Pathway to Effective Outreach in Your Watershed	

 Getting  in  Step:  A  Pathway to  Effective
               Outreach  in Your Watershed
Workshop Leaders: Barry  Tonning,  Gateway District
Health Dept., and Charlie MacPherson, Tetra Tech, Inc.

            Charlie MacPherson
   Public Outreach Coordinator, Tetra Tech., Inc., 10306
 Eaton Place, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22030, 703/385-6000

                Barry Tonning
 Nonpoint Source Project Director, Gateway District Health
   Department, Gudgell Avenue, Owingsville, KY 40360,

Getting in step
Is your message being heard? Is it being heard by the people
who need to hear it? The key to successful outreach is
targeting your message to a specific audience and getting the
audience to respond to your  message. There is a definite
pathway, or process, to follow to achieve effective outreach
in your watershed. How many times has your organization
started to do a fact sheet or a newsletter before deciding what
they want to say and who  they  want  to say it to?  By
following the pathway we suggest, your organization can
prepare targeted outreach materials to satisfy the goals and
objectives of your program.  This  session will review  the
basic building blocks to effective outreach and then focus on
enhancing outreach materials and using the media to get your
message out.

Building blocks
There are six essential building blocks to  effective outreach.
Each block builds  on the previous block and each block is
essential to achieving the desired result. By using these
building blocks you can build a pathway to successful out-
reach in your watershed!

Block 1: Define your objective
First you must decide what you want to accomplish. Your
objective should be specific and results-oriented. The more
specific you make your objective, the easier it will be to
develop your message, identify your target audience, and
evaluate the success of your outreach efforts. For example, if
you state your objective as "Teaching the general public
about nonpoint source pollution," you  will have a very
difficult time evaluating the success of your efforts due to the
vague objective and unwieldy target audience. Restating
your objective as, "Educating homeowners with lawns about
proper techniques for fertilizer application to reduce  the
amount of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into  nearby
streams" will help target your message and increase  the
likelihood of the audience hearing your message.

Block 2: Identify your target audience
Once you have defined your objective, you must decide
whom you are trying to reach. Chances are you will identify
several different target audiences for each objective. The
more specific you make your audiences, the easier it will be
to target your message for those audiences. Once you have
identified an audience, you need to collect information about

the members of that audience (e.g., their demographic make
up, their knowledge about the topic to be discussed, their
attitudes about the subject of your message, and which
communication  channels they  use).  You will  use  this
information to develop a message that is targeted to your
audience's needs and to develop and apply the  kinds of
formats they are likely to encounter. Several resources are
available for collecting the above information. In addition to
the Census Bureau or marketing research firms, resources
include the following:
 • Focus groups. Ask five to seven members of your target
   audience to participate in a 1- to 2-hour facilitated dis-
   cussion of the issues under consideration. Make sure
   your facilitator is well versed on these issues.
 • Convenient samples. Identify where you can easily
   access your target audience and ask a subset population
   a series of questions to gain insight. For example, if you
   want to find out about habits of people who change their
   own oil, an auto parts store might be a good place to find
   members of your target audience.
 • Trade associations. Talk to trade associations to gather
   information about their members. For example, boating
   associations can provide insights as to  why their mem-
   bers sometimes discharge sewage into  coastal waters
   instead of using pumpout stations. You might discover
   that most boaters are unaware of pumpout locations,
   leading you to develop a message that  includes  locations
   of the pumpout stations in the area.

                              Concurrent Session 2: Getting in Step—A Pathway to Effective Outreach in Your Watershed
 Block 3: Develop your message
 Now that you are armed with all kinds of background
 information  on your target audience, you are ready to
 develop the message. The message you send out should not
 be your objective. Your message will help you to meet your
 objective, especially if it is specific, shows a benefit to your
 audience, and is action-oriented. Put yourself in the position
 of your target audience  and ask yourself the questions they
 will ask:  "Why should  I care about this? What's  in it for
 me?" Specific benefits for your audience might include: free
 implementation of the plan in question, convenient steps to
 activate the plan, improved health for the people involved,
 the fulfillment of legal statutes, saving time, and saving
 money. For example, when  educating homeowners about
 how leaky toilets waste water, mention the dollar amounts
 the consumer pays per day for a leaky toilet and explain how
 such leakage depletes natural resources.

 Block 4: Prepare your formats
 How are you going to  display your message? To achieve
 maximum impact, several different formats should be used.
 Formats include print materials such as fact sheets, news-
 letters,  flyers, and posters; promotional items such as mag-
 nets, bumper stickers, rulers, and tote bags; and media outlets
 such  as radio and TV public service announcements and
 news stories.
    To help determine your format, decide what you want
 your audience to do with the message. For example, if you
 create a flyer your audience will read once and  men throw
 away, then you might want to  produce your flyer on recycled
 paper. For messages that you  want your audience to refer to
 repeatedly, refrigerator magnets are an inexpensive format
 that keeps a message visible.  Promotional items, which can
 be given away at events and festivals, spread your message
 and increase recognition of your organization's name. Radio
 and TV public service announcements are useful formats to
 advertise upcoming events, or the release of an important
 environmental report. Use these outlets sparingly, making
 sure your messages are  time-sensitive and will appeal to a
 large audience.

Block 5: Identify distribution  mechanisms
 Often the flyer or fact sheet has been printed before anyone
 asks, "How are we going to get this to our target audience?"
It is important to know the distribution mechanism for your
message before you develop any outreach materials. This
mechanism will affect your budget planning (postage costs
 add up), the design of your format, and the selection of trade
 associations or organizations to be used in disseminating
your message.
    Possible distribution mechanisms include mail, trade
associations, community organizations, door-to-door dis-
semination, phone calls,  events, mass transit, billboards, and
media outlets. In addition, phone directories  for  the United
States are now available on CD ROM that allow you to target
your audience by  ZIP code, as well as through a variety  of
coded trade associations.

Block 6: Develop and conduct your evaluation
How do you know if your outreach effort worked, or, more
importantly, didn't work? It is critical to assess your efforts
and to evaluate specific  components to improve or modify
your future outreach efforts. Review your objective and turn
it into a question. For example, if your objective is to recruit
new members for your volunteer monitoring organization,
your question should be, "Are we recruiting new members
for our organization?" If the answer is yes, you can make
your evaluation more specific:
    •  How many new members have we recruited?
    •  Are the new members from our target audience?
    •  Has the target audience seen our message?
    •  Has the target audience understood our message?

    Once you know the questions to ask,  select the tech-
niques that will provide the answers. Phone surveys and
questionnaires are commonly used to solicit information
from the target audience.

Eye-catching outreach materials
Once you have chosen the formats for getting your message
out, how can you maximize the chances that your target
audience will see and respond to your message? Through the
use of text, design, graphics, photographs, and hooks you can
easily and cost-effectively enhance your  materials to grab
people's attention.
 •  Design. When designing your outreach materials, use
    restraint. There are lots of creative ideas out there, but
    select only two or three elements to use on one piece.
    The use of white space will greatly enhance the overall
    look of your message. Think of white space as a graphic
    in and of itself. In addition to different  types of text,
    fonts are increasingly used as design elements. Fonts can
    be stretched, wrapped, reversed, enlarged, turned
    sideways, or repeated to create visually appealing
    materials. When designing pieces, try to adhere to the
    2/3 vs. 1/3 rule: fill 2/3 of your page with graphics and
    only 1/3 of the page with text.
 •  Graphics. Graphics should be used whenever possible
    to highlight concepts, break up blocks of text, and create
    areas of white space. Make your graphics large enough
    to have an impact. When using graphics,  be sure they
    photocopy well. Line drawings work best. If you have a
    limited graphics library,  repeat the same graphic across
    the page, or vary the sizes of the graphic and group them
    together. Avoid using several different  graphics of the
    same size on a page. This diminishes the  impact of all
    the graphics on the page.
 •  Photographs. Photographs can be incorporated into
    outreach materials, but make sure that each photograph
    will reproduce well and is relevant to the  piece. It is
    much better to use a clear line drawing  than to use a
    fuzzy, washed-out photo. Photos of people are usually
    best. Most people love reading about other people.
    Again, if your material will be photocopied, photographs
    might not be your best choice.
 •  Color. Use color! At the very least use colored paper for
    your fact sheets and flyers. You are competing with lots
    of printed information out there and color gets you
    noticed. Paper has come a long way in terms of the
   many types of recycled paper now available and the
    variety of colors that photocopy well. People often
   photocopy flyers or brochures in black ink because they
    believe it costs less than  color copying, but the
   difference in cost is actually quite small and well worth
   the improved results. Blue, purple, and  green work best
   for pieces with a large amount of text. Two-color print-
   ing provides a good balance of artistic creativity at a
   reasonable cost. By overlapping two colors, you can
   create a third color, while the use of screens and half-

Concurrent Session 2: Getting in Step—A Pathway to Effective Outreach in Your Watershed
    tones provides various shades of color. Four-color
    printing is the most expensive color process, but it can
    also be the most eye-catching. Four-color printing is
    particularly effective on maps and posters.
 •  Hooks. Several techniques can be used to engage
    readers if your message is lengthy and you want to
    "hook" them in. To involve the reader, try starting off
    with a startling question such as, "Are you poisoning
    your water?" Humor works well too. Most people enjoy
    games, so instead of explaining the information, display
    it as a game or contest.  For example, phrase your infor-
    mation in the form of true/false questions, have the
    reader find 10 examples of pollution in an illustration, or
    design a crossword puzzle with nonpoint source pol-
    lution clues.
 •  Text. Many people spend a great deal of time preparing
    graphics and producing an award-winning layout only to
    throw in text that is wordy and uninteresting. Spend time
    making your text come  alive to your readers. Once the
    text is written, take the  time to shorten it. Avoid the use
    of acronyms and highly technical words.

Using the news media
News media coverage of water quality monitoring or re-
mediation projects provides an inexpensive venue for in-
forming and educating the public on problem issues and the
management  and behavioral practices recommended to re-
solve them.
    Unfortunately, much of the current media coverage of
water quality projects focuses heavily on peripheral matters
(e.g., personalities, events, etc.) while providing little expla-
nation of the specific problems, the science behind the prob-
lems, and the strategies used to address the problems. For
instance,  a. story on the installation of a livestock waste-
handling system usually discusses the producer, his opera-
tion, his family, and so forth, with little information on how
the nutrients and pathogens in manure affect surface and
subsurface water supplies, or how the new system will help
the situation.
    Using the news media to keep the public informed about
water quality issues is relatively simple. Only two things are
required. First and foremost, developing a relationship with
the appropriate reporter(s) will help foster an understanding
of your monitoring group, its objectives, and the problems
revealed by the data collected in the field. Taking reporters
out on monitoring trips,  for example, and providing them
with a steady stream of timely news releases will add to your
organization's credibility, improve public understanding of
water quality issues, provide a boost for the troops in the
field, and aid in volunteer recruitment.
    The next thing to keep in mind is that the news always
has to be new. Educational information on water quality
issues must be accompanied by some sort of "news  nugget"
that is current, affects many people, involves an interesting
local personality,  has unique  appeal, or relates the local
situation to regional, state, or  national issues. The general
format for educational news releases is  to first present the
"news nugget" (think of what the headline will say—that's
the news part) and then  to explain how the problem in
question affects water quality. For example, a story on a new
oil  recycling program at a local service station could be
followed by a discussion on the toxic content of used motor
oil, the fact that many people  are  still disposing of oil
improperly, a review  of the pathways dumped  oil takes to
water bodies, and the impact on aquatic life (and drinking
water sources) that follows.
    When you discuss scientific issues in news releases, it is
very important not to get too technical. "Phytoplankton" are
"algae"  to the general public; "nutrients" are "algae-feeding
substances"; and "nonpoint source" should be referred to as
"runoff." Remember that reporters are usually juggling four
or five stories at once, so don't load them down with a lot of
reports or reams of data. They  won't read more than two or
three pages, so the object is to condense and simplify your
message. It helps to hit the  various problems (nutrient
loading,  sedimentation, streambank destruction, etc.) from
several different angles throughout the year because:
       Reach  x  Frequency  =  Results
You can't tell them just once  that riparian vegetation is a
good thing, just as soda pop companies  don't ask you only
once to buy their  products. Promoting  clean water in the
news media is an ongoing affair.
  - End of Concurrent Session 2 —

                                                       Concurrent Session 3: Youth-Designed Restoration Projects
    Youth-Designed  Restoration  Projects
Moderator: Karen Firehock, IWLA
Panelists: Rich Mason, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Esther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy

                  Rich Mason
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office,
       Annapolis, MD 21401, 410/573-4584; email
             Rich_D_Mason @ mail.fws. gov

            School Yard Habitat
            Restoration Program

In the past 10 years there has been a growing interest in
creating backyard wildlife habitat. At the same time, schools
have become more interested in attracting wildlife to the
school yard. While the interest is high, there is a severe
shortage of natural resource experts and education specialists
available to provide training and assistance  to schools in
order to implement projects that are both educationally and
ecologically valuable. Additionally, the techniques used in
the backyard may or may not work as well in a school yard.

Pilot project
In 1993 the U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service's Chesapeake
Bay Field Office initiated a pilot project in  Maryland de-
signed to give students hands-on experience in restoring,
creating, or enhancing wetlands, forests, and grassland mead-
ows on school grounds. The thrust of this effort is to focus on
naturalization  projects  and not on traditional backyard
projects such as butterfly gardens, bird feeders, etc. The goal
of the project is to challenge students to utilize mathematics,
science, reading, writing, decision  making, and critical
thinking skills  in a practical application that would benefit
local and migratory wildlife. Students are challenged to plan,
design, and monitor these projects. The new habitats are used
as outdoor laboratories and are available for informal student
investigation and discovery. The projects have a number of
potential benefits including:
 1. Provide an opportunity for students to use skills in a
    practical application
 2. Create nearby natural areas for instructional use and
    informal investigation
 3. Create better habitat for local and migratory wildlife
 4. Improve the aesthetics of barren school landscapes
 5. Reduce school facilities costs
 6. Provide vegetative buffers to nearby streams
 7. Provide natural areas for community use
 8. Create a model of land stewardship for the community

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides the follo-
wing types of assistance to schools: (1) offering 1-day
training workshops for teachers, administrators, maintenance
staff, and parents;  (2) providing follow-up support and
technical assistance; (3) developing a restoration guide for
students to use; (4) working closely with the Maryland State
Department of Education landscape architect division in
promoting habitat conservation through  natural design in
new school construction and renovation projects; and (5)
coordinating with other agencies on school projects.
    The pilot program is taking place in Maryland, with
plans to expand  into other states in the Chesapeake Bay
drainage. A few projects have been implemented or are being
planned in Virginia and West Virginia. Pennsylvania has a
new program that is being coordinated by the Pennsylvania
Audubon. Virginia has a Gardening for Wildlife Program for

As of June 1996,  approximately 60 projects have been com-
pleted and 25 acres of unused  school lawn converted to
meadows, forests, or wetlands.  Several thousand students
have been involved with these projects.
                   Esther Lev
   The Wetlands Conservancy, P.O. Box 1195, Tualatin,
             Oregon 97062, 503/239-4065

 Unlikely Partners: A Degraded Water-
 way, A Small Private Manufacturing
  Company, and an Alternative High
   School Program for At-Risk Youth

C.R.U.E. (Corps to  Restore Urban  Environments) is  an
alternative school program that is a partnership  between
Open Meadow Learning Center and The Wetlands Con-
servancy, a small non-profit land trust. The program   is
designed to  teach young people  how  to  identify envi-
ronmental restoration needs within their community and to
develop and install  projects  that fit the landscape and
community needs. As much as possible, the projects are
structured to have C.R.U.E. participants involved in all
phases,  including needs assessment; site evaluation and
assessment; project  description  and design; discussing
project design  and goals  with appropriate agency staff,
landowners,  and community members;  drafting project
blueprints and cross-sections; creating project budgets and
timelines; project installation; execution of a monitoring
program; and ongoing maintenance of the project.  This
process allows Corps participants to understand the process
involved in doing small and large restoration projects and the
need to  develop partnerships with many agencies, neigh-
borhood people, and other interested or impacted parties in
order to complete such projects. It also exposes them to a
variety of career options, ranging from horticulture (nursery
work) to construction to government agency positions.

Project description
The Columbia Slough—the quintessential urban stream—is a
degraded, channelized system with steep banks vegetated by
the invasive exotic Himalayan blackberry. For the past four
years students in the C.R.U.E. program have been trans-
forming the banks of the Columbia Slough into a  terraced,
wetland/forested riparian community. So far,  25  students
have been involved in rehabilitating close to 500 feet of the

Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring Wetlands
    In October 1993, seven youth designed a streambank
restoration  project and  landscape plan for Atlas Copco
Wagner  Mining, Inc., a small private business along the
Columbia Slough in Portland, Oregon. The crew spent three
days on the site, mapping existing conditions and identifying
site attributes, opportunities, and constraints.  They inter-
viewed the environmental manager for Atlas Copco Wagner
Mining about the company's reason for doing the restoration
project and employee needs, and the City of Portland Colum-
bia watershed manager on her needs and wishes for cleaning
up the slough.  Day 2 was spent designing the project, includ-
ing determining grade changes and terracing, drawing cross-
sections, and finally developing a planting plan and plant
species list.  While working on the design on site, the youth
were able to observe employees' use of and attitudes toward
the site, and incorporate those observations into their design.
Three teams of two youth each created designs. Each team
presented their plan to the other groups and  then  to the
"client" for critique and input. Finally, they took components
from each of the designs and created a composite design. The
final drawing  went through the City of Portland Environ-
mental Zone permit process.  One of the youth attended the
pre-application meeting, made notes of what changes needed
to occur  to obtain  the permit, and was then responsible for
working with the rest of the team to make those changes. The
permitting process took longer than expected, delaying the
installation time for the project. The permit was finally ob-
tained  in June, the beginning of the hot dry season. Project
installation was delayed until September 1994, the beginning
of the rainy season. By this time, the youth who had designed
the project had completed the program, so the  project was
installed by six different youth.
    The second group of youth learned to read and fine-tune
a planting plan. The design specified a wetland shelf with
sedges, rushes, and cattails, and a riparian forest of red alder
and big leaf maple along the slope. Twenty-five different
native tree, shrub, and  wetland  emergent species  were
planted. In December of 1993, the Urban Streams Council
obtained  over 2,000 native riparian and wetland plants, to be
used for the Columbia Slough rehabilitation project. Over the
spring and summer, the plants had become root-bound in
their containers. The second group of youth re-potted each of
the 2,000 plants. This allowed them to become knowledge-
able about each of the plant species and their growth patterns
and location preferences. The planting plan was altered based
on their new knowledge of the different plants. Six youth and
three adult guest laborers spent six days rehabilitating 250
linear feet of slough bank, planting over 2,000 plants. The
Multnomah Drainage District donated excavation equipment
and time. Chicken wire cages were put around the majority
of the trees and shrubs in order to limit nutria damage to the
    A third group of students monitored the project over the
next six months, watching growth and survival rates, re-
moving blackberries and reed canary grass, and developing
an understory, forb, and low shrub planting plan. They in-
stalled the understory  plantings in September 1995,  once
they felt the trees  and shrubs had established an adequate
canopy to support their growth.
    The fourth group completed a two-week design course
(similar to what the first group did). Unlike the first group's
section  of bank, which was primarily blackberry with few
native trees or plants, the fourth  group's section had six
native trees that will remain. The students had to incorporate
the existing trees into their new design as  well as integrate
the elements of the earlier installation into their design. The
design also included more human-use elements: several pic-
nic tables, a small trail down to the slough, and a wildlife
viewing platform. After completing the design course, the
youth developed one composite plan, a detailed budget and
timeline,  and a monitoring and maintenance  plan. In the
spring of 1996 they installed the design, and they have been
returning to the site once a month since May to weed exotic
plants and monitor plant growth.

All parties involved feel the project was a success. Granted,
the rehabilitation of 500 linear feet of slough bank along an
18-mile degraded system may have a very limited impact on
fish and wildlife habitat and, in turn, species diversity and
numbers, and the overall landscape ecology and health of the
region. It is, however, the start. The project has changed  a
small landscape, as well as the perception  of the slough by
the employees of Atlas Copco Wagner Mining, and it has
given the C.R.U.E. participants the opportunity to be respon-
sible for making those changes. Hopefully, this project will
become a catalyst for other property owners and residents
along the slough to begin to rehabilitate the system. As more
people get involved in these projects and see the changes,
there is  an opportunity to change how humans interact with
the natural landscape, becoming  better stewards  of the
region's natural resources.

                                                                       Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring Wetlands
                           Monitoring  Wetlands
 Moderator: Christy Williams, Izaak Walton  League  of
 Speakers: Mitch Keiler, Maryland Department of the Envi-
 ronment; Linda Storm,* USEPA Region 10; Sarah Kneipp,
 Caddo Lake Institute

                   Mitch Keiler
  Maryland Dept. of the Environment,  Water Management
 Administration, Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division
   580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis, MD 21401, 410/974-2265

     Maryland's Wetland Monitoring
        Program and Methodology

 The Chesapeake Bay watershed is at risk from development
 and related causes of nonpoint source pollution. The problem
 is immense considering the 64,000-square-mile Bay water-
 shed. Given the projected level of development within the
 Bay watershed, continued loss of some wetlands is unavoid-
    Federal and state regulations applying to wetlands can
 require compensation for impacts that result in wetland de-
 struction or degradation. Mitigation for wetland loss in the
 form of wetland creation has become  an accepted practice,
 and regulations require yearly monitoring of the site.
    There is very little information available on the status of
 created wetlands.  In their book Wetland Creation and Re-
 storation: The Status of the Science, Jon Kusler and Mary
 Kentula report that "monitoring of wetland restoration and
 creation projects has been uncommon." A review of the EPA
 National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring
 Programs, Fourth Edition (1994) shows that out of a handful
 of programs that monitor wetlands only one program in the
 United States is dedicated to using volunteers to monitor
 created wetlands.
    Wetlands  are designed to meet  certain performance
 standards. Long-term monitoring of these sites is the only
 way we can judge if the created wetlands meet these stan-
 dards. With state and federal budgets stretched to the limit,
 the  practical alternative  is  to empower the citizenry to be
 actively involved in the  management of our  natural
 resources. Citizen  volunteers have already demonstrated the
 ability to collect valuable data in support of state water qual-
 ity monitoring programs.  Monitoring newly created wetlands
 offers citizens  a chance to learn about land restoration and
 the role wetlands play in helping protect water quality.
 Scope of the mitigation monitoring program
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Water
Management  Administration (WMA) has organized  and
begun implementation of a citizen-based nontidal wetland
mitigation monitoring program. This project has developed a
monitoring manual  and  training seminars. Volunteers are
trained to collect  baseline  data on vegetation density  and
groundwater elevations  on state-developed programmatic
wetland mitigation  sites. Information gathered from  this
study  provides resource managers  with quantitative site-

 No paper submitted
 specific data  for  direct comparison  with established
 performance standards. At each site data will be gathered
 over a five-year period to document wetland maturation.
    The goal of this program is to provide vegetation and
 hydrology data, collected by volunteers, which will describe
 the extent and condition of state-created wetlands and their
 relative degree of success as measured against established
 performance standards for mitigation sites.

 Data usage
 Created wetland monitoring data will be used to:
  1. Establish baseline conditions of created wetlands.
  2. Monitor performance standards for five years.
  3. Advise resource managers of remedial actions.
  4. Aid in the review and revision of performance criteria
    and design guidelines for wetland mitigation projects.
  5. Promote community stewardship of wetlands by training
    volunteers to monitor mitigation sites.
  6. Fulfill state monitoring requirements.
  7. Produce an annual report.

 Vegetation monitoring
 Methodologies and techniques for monitoring created wet-
 lands performance in this program are based on the  Inter-
 agency  Mitigation Task Force (IMTF) guidance  document
 drafted in August 1994. There are many methods of sampling
 and monitoring different aspects of the wetland biological
 community. Standardized sampling methods provide unifor-
 mity in site monitoring reports.
    Vegetation, soils, and hydrology are the three physical
 indicators typically used in identifying wetlands. Vegetation
 density  (which is one measure of biomass) and plant domi-
 nance are used  to evaluate mitigation vegetation perform-
 ance. Studies have shown that mitigation  sites without suf-
 ficient plant biomass support low populations of fish and
 wildlife and provide insignificant water  quality  functions
 (i.e., nutrient removal, sediment deposition) (IMTF Guid-
 ance, 1994). The goal for created wetlands is to achieve 85%
 or greater wetland vegetative cover by the end of five  years
 (COMAR, 1994).
    What makes wetland plants so unique? They are plants
 adapted for life in water, or in  periodically flooded or
 saturated soils (hydric soils) that  are deficient in oxygen
 during some portion of the growing  season (adapted  from
 COE, EPA, and COMAR). Plants growing in wetlands may
 occur there either because they are adapted to the conditions
 of that habitat or because they are able to tolerate the wetland
    Learning plant identification  skills can be a fun and
 challenging endeavor. Plants we find in wetlands can some-
 times be found in uplands. You might ask how can that be?
 Over time, plant populations adapt (through the process of
 natural selection) to the environmental conditions that affect
them. If the conditions are too harsh  the plants will not
 survive. When the plant population has had time—perhaps
generations—to adapt to specific environmental conditions,
certain physical characteristics of the plants may also change.
    There are many factors that contribute to determining

 Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring Wetlands
 the location in which a plant occurs. For the field person
 monitoring created wetlands, the most important factor to
 bear in mind is that the plants that occur there have adapted
 themselves to soil that is inundated or saturated for extended
 periods of time during the growing season. A lack of hydro-
 phytic vegetation can be an indication that the site is drier
 than the anticipated design criteria. The table at the bottom of
 this page lists 10 woody plants commonly used for wetlands
 creation in Maryland's coastal plain.
 Monitoring principles
 In designing methods to monitor wetland vegetation there are
 three important principles that must be recognized:
  1. Keep methods simple.
  2. Monitoring procedures are like a recipe and need to be
  3. The data you collect will only be as accurate as your
    confidence level in the method you apply.
 There is no mystery to acquiring the skill to take meaningful
 measurements in the field  if you keep perspective on these
 How do we monitor vegetation?
 Vegetation monitoring is  used to establish plant density
 (quantity of plants per area) and dominant species (a plant
 species that exerts a controlling influence on the character of
 a community). Three techniques for gathering field data are
 utilized by this program: the transect line method,  subjective
 analysis, and the six-foot-radius circular plot method.
 The transect line
 A transect is a line on the ground along which observations
 are made. The transect line has been used  extensively in the
 biological monitoring of vegetation.  This  form of gathering
 field information is known  as systematic sampling, by which
 items are selected at some regular interval along a traverse in
 a field study. This regular distribution of sample points may
 be used to produce a  map along with statistical analysis.
    In order to establish transect lines, first establish and
 stake out a longitudinal axis (baseline) running through the
 site and dividing it in half lengthwise. The baseline provides
 the foundation along  which the transects are spaced. Transect
 lines arc spaced parallel to  each other and  run perpendicular
 across the baseline through the monitoring site. The type of
                 plant community will determine the type of sampling method
                 used (i.e., circular plot or  subjective analysis) along the
                 transect line.

                 Subjective analysis
                 In our program, subjective analysis will be used in emergent
                 sites to determine if plant stem density is equal to or greater
                 than the performance standards. Subjective analysis is a vis-
                 ual assessment  based  on  the  field monitor's  powers of
                 observation. Observations are based on recognizing and
                 noting a fact or occurrence that can be measured, but often is
                 based on judgment. Time in the field greatly increases the
                 observer's ability to distinguish plant types and vegetation
                 density patterns.

                 The circular plot method
                 The circular plot method is used to calculate density for trees
                 and shrubs. At intervals along  the transect, six-foot-radius
                 circular plots are established. The presence or absence of
                 vegetation achieving the specified height of 10" or taller and
                 growing within  the circular plot is recorded. Plant iden-
                 tification and dominance are also recorded.
                     Circular plot vegetation density is computed  by an
                 interval system of  measurement in which  occurrences are
                 counted and assigned weighted values. All tree and shrub
                 counts are for living plants  10" or taller. Where there are no
                 trees or shrubs the  value is 0; if there is one living tree or
                 shrub within the plot the value is 1; and if there are two or
                 more living trees or shrubs within the plot the value is 2.
                 These values are then used to calculate the vegetation density
                 and cover types.
                     By recording observations made of plant type combined
                 with measurements gathered from the transect line method,
                 resource managers can determine if the created wetland
                 meets anticipated performance standards.

                 Wetland plant sampling methods
                 /. Emergent vegetation method
                 Equipment: Tape measure, 12" ruler,  compass, 6'measuring
                 stick, clipboard, and plant guide.
                     The  following steps explain how  the transect line
                 method is used in identifying two categories, "vegetated" and
                 "open water," in emergent mitigation sites.
                 Step 1.  The field monitor establishes a straight line (tran-
                 sect) across the area to be examined, perpendicular to the
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
    Black Willow
    Salix niara
    Red Maple
    Acer rubrum
    River Birch
    Betula niara
    Pin Oak
    Ouercus palustris
    Willow Oak
    Quercus phellos
    Green Ash
    Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
    Black Gum
    Nvssa svlvatica
    Water Tupelo
    Nvssa biflora
    Ceohalanthus occidentalis
    Lindera benzoin
Note: Wetland indicator status was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to classify plants according to the relative affinity of a
species for wetlands. Obligate (OBL) - always found in wetlands (greater than 99% of the time these plants occur in wetlands). Faculta-
tive \Vetland (FACW) = usually found in wetlands (66-99% of the time). Facultative (FAC) = sometimes found in wetlands (33-66% of the
time). Facultative Upland (FACU) = seldom found in wetlands (less than 33% of the time).

                                                                          Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring Wetlands
     baseline. Transect #1 starts 20 feet from one of the lon-
     gitudinal ends of the wetland. The transects are spaced
     parallel to each other at 50-foot intervals; each transect
     crosses the entire width of the wetland and is given a
     sequential  number for identification.
 Step 2. The monitor walks the transect line looking for
     living stems in a minimum density of 12" x 12" spacing
     (43,560 living stems per acre) along each transect. It
     takes some practice to be able to visually perceive what
     a 12" x 12" plant stem spacing pattern looks like. The
     following  method is useful for beginners. With a 12"
     ruler in hand, start at one  end of the transect line and
     proceed across the emergent zone, following the transect
     line, to the other side of the  wetland. As you walk,
     measure the spacing of the plants with your ruler. The
     stems of the emergent vegetation should be 12" or closer
     together in order for the area to be considered "vege-
     tated." When the spacing between plants becomes great-
     er than the length of the ruler, stop and measure the
     distance along the transect you have walked. This marks
     the boundary of the area considered "vegetated." That
     distance will be recorded to the nearest 0.5 foot on a data
     sheet and transferred to the site plan. Where the density
     of plants is spaced further apart than the length of the
     ruler, the area is considered "open water."

//. Scrub-shrub and forested vegetation method
Equipment: Tape measure, 12" ruler, compass, 6' measuring
stick, clipboard, and plant guide.
     The following method for measuring the success of
woody plant colonization should be conducted once, between
May and September, for each of the five growing seasons
following the completion of construction of the wetland.
Step 1.  Establish transects as described previously. The first
     transect is  located 20 feet from one of the ends of the
     baseline. Thereafter the transects are spaced at intervals
     dependent  on the size of the site. If the site is greater
     than 0.5 acres and less than 5 acres, the transect lines
     will be spaced 50 feet apart. If the site is greater than or
     equal to 5 acres, the transect lines will be spaced 75 feet
Step 2. Six-foot-radius circular plots are spaced at 50-foot
     intervals along each transect. The presence or absence of
     living wetland trees and shrubs achieving the specified
     height standard (10 inches or greater) and growing with-
     in the circular plot is recorded. (Note: The first circular
     plot for the even-numbered transects is taken on the
     same side of the wetland—i.e., from the same cardinal
     direction. The first circular plot for the odd-numbered
     transects is taken on the opposite side of the wetland.
     For example: even numbers begin  on south side of
     wetland site, therefore odd numbers begin  on north
Step 3. The numbered transects and circular plots are de-
    picted on a map of the wetland mitigation site (scale 1
     inch = 100 feet). Circular plot data is recorded on stan-
     dardized data sheets. Record data using the interval sys-
     tem described above (i.e., 0 = no living tree or shrub
     over 10" in height, 1 = one living tree or shrub over 10"
    in height, 2 = two or more).

Monitoring hydrology
Hydrology is the science dealing with the properties,  dis-
tribution, and circulation of water on the surface of the land,
 in the soil and underlying rock, and in the atmosphere. We
 are  interested in monitoring hydrology because'it is con-
 sidered the driving mechanism required for the formation
 and maintenance of wetlands. Fluctuations of water level and
 the  duration of inundation or saturation determine, in part,
 the composition of plant communities.
     Establishing wetland hydrologic conditions is essential
 for successful wetlands plant growth and hydric soil devel-
 opment. Before  a plan is ever drafted, a lot of time and effort
 has  gone into establishing the hydrologic sources  for  a
 wetland creation site, in order to assure adequate hydrologic
 input to the site.
     Inundation  at the surface  can be  easily observed and
 recorded on a map. There are times throughout the year,
 however, when  site visits will not coincide with surface in-
 undation, and when soils are saturated below the surface.
 Therefore, several shallow wells are  commonly  installed
 within a wetland to measure water levels below the surface
 to depths  of 0.5  to 2.0 m, depending on the expected
 movement of the local water table. Plastic (PVC) pipes with
 narrow horizontal  slots have been used successfully in nu-
 merous projects. These pipes can also be used to  measure
 depths of surface water when standing water is present, or
 separate staff gauges can be installed.

 I. Monitoring hydrology: groundwater
 Equipment: 6'measuring staff, tape measure, clipboard, data
 Step 1. Placement of groundwater wells: Hydrologic zones
     distinguished  by a 2-foot  change  in elevation should
     have a minimum of one groundwater monitoring well
     installed. In addition, a hydrologic zone should have a
     minimum of 1 groundwater well per 4 acres. If a given
     hydrologic zone occupies a total of 5 acres, at least 2
     groundwater wells should be installed.  In emergent
     zones, wells are to be located in the driest area of that
     zone. Guidance for installation of groundwater moni-
     toring wells has been prepared by the National Resource
     Conservation Service (NRCS).
 Step 2. Collection of data: The collection of groundwater
     well data is initiated within 14 days of the start of the
     growing season and continues for the first two  (full)
    consecutive growing seasons  subsequent to the com-
    pletion of grading. Groundwater well readings are taken
    once every 14 days for the first two months (60 days) of
    the growing season, and every 30 days for the remainder
    of the growing season. Groundwater well readings are
    recorded to the nearest one inch on data sheets.

II. Monitoring hydrology: surface water
If surface water is evident on the days the groundwater data
is being collected, surface water measurements should be
taken at the well. If no surface water is  present, note that on
the data sheet. The collection of surface  water data for the
most part will be limited to emergent zones and early season
high water in scrub-shrub and forested zones. The following
procedures apply to emergent zones.
Step 1. Surface water measurements: Water depth  mea-
    surements are  taken along  the same  transect lines that
    have been established to monitor vegetation. Surface wa-
    ter depth measurements are taken  at 25-foot intervals
    along each numbered transect,  using a 6-foot measuring
    pole that is marked in 1-inch increments. The bottom of
    the measuring pole is equipped with a flat 1-foot diame-

Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring Wetlands
    ter mesh or plastic disc support, to prevent the pole from
    sinking into the wetland substrate (mud).
Step 2. Collection of data: Surface water depth measure-
    ments are recorded every 14 days throughout the first 2
    months (60 days) of the growing season  after the com-
    pletion of grading and once every 30 days for the re-
    mainder of the growing season. The growing season can
    also be determined from climatological  data given in
    most SCS county soil surveys.

COMAR. Code of Maryland Regulations. Title 08, Department of
    Natural Resources; Subtitle 05, Water Resources Administra-
    tion; Chapter 04, Nontidal Wetlands.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands De-
    lineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engi-
    neer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Husch, B., C.I. Miller, and T.W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration,
    2nd Edition. The Ronald Press Company, New York.
Interagency  Mitigation Task Force. August 1994. Maryland Com-
    pensatory Mitigation Guidance. Baltimore, MD.
Kuslcr, J.A. and M.E. Kentula, eds. 1989. Wetland Creation and
    Restoration: The  Status of the Science.  Volume I:  Regional
    Reviews. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Environ-
    mental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 473 pp.
MacDonnell, William P. and Joseph C.  Mawson. 1972(7). Basic
    Forest Measurements: A Laboratory Manual. Forestry Wild-
    life Management Department, University of Massachusetts.
USEPA. 1993. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
    Oceans, and Watersheds. EPA 842-B-93-004.
USEPA,  1994. National Directory of Volunteer Environmental
    Monitoring Programs, Fourth Edition.  U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-
    sheds. EPA 841-B-94-001.
        Sara Kneipp & Mike Buttram .
Caddo Lake Institute, 3703 Bridle Path, Marshall, TX 75670,

             Monitoring Wetlands

Caddo Lake Institute, Inc., is a private operating foundation
underwritten by Don Henley, musician and environmentalist.
The role of the Institute is to act as an "ecosystem-specific"
sponsoring entity, underwriting local wetland science and
conservation education as well as cultural and ecological re-
search and monitoring. The Institute, in partnership with
federal and state conservation agencies, created the 1993 in-
itiative which resulted in the designation of approximately
3,300 hectares of Texas-owned land under the Ramsar Con-
vention of Wetlands of International Importance.
    The Institute's Caddo Lake Scholars and Junior Scholars
programs provide specialized wetland science training to a
consortium of local college and public school educators and
students. The local educational theme emphasizes the use of
local wetlands as living laboratories and classrooms. Train-
ing includes field  study  with professional conservation
agency  personnel  and academicians  in  wetland ecology,
chemical and biological water quality monitoring, ornithol-
ogy, archeology and history, Geographic Information Sys-
tems (GIS), remote imagery/ground-truth studies, landscape
and habitat analysis, and global sustainability overviews.
    Educators who participate in Caddo Lake Institute pro-
grams support many wetland field projects, including moni-
toring, research, and private lands stewardship. They demon-
strate their field learning at public events and develop and
teach wetland science curricula. They also exchange knowl-
edge with colleagues at other U.S. Ramsar sites and in other
nations. These activities are designed to emphasize the Ram-
sar call for "wise, sustainable use" of wetlands worldwide, to
encourage local residents to "act globally by acting locally."

Caddo Lake Institute network for monitoring
Caddo Lake and its watershed
The Caddo Lake Institute strives to  make the process of
getting  into volunteer environmental monitoring easy for
anyone  who is interested. We have trained personnel who
actively seek out individuals in the community desiring to
receive training in environmental studies. We especially tar-
get teachers in local colleges, universities, and public schools
with the intention of getting students involved in a long-term
commitment to environmental research. Assistance is avail-
able for setting goals and  establishing a program that suits
the needs of teachers, students, and Caddo Lake Institute's
partnership in the Texas Watch Program. Basic equipment is
supplied and a support system is  in place to help keep the
equipment in good order. A calendar is set each year for sug-
gested monitoring dates. On these monitoring days training
sessions for new participants are held in conjunction with the
regular water quality monitoring tasks. A quality assurance
plan is also in place to help maintain the integrity of the data
generated. The data collected by the volunteers of the Caddo
Lake Institute are disseminated throughout the CLI network.
    Groups from five different schools associated with the
Caddo Lake Institute currently monitor 23 sites on Caddo
Lake. Each of these sites  can be reached from the bank, a
pier, or a bridge. We are adopting other sites in the watershed
above the lake, including constructed wetlands  on school
campuses. A more elaborate plan of study of the lake is also
being developed and is to be implemented in the fall of 1996.
This study will be based on an EMAP approach and will take
approximately three years  to complete. The program will be
scientifically more rigorous and will not be as user-friendly
to a large number of volunteers. Each school group has its
own program for water monitoring; however, training and
data management are coordinated through a central campus,
and the data are relayed to the Texas Watch Program, of
which Caddo Lake Institute is a full partner. Texas Watch is
a network of trained volunteers and supportive partners
working together to help the Texas Natural Resource  Con-
servation Commission protect Texas natural resources.

                                             Concurrent Session 3: Dealing with Your Data, Part 1—The Basics
           You  Too  Can  Develop a  Quality

                    Assurance  Projeet  Plan

Workshop Leaders: Abby Markowitz, Maryland Volunteer Watershed Monitoring Association; Linda Green, University of
Rhode Island Cooperative Extension; Sharon Clifford, Missouri Department of Natural Resources; Chris Lehnertz, U.S.
EPA Region 8; Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Because this session was conducted as an interactive workshop and training, no papers were available for the Proceedings.
Much of the session was based on the U.S. EPA's new document, Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project
Plans, a 59-page guide especially written for volunteer monitors. The book describes the elements of a quality assurance
project plan and outlines the steps involved in preparing the plan. It includes a model plan that volunteers may modify for
their own use. The guide is free and is available from Alice Mayio, National Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, U.S. EPA,
4503F, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460; ph. 202/260-7018; email It is also available
on the EPA Web site at
    Persons interested in learning more about quality assurance may also wish to consult the Proceedings of the Fourth Na-
tional Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Conference, which contains papers on "Assuring Quality Data" and "Designing Your
Water Quality Study"; and the Proceedings of the Third National Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Conference, which contains
papers on  "Procedures for Collecting Quality Data," "Study Design," and "Deciding Data Objectives." Both proceedings
documents are available from Alice Mayio (see above).
           Dealing  with  Your  Data,  Part   1 :
                                   The  Basics
Workshop Leader: Barb Horn, Rivers of Colorado Water
Watch Network

                  Barb Horn
   Rivers of Colorado Water Watch Network, Colorado
 Division of Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216;

   Dealing with Your Data: Basics of
            Data Management

This session was conducted in a workshop format. Its intent
was to provide the process, approaches, and options to
consider when managing volunteer monitoring data. The
primary goal was to leave participants with the knowledge
and tools to make successful data management decisions that
will lead to  efficient  and  effective presentations  and,
hopefully, effective use of volunteer data.
   Many examples were provided via handouts. For a copy
of the outline and/or handouts, including every overhead
presented, please contact the author at the above address.
Below is a brief outline of the topics covered:

1. Goal/Objective of workshop
 •  Data is a piece of information in a point in time; it needs
   context. You have data—so now what?
 •  Why bother? Take responsibility.
Key point: View data management as a tool or vehicle for
getting your story to an audience.
2. Program level: Pre-data management
 •  Connect to your program  purpose
 •  Program-level decisions
 •  How will the data be used?

Key points: Stick to your purpose and program goals; they
will help focus your data management and presentation
efforts. The end product (presentation of data) will reflect
your credibility and provide feedback for the volunteers who
collect it.

3. Basics of data management
 •  Data screening = quality control/assurance
 •  Storage format (will determine ease of displaying)
    -  copies
    -  hard copy
    -  electronic / computers (spreadsheets, databases)

Key points: Do your homework and plan for current needs,
future needs, and data user needs. Have a support system in

4. Basics of data interpretation
 •  Play with data. Go back to what the parameter means,
    why are you measuring it, how it would fluctuate with
    time and over space, what influences this parameter, etc.
 •  Tools: tables, graphing, statistics (basic/descriptive vs.

Key points: Observe the data, and don't claim anything the
data doesn't support. It is OK if data is inconclusive. It is OK
to be uncertain, to state limitations, or to conclude that more
information is necessary. It is OK if others disagree with
your interpretation, as long as your data supports it.

Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring in Our World: Students Connecting Globally
5. Basics of presenting your story
 *  Who is your audience? Who are your data users?
 •  Format types and how to use them:
    -  maps
    -  graphs
    -  tables
    -  photos
    -  combination
    -  other products (advanced)
Key points: Know your use and user (audience) prior to
creating your presentation.  Variety is usually the best to
attract all learning  styles. Make the  product fit the pre-
sentation; keep data management flexible so you can make
different products with ease. Think of your presentation as a
product you are selling.
                     Monitoring  in  Our World:
              Students  Connecting  Globally
Moderator: Anne Rogers, Texas Natural Resource Conser-
vation Commission
Speakers: Rosie Rowe, New South Wales Department of
Land and Water Conservation; Wes Halverson, Colorado
River Watch Foundation

                  Rosie Rowe
  Watenvatch Australia, P.O. Box 3720, Parramatta NSW
            22124, Australia, (02)895-7179

            Streamwatch 5 to 8:
     Murder Under the Microscope

Streamwatch is  an exciting environmental  education and
action program involving 350 schools and community groups
throughout New South Wales (NSW), Australia. It is-just one
of the state programs within the National Waterwatch Net-
work. Streamwatch is managed in regional NSW by the
Department of Land and Water Conservation and in Sydney
by the Sydney Water Corporation.
    Streamwatch uses water quality monitoring to promote
interest, understanding, and action toward improving catch-
ment (watershed) management. The program began in 1990
with an aim to increase community awareness, involvement,
and action in local water quality issues. Streamwatch has
expanded to include three main components:  (1) the schools
program, both primary and secondary; (2) the community
program; and (3) a  newly developing program for the Abo-
riginal community. Streamwatch  is community-focused,
catchment-focused and action-focused.
    One of our new initiatives is "Streamwatch 5 to 8," a
catchment education program for school years 5 to 8. This
program began in 1995 with an aim to increase the avail-
ability of Streamwatch to the junior school years and provide
a bridge from the primary to the secondary program.
Streamwatch 5 to 8 contains three parts:
    Part A  The catchment eco-game (Murder Under the
    Part B  Management of the catchment (role play)
    Part C  Catchment monitoring

    Each component has been designed to give students a
practical understanding of catchments and aquatic ecosys-
tems in preparation for the more senior Streamwatch pro-
gram they may  encounter in  high school. The program

introduces students to catchment issues and their manage-
ment before they begin monitoring. This  approach gives
them a firm context from which they can design and inves-
tigate their catchment through active monitoring.
    The package was developed in conjunction with the
NSW Department of School Education's Open Training and
Development Network. The lessons learned from five years
of incorporating the senior Streamwatch program into
schools were used to ensure that Streamwatch 5 to 8 best
meets teacher needs. The program provides comprehensive
teaching resources set within the curriculum  outcomes of the
Department of School Education. While the  program targets
the science  curriculum, teachers'  materials encourage a
cross-curricular approach.

Summary of program components
Part A - Murder Under the Microscope. This is a fabulous
    interactive eco-game for the classroom. It is a simulation
    of the successful Murder Under the Microscope com-
    petition, held annually, in which students solve a catch-
    ment mystery by investigating catchment and water
    quality issues. (Note: See below for more on the com-
        Students learn what a catchment is and  how
    different land uses affect water quality. Once the case is
    solved, students develop management plans to solve the
    catchment murder.
Part B - Catchment role play. This section introduces stu-
    dents to catchment management through a role play of a
    Catchment Management Committee. Such committees
    have been established in each  catchment in NSW to
    coordinate natural resource management. Each commit-
    tee comprises representatives from the community and
    government. An exciting case study is provided in which
    the students become the committee representatives and
    negotiate how the catchment is managed. Once familiar
    with how a  Catchment Management Committee works,
    students contact their local committee and discover who
    their local members are, what key issues exist in their
    catchment, and what priorities the committee has identi-
        Students not  only  learn  about  catchment
    management but also develop valuable skills in research,
    team work, problem solving, negotiation, meeting
    procedures,  active listening, and assertiveness.

                                        Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring in Our World: Students Connecting Globally
Part C - Catchment monitoring. Using a simple water qual-
    ity testing kit, students monitor the health of their local
    catchment. They design a monitoring program based on
    the context they have gained through Parts A and B.
    They are able to share results and experiences with other
    participants via the Internet. Monitoring provides stu-
    dents with valuable information which they can use in
    working with others to prepare action plans to address
    any local issues they discover.

Murder Under the Microscope—The competition
In 1995, Streamwatch 5 to 8 launched the innovative and
highly  interactive Murder   Under the  Microscope
competition. The competition is based on Part A of the 5 to 8
program. In 1996, over 400 classes took part in the com-
petition and involved approximately 10,000 students.
    The competition is run over three weeks, starting with a
satellite broadcast from which students collect clues. The
broadcast presents students with a range of villains, victims,
and crime sites. After the broadcast, students are set to em-
bark on three weeks of frenzied research to crack the case.
    Over the three weeks of research, teachers use a booklet,
activity sheets, and issue cards to facilitate student research.
A major component of the game is teamwork, without which
the mystery would be difficult to solve. The students' re-
search leads them to developing their ideas on "who dunnit."
These ideas will be tested in the final broadcast, held each
year on June 5th—Environment Day.
    The final 1.5-hour broadcast gives more of the scenario,
more clues, and many red herrings. Students have the op-
portunity to probe the minds of an expert panel who are pre-
sent live on the broadcast. Students can phone through to the
panel interactively on television. Once sure that they have
cracked the case, students send their accusations via fax or
email to  the competition's telecenter. The first correct ac-
cusation to reach "Catchment Headquarters" wins.
    The game has proven extremely popular and will con-
tinue to expand using advances in technology such as those
provided by the Internet. Check out the Murder Under the
Microscope Web site at
                 Wes Holverson
 Colorado River Watch Foundation, 2111 Four Oaks Lane,
                   Austin, TK 78704

     The CRWF Experience with the
         Russian/Texan Exchange

One way for students  to connect globally is  through
international travel and visits with other  students in host
countries. These experiences are extremely valuable for
young people to have as they become aware of the world
around them and their role in environmental protection. The
planet may seem small and manageable to a child growing
up watching many hours of television programs with clear
story lines  and happy endings. To such a child, the adult
world may  appear  orderly  and  firmly directed toward
producing  the essential requirements  of living without
causing much damage to nature. The child's personal world
may look and feel just fine to him  or her. Children have no
real basis for comparison because of their lack of experience.
Taking young people to another country can change that
complacent attitude quite rapidly.
    The Colorado River Watch Foundation  (CRWF) is  a
nonprofit organization in Austin, Texas, that works with the
City of Austin to sponsor  a  school  dropout prevention
program known as the Austin Youth River Watch. The stu-
dents in the city program are also members of the Colorado
River Watch Network sponsored by the Lower Colorado
River Authority throughout the 600-mile-long watershed of
the Colorado River of Texas. The headwaters of this river are
found near the Texas border with New Mexico. From there
the river water travels across the state from west to east until
the flow reaches the Gulf of Mexico at Matagorda Bay. Our
two exchange programs involved teachers and  students from
the vicinity of Austin. Major funding support came from the
U.S. Information Agency through  their  School Linkage
    Our first exchange with  Russian teachers and students
was during the summer months. Cool temperatures and rain-
fall conditions prevailed for the  Texans traveling over to
Obninsk, where they floated down  the Protva River. But
when the Russians came over to float down  the Colorado
River,  the weather was  typical for Texas—hot  and  dry.
Unfortunately, there is nowhere cool south of the Panhandle
of Texas from May to September. In spite of the weather, the
young people were great and the trip was a success—but we
are looking for a northern partner for our future summer
exchanges. Our advice to other organizations  that are plan-
ning an exchange program is  to plan contingency events for
bad-weather days. Too much heat and sun can be a bad thing.
Based on our experiences, we compiled the following lists of
pros and cons for conducting student exchanges. The benefits
 •  Students will have an opportunity to observe cultural
    differences between their host country and  home.
 •  Students will be able to identify similar environmental
    ethics and values.
 •  Students will see water quality conditions that may be
    vastly different from conditions at home. This could lead
    them to a greater appreciation of their home community
    and the efforts made by older generations.
 •  Formal and informal discussions will occur between the
    students about abatement strategies that have been
    successful elsewhere.
 •  Long-term friendships will be formed between these
    students and continue into the future because of the ease
    of telecommunications via email.
 •  An education program for young people is  extremely
    important when the pollution problems and potential
    remedies are complex and require development of new
    technologies or management strategies. It is worth the
    effort and costs today to prepare these young people for
    international cooperation on global problems.

Difficulties that may arise include:
 •  Planning and managing the exchange program will place
    a large time demand on your organization. Try to find
    experienced people and get their advice.
 •  Although most of the modern world is learning to speak
    English, most American teachers and students will be
    unable to speak the language of their host families.
    Learning another language would greatly enhance the

 Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring in Our World: Students Connecting Globally
     experience of visiting a foreign country.
     Your organization will have to recruit host families
     which will provide housing, food, and transportation
     resources for your visiting exchange students.
     Unless you are wealthy, additional funding and in-kind
     services are needed from friendly partners. Seek partners
     who have something valuable to gain from the student
     exchange program.
     The newly developing countries of the old Soviet bloc
     (USSR) are poor, and partner organizations there may
     need additional funding from sources here in the U.S.
     The Russians are very generous people and will give
     everything possible to make a visit to their country as
    comfortable and educational as possible. But we need to
    work with them on the money issue. They will need
    some help.
 •  Watch for personal conflict between individuals and hurt
    feelings. Some housing changes might be necessary and
    should be anticipated.

    In conclusion, sponsoring student exchanges is a won-
derful  experience and worth all the sweat and tears. The
world will be a better place in the future because these young
people have had the chance to communicate face-to-face.
They have walked in the shoes of a friend living in another
country and that memory will last forever.
— End of Concurrent Session 3 —

                                                            Concurrent Session 4: Making Stewardship Measurable
           Making  Stewardship  Measurable
 Moderator: Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters
 Speakers: Joan Martin, Huron River Watershed Council;
 Joe Farrell, University of Delaware Sea Grant; Mary Ellen
 Wolfe, Project Watercourse

                  Joan Martin
   Huron River Watershed Council, 1100 N. Main St., Suite
         210, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, 313/769-5917

    Adding Stewardship to Volunteer
      Monitoring:  Using the Data to
           Involve the  Community

 We have been monitoring the Huron  River in southeastern
 Michigan for four years. All the steps in the project are done
 by volunteers, assisted by one  full-time Director and  one
 half-time Assistant. We measure  many physical charac-
 teristics of the creeks, and we focus on the benthic macro-
 invertebrate population as the primary indicator of creek
 health. Our program is very similar to the EPA's Rapid
 Bioassessment III for habitat and population assessment. By
 sampling the benthic population twice  a year and identifying
 the macroinvertebrates to family, we are able to measure the
 relative health of our 34 sites in the 900-square-mile river
     Our  program is continually evolving, directed by an
 Advisory Council (composed of volunteer monitors) and a
 Technical Advisory Committee (including scientists  and
 agency directors). The number of volunteers and their efforts
 amounts to the equivalent of a full-time person  working a lot
 of overtime each year. Our goals are to put together an ac-
 curate picture of the state of the river, as well  as to provide
 an experiential education for the watershed residents who
 learn about the river system while they are measuring it. The
 result of our volunteer effort was summarized  at  our annual
 Creek Conference last March by an aquatic ecologist who
 said that we had compiled the  best data set available on  any
 river in Michigan.
    The monitoring program  has revealed subtle changes.
 For instance, while Fleming Creek still looks attractive,  the
 benthic population is deteriorating, the channel is overwiden-
 ing in several locations, and sediment is depositing down-
 stream. The rural landscape of the Fleming Creek watershed
 is undergoing constant residential and  commercial develop-
 ment. Now is the time that planning decisions  must include
 creek protection.
    The volunteer monitoring program seems successful.
 (We even have the first draft of a Quality Assurance Plan.)
 However, my fear is that we will be so focused on making
 our monitoring effort complete that  we will accurately
 record the demise of our river. Therefore, once we had
 compiled  the first two years of data into stream reports,  we
took the bad news to  the community. One of the popular
local creeks was in trouble. We asked the three  townships in
the Fleming "creekshed" to support a Fleming  Creek
Advisory  Council (FCAC) that would work to protect  the
creek. The response from the  township Trustees was
uniformly positive.
     The three townships have provided funds for activities
 of the FCAC and passed a resolution that endorses the FCAC
 as an advisor to the Planning Commissions and the Trustees,
 and as  an educator of the residents. The local newspaper
 wrote a major article about the FCAC, characterizing it as
 unusual for two reasons: local governments were cooper-
 atively  "tackling an environmental issue that crosses their
 political boundaries, and they were doing it preventively—
 before a problem develops" (Ann Arbor News, 5/29/94). Re-
 cently a developer requested advice from the FCAC on his
 site plan, before taking it to the Planning Commission.
    What fostered this transition from monitoring to stew-
 ardship? Our Adopt-A-Stream Program began six years ago
 as a stewardship program. The staff member who originated
 the program worked  very hard.  He  wrote a booklet  on
 "Stream Stewardship," prepared handouts on needed stew-
 ardship behaviors, made signs that identified many of the
 creeks,  and arranged for people to clean up the city creeks.
 Trash was removed, but  no momentum was gained. There
 was no  reliable evidence that could sound an alarm calling
 people to act with urgency.
    In 1992 we began consistent monitoring. After some 200
 people had measured, mapped, and studied the aquatic popu-
 lations in  many of the creeks, there was considerable and
 widespread interest in the state of the creeks. And, the volun-
 teers had something to say. They initiated a variety of efforts,
 including  presentations to the communities and articles in
 local newspapers. They made displays and a brochure about
 their creeks, which they took to local community meetings
 and fairs.
    While the  creek has  not been saved, many people are
 concerned about it, and a  system is in place to try to protect
 it. Meanwhile, the volunteer monitoring continues.
               Joseph G. Farrell
   Inland Bays Citizen Monitoring Program, University of
Delaware Sea Grant, 700 Pilottown Road, Lewes, DE19958,

         Linking Monitoring to the
        Community: Responding to
             Community Needs

The Inland Bays Citizen Monitoring Program was estab-
lished in 1990 to collect  verifiable water quality data to
support public policy decisions regarding the management of
Delaware's inland bays and to increase public participation
and support for the protection and management of these
resources. Nutrient overenrichment and habitat loss have
been identified as the two critical problems facing the bays.
    The Citizen Monitoring Program has been successful at
forging partnerships with data users, most notably  state and
local governments. The data are included in the state 305(b)
report, constitute an integrated component of the Inland Bays
Monitoring Plan, and have been used to support the opening
of closed shellfish areas and the siting of submerged aquatic
vegetation test plots. Citizen monitors have also planted clam

Concurrent Session 4: Making Stewardship Measurable
beds and monitored the clams for growth and survival, to
support the development of a shellfish management plan.
    In the spring of 1995, the town council of a coastal
resort community requested assistance in identifying water
quality problems in the town's extensive canal system. The
council planned to use the citizens' data to help in devel-
oping a stormwater management plan. The canal study that
we conducted in the town of South Bethany was  unique for
us in that the request originated from the town council, and a
town council member recruited volunteers and served as the
local project coordinator.
    We met with the town council and, based on their con-
cerns, designed a sampling program to investigate (1) overall
water quality and (2) effect of stormwater runoff. We then
trained community members, conducted a 9-week sampling
program at 13 sites, analyzed the data, and provided a report
to the town council and community. The project results are
being used as the basis for implementing  stormwater man-
agement measures.
    Measurable project benefits and accomplishments in-
 1. Improved understanding of water quality dynamics led
    to a change in attitude by community members—from
    denial to collaborative problem solving.
 2. Community had strong sense of ownership over study,
    which increased credibility of project results. Town
    council decided what questions needed to be addressed,
    assisted in the study design, recruited volunteers, and
    participated in the study.
 3. The data collected were of known quality. The project
    design included a quality assurance plan. The results
    were evaluated statistically and were compared to other
    related studies.
 4. Partnerships were formed between and among citizens,
    local government, county and state agencies, a univer-
    sity, and a nonprofit organization.
 5. Project was supported by the community. Town council,
    homeowner's association,  and county and state agencies
    offered financial or in-kind support.
 6. Project laid the groundwork for Phase II intensive
    stormwater sampling (1996-97) and negotiation between
    state and local government on cost-sharing for infra-
    structure improvement.
                Maty Ellen Wolfe
 Montana Watercourse, 201 Culbertson Hall, Montana State
      University, Bozeman, MT 59717, 406/994-1910

           Know Your Watershed,

 In the February 1996 issue of National Geographic maga-
 zine, John G. Mitchell stated a powerful truth:
    Each one of us is a citizen of a watershed, wherever we
    may live. But none of us can break bad habits and mend
    behaviors enough to become part of  our watershed's
    solutions until we understand how  and why we are a
    part of its problems.

 From my perspective, this statement articulates the concept
of watershed citizenship. Mr. Mitchell suggests that a foun-
dation of understanding must first exist before citizens be-
come problem-solvers in their watersheds.
    The philosophy of the Montana Watercourse, a state-
wide education program, has much in common with  this
statement. Our mission is to foster lifelong stewardship of the
state's water resources by providing non-advocacy water re-
source education programs and materials. "Know Your Wa-
tershed" is the current focus of our Adult and Community
education efforts, and it is making small steps forward to
foster watershed citizenship in Montana.

The Know Your Watershed program
In 1994, increasing interest in local watershed management
prompted the Montana Watercourse to develop a pilot Know
Your Watershed project.  With permission from the Conser-
vation Technology Information Center (creator of the natio-
nal Know Your Watershed program), Montana initiated a
community-based, collaborative learning project to help citi-
zens in three separate basins to better "know their water-
    The project involves development of a community work-
shop (and optional tour) which targets all citizens interested
in learning more about the characteristics, operation,  and
management of their watershed.
The general goals of the workshop are:
 1. To increase participants' knowledge and understanding
    of their watershed. What are the facts about water/land
    use, water quality, surface/groundwater supplies, etc.?
    How are these components interrelated?
 2. To create an opportunity for public dialogue among all
    stakeholders and community members regarding the
    many demands and uses of the watershed.
 3. To provide participants with information and resources
    on other watershed planning and management initiatives
    being used in Montana and the West.
 4. To facilitate communication and collaboration among
    water resource "experts" and communities needing their

    The workshops  are commonly developed  through a col-
laborative planning process within the watershed, facilitated
by staff of the Montana Watercourse. For best results, a
broad-based local committee is organized to plan the work-
shop. The group then develops a customized workshop agen-
da, highlighting priority educational needs and issues in the
watershed.  The Montana Watercourse provides assistance
with organizational and educational aspects of  the workshop.
    The  information presented  at Know Your Watershed
workshops varies because each workshop is planned to ac-
commodate  local educational needs and issues. However,
most workshops address the following questions:
 1. What are the physical, chemical, and biological charac-
    teristics of our watershed? (A field tour to  explore
    different parts of the watershed is sometimes included.)
 2. How is our watershed used? What issues have evolved
    from the multiple water uses within the basin? (This
    usually includes an overview of land and water use. In
    areas of rapid growth, discussion of trends is important.)
 3. How is our watershed managed? What are the laws and
    regulations that guide water management within the
    watershed? ("Who does what and why?")

                                                               Concurrent Session 4: Making Stewardship Measurable
 A. "What role do citizens have in sustaining the health and
    productivity of our watershed? What role could-and
    should they have?
    These topics are usually addressed by speakers and pre-
senters from the local area. Speakers have included scientists,
local  historians, ecologists,  well-drillers, hydrologists,
farmers, ranchers,  municipal water and waste water super-
visors, fishermen, outfitters, and others.

Planning a Know Your Watershed workshop
Our experience with the Know Your Watershed pilot project
(three workshops)  and subsequent Know Your Watershed
workshops has involved the following steps.
 1.  Local contacts are made and the planning process
    initiated. We have received requests for workshops from
    both individuals and groups (e.g.,  Conservation
    Districts, water user groups, citizen activist groups). We
    work with the initial sponsor to identify and invite a
    broad-based, representative group of stakeholders to
    attend the first Know Your Watershed planning meeting.
    These folks are commonly invited by means of personal
    phone calls, followed by a mailed reminder.
 2.  An initial planning meeting is conducted. The purpose
    of this meeting is to describe the goals of the Know
    Your Watershed program, brainstorm local educational
    needs, identify possible target audiences, and identify
    benefits or outcomes of watershed education. We have
    learned to always conclude this first meeting by asking
    two questions:
    •   Is now the time for a Know Your Watershed
       educational event in this watershed?
    •   If so, is this the appropriate group to plan it?
    Asking these questions gives the  group a chance to ex-
    amine themselves, to determine whether those present at
    the table  are truly representative  of stakeholders in the
    watershed. This is an important step! Before concluding,
    take time to brainstorm a new list of names to invite to
    the next meeting.
 3.  Convene a second planning meeting. At this meeting,
    we revisit the work that was accomplished at the first
    meeting. We allow time for new educational needs, tar-
    get audiences, and workshop benefits and outcomes to
    be added to those identified at the  first meeting. We dis-
    cuss preferred formats, such as workshops, tours, public
    forums, water festivals, etc., and begin building a con-
    tent agenda. We usually provide a sample agenda as a
    starting point. Some groups prefer to undertake the more
    time-consuming task of custom-designing their agenda.
 4.  Convene additional planning meetings as necessary.
   We have accomplished the planning process in as few as
   two meetings and as many as ten. The tasks to be
   accomplished generally include:
    •   finalizing the format of the educational event and the
       content agenda
   •   identifying appropriate experts  and stakeholders to
       make presentations
   •   identifying a correspondent to communicate and
       instruct presenters
   •  identifying desired maps and factual information to
       include in the workshop packets
   •  establishing  subcommittees, if necessary
     •  brainstorming financial sponsors
     •  discussing brochure development, public relations,
        and promotion of the event
     •  identifying local planning committee persons to make
        initial contacts with speakers and potential sponsors
     •  discussing logistical arrangements
     •  developing an evaluation form to assess the
        workshop strengths and weaknesses
     •  filling out a Task Timeline to divide the labor and set
  5.  Conduct the Know Your Watershed event (workshop,
     public forum, tour, etc.) as  planned. Attention to the
     tasks listed above will assure that on the day of the
     event, things will move smoothly to a successful
     conclusion. Be sure to include an evaluation form in the
     information packets that each workshop participant
  6.  Conduct a follow-up evaluation meeting. This can be
     an informal gathering at which the workshop evaluations
     are shared. We have generally revisited our goals and
     discussed how we met or fell short of realizing them.
     This is also a good time to discuss next steps or
     additional educational needs, as a preface to future
     events or a "specialized" Know Your Watershed

Lessons from Know Your Watershed
Lesson  #1: There  is a need for and interest in community-
     based watershed education developed through a  col-
     laborative local planning process. Since the end of the
     pilot project in January of 1995, we have responded to
     requests from seven additional watersheds for assistance
     in planning Know  Your Watershed workshops.  The
     local planning group bears the burden of soliciting
     funding to make the event happen, and they have suc-
     cessfully done so, with assistance from the Montana
Lesson  #2: It is critical to involve a representative group of
     local stakeholders in the planning process, in order for
     the workshop to be  well attended and deemed  credible
     and legitimate in the eyes of all of the stakeholders.  It is
     also valuable  for the project coordinator/facilitator to
     communicate directly, as much as possible, with each
     member  of the planning team. This helps assure each
     member  that their contribution is critical to the work-
     shop's success, and  encourages their continued interest
     and participation, should the planning process be some-
     what prolonged.
Lesson #3: To the degree that there is local willingness  and
     interest, the facilitator should be ready to turn the "reins"
     of the local planning process over to the local  plan-
     ning/steering committee. It is important for the effort to
     be owned by those who plan it and invest time and effort
     in making it happen. In one watershed we worked with,
     this planning group became the "embryo" from  which a
     watershed council sprouted.
Lesson #4: The facilitator (Montana Watercourse) views its
    role as that of a catalyst and a neutral, outside "servant."
    We have no long-term interest or organizational goal
     within the watersheds we serve. This has made it easy
    for  people to share  concerns with the facilitator  about

Concurrent Session 4: Making Stewardship Measurable
    how the process was proceeding. It has also helped us to
    go into every basin with a blank  slate, in terms of our
    own expectations of an outcome. It has  helped assure
    that  the process is driven by the  local planning group
    and that the outcome is theirs.
Making  stewardship measurable
What do  Montana's Know Your Watershed experiences sug-
gest to volunteer monitors interested in our workshop theme
of "making stewardship measurable"? Before addressing this
question, it would be useful to clarify what we are talking
about when we refer to "stewardship"  and "measurable."
First, what is stewardship? Stewardship may  be defined as
"the exercise of responsible care over  possessions entrusted
to a steward."
    Second, what is a measure of stewardship? Definitions
of "measure" vary considerably. I was struck by two:  (1) a
standard  by which something intangible is determined or
regulated; and (2) a directly observable quantity from which
the value of another related quantity  may  be  obtained.
Together these two definitions seem to cover a broad spec-
trum of possible measurables: both intangibles and objects
that can  be quantified. I believe volunteer monitors should
continually keep both definitions in mind. Why? Because
though the volunteer monitor may be making real-world ob-
servations of chemical and biological conditions (i.e., the
"quanlifiables"), important "intangibles," like  negative
public attitudes regarding  volunteer monitoring activities,
can affect decision making. This can, in turn, negatively
impact volunteer monitoring activities.
    Having said this, and keeping in mind the definition of
stewardship  ("the exercise of  responsible  care  over
possessions entrusted to us"),  I'd like to make several
concluding observations, based on our experience in
Montana, to  volunteer monitors  committed  to- making
stewardship measurable.
 1. If you consider your efforts to be "stewardship" and
    hope that others in your watersheds will do likewise, it is
    essential to openly communicate with all stakeholders in
    your communities about the work you are doing. One-
    way  communication, such as press releases and
    newsletters, is great, but open public dialogue, such as
    that afforded by our Know Your Watershed workshops,
    is even better.
        Our experience has taught us that Montanans are in-
    terested in and concerned about "credible monitoring."
    They want to know who is monitoring, where, and why.
    They want to know who trained the monitors, what
    qualifies them to be doing it. They  want to know what
    the monitoring project's goals are and how the
    information gathered will be used.  In Montana, where
    the dominant political cultural tradition for many
    generations has been "That government is best which
    governs least," many long-time residents are fearful that
    volunteer monitoring is merely a tool for gathering
    negative evidence that will eventually be shared with
    state water quality officials who may use it to indict a
    specific landowner or water user. They are fearful that
    volunteer monitoring may epitomize the opposite of
    their idea of stewardship, by not being accomplished
    "responsibly." So I suggest, again, that you openly and
    regularly create opportunities for public education and
    dialogue, to let your watershed neighbors know about
    the work you are doing, and to get them involved. Know
    Your Watershed events have provided friendly forums
    where those with questions about volunteer monitoring
    can hear answers from those directly involved. One
    possible outcome of such communication may be to turn
    skeptics (or even opponents) into volunteers!
 2. Consider planning an open public forum within your
    watershed where volunteers and technical advisors or
    scientific experts can describe and interpret your
    monitoring results to the interested public. The Know
    Your Watershed model of a locally driven collaborative
    planning process might be one way to report your
    monitoring results within the context of specific
    community concerns. One side benefit might be that
    you'd create  an opportunity for local decision makers to
    hear  from monitors, technical experts, and the concerned
    public, and vice versa. Such exchanges can be valuable
    to all the parties involved.
 3. As stewards compiling measurable information within
    your watershed, you have a responsibility to see your
    volunteer monitoring efforts for the potentially powerful
    tool that they can be: a community-based device to help
    raise awareness regarding the health and status of local
    watershed resources. If volunteer monitors do nothing
    more than  collect data, much of their potential import
    and usefulness lies untapped. But like any powerful tool,
    monitoring data must be used with care and respect.
    When you share your information with others, do so in a
    manner that does not suggest disrespect. Try to avoid
    thinking yourselves the "only" responsible stewards who
    are active in your watershed. Know Your Watershed
    workshops provide a forum for information exchanges
    to take place in a field that puts all local success stories
    on an equal footing.
 4. Citizens are interested in how volunteer monitoring data
    is used. A public forum, such as a Know Your
    Watershed workshop, is one venue where the
    relationship between local monitoring activity and
    government decision-making entities can be described
    and discussed openly. Consider staging a discussion
    between the volunteers, agency representatives, and
    concerned local citizens to  set the record straight and
    address citizen concerns head-on.

Know Your Watershed educational events are an opportunity
to demonstrate how and why monitoring  is  stewardship, and
better yet, stewardship made measurable! Know Your Water-
shed events provide an opportunity to learn the facts about a
watershed, to share diverse perspectives, and to clarify issues
of concern. They also  present  an opportunity  for the
discussion of values. The forums can be relatively simple,
low-cost  events that spread the word  about positive stew-
ardship already occurring within a watershed and describe
options for future stewardship.

                                                        Concurrent Session 4: Restoring Wetland and Lake Habitats
     Restoring Wetland  and  Lake  Habitats
 Moderator:  Christy Williams, Izaak Walton League of
 Speakers: Esther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy; Louis
 Smith, Smith Parker; and Dale Claridge, Wenck Associates

                    Esther  Lev
  The Wetlands Conservancy, P.O. Box 1195, Tualatin, OR
                 97062, 503/239-4065

     "Wetland  Restoration: Steps to
     Success"—A  Video on Wetland

 The Wetlands Conservancy, a small nonprofit land trust in
 Portland, Oregon, has created a video titled "Wetland Re-
 storation: Steps to Success." The 21-minute video, funded by
 a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was
 directed and produced by The Wetlands Conservancy, Policy
 Initiative Group and Ibex Communications. Mark Griswold
 Wilson and  Ralph Thomas Rogers provided guidance and
 technical review.
    The video is the first piece  in what is intended to be a
 series of videos and written handouts on specific techniques
 and suggestions on how to  have the best success with
 wetland restoration projects. This first video is general in na-
 ture, identifying the major steps and issues to be aware of
 prior to design and implementation of a restoration project.
 Topics include site assessment,  project planning and time-
 lines, plant selection, the importance of using native plant
 species, when to plant, plant collection  and ethics,  and
 animal-proofing of plants. In addition, the video presents
 case histories of ongoing projects at The Wetland Conser-
 vancy's Pascuzzi Pond, a freshwater palustrine wetland
 located in Tualatin, Oregon, and the Salmon River estuary,
 on the Oregon Coast near Lincoln City.
    The video has been made available to groups and in-
 dividuals. In addition, The Wetland Conservancy staff has
 shown the video to seven groups,  ranging  from citizen
 watershed groups to teachers, a college-level restoration
 ecology class, and professional watershed managers. At each
 viewing, the  group was given a brief history about The Wet-
 lands Conservancy and the intent of the video project and
 then asked to give comments and critiques of the video's
 contents and  presentation. In addition, groups and individual
 were asked to identify topics discussed in the video that they
 would like more detailed information about in the form of
 handouts or subsequent videos. Approximately 125 people
 have viewed the video.
    The Wetland Conservancy staff prioritized the list of re-
 quests and produced a brochure  and four handouts on wet-
lands restoration techniques, with funds generated from the
City of Portland  Bureau of  Environmental  Services
Community Stewardship Grants Program. The materials will
be distributed to the groups that  viewed the video, and any
other stream  groups, individuals,  or schools who would like
them. Materials will also be distributed by The Wetlands
Conservancy, Portland Audubori Society, Bureau of En-
vironmental Services Community Stewardship Program and
 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. As funds
 become available we will continue to create more handouts
 in partnership with other nonprofits, citizen groups, and local
 and state government agencies. We feel that the combination
 of the video and written materials will assist citizens, school
 programs, and groups to design, install, and maintain suc-
 cessful wetland restoration projects.
     The video, brochure, and handouts are available from
 The Wetlands Conservancy at the address listed above. The
 video costs $20 ($15 for Wetlands Conservancy members),
 plus shipping and handling. The brochure and handouts are
 free of charge. The four handouts currently available are:
 "Vegetative Cuttings," "Container Plants," "Bare Root Plant-
 ing," and "Protecting Your Wetland from Beaver and Nu-
                 Louis N. Smith
   Smith Parker, P.L.L.P., 808 Colwell Building, 123 North
    Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401, 612/344-1400,

                  Dale Claridge
  Wenck Associates, Inc., 1800 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple
             Plain, MN 55359, 612/479-4200

         A Watershed Approach to
              Lake Restoration

Water knows no political boundaries. As public concern
grows over the decline in the water quality in our lakes and
rivers, one comprehensive  approach to  restoring  water
quality lies with an idea adopted by the Minnesota Legisla-
ture over four decades ago in 1955: watershed districts. This
article reviews how watershed districts can provide critical
tools for restoration of water resources, and presents some
key considerations in adopting  an effective "watershed
approach" to lake restoration and management.

Watershed districts: background and purpose
The State of Minnesota has been a pioneer in the concept of
watershed-based water management, adopting the Minnesota
Watershed District Act in 1955. The Minnesota Watershed
District Act provides for the establishment of watershed
districts "to conserve the natural  resources of the  state by
land use planning,  flood control, and other conservation
projects . . . using sound scientific principles for  the pro-
tection of the public health and welfare and provident use of
the natural resources."
    The Minnesota Watershed District Act recognizes sever-
al fundamental concepts in the effective management of wa-
ter resources.  First,  the law recognizes that water does not
adhere to political boundaries and, thus, allows for the estab-
lishment of watershed  districts as local government units
bounded by hydrologic divides as opposed to political bor-
ders. As a result, water bodies and the land draining into
them are regulated by one local entity with a central com-
prehensive vision for managing the entire water resource.

Concurrent Session 4: Restoring Wetland and Lake Habitats
    Second, the law recognizes that regulation of land use
within a watershed is an essential component in protecting
and preserving the water resources within the watershed.
Again, watershed districts, as local entities with boards made
up of local citizens, provide an effective tool in regulating
land use and protecting water resources. As Michael Parfit
wrote in the November 1993 issue of The National Geo-
    The intimacy of the smallest watersheds may be a key to
    their restoration: At that level every individual can have
    an effect. "It's almost impossible to address water qual-
    ity on the main stem of a river," says James Fisher of the
    National Watershed Coalition. "If you do it one small
    watershed at a time, you still have public support. Small
    size is the  advantage. This replaces Big Brother with, Joe
    down the creek."

    As an example, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD)  was established in  1967 to protect the water re-
sources of the  Minnehaha Creek watershed. The Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District is approximately 181 square miles
and includes all or part of 27 cities, three townships, and two
counties. Through  its extensive monitoring and analysis of
the watershed,  the MCWD identifies the root causes of water
quality degradation and flooding, and uses this knowledge to
develop and implement solutions that address these causes.
The MCWD's approach includes both nonstructural solu-
tions, such as public information and education and regula-
tion of land and water use, and structural solutions, including
comprehensive lake restoration projects,  various hydraulic
improvements  addressing flooding, and a headwaters outlet
control structure.

Lake improvement techniques
A. Structural Improvements:
Wetland restoration/wet detention basins
    In many watersheds, phosphorus  is the nutrient that
poses the greatest threat to water quality by stimulating the
growth of algae and aquatic plants. Phosphorus enters storm-
water along with runoff from lawns and farm fields treated
with fertilizer, from animal waste, and from  other sources.
Natural  or constructed wetland systems present the most sig-
nificant opportunity to remove phosphorus before it reaches
a lake. Constructed wetland systems take advantage of the
filtering and cleansing abilities of natural  wetlands, and can
be specifically  designed to treat urban stormwater. More than
150 of these systems are now in  operation throughout the
United States, and most of these projects have been built
since 1988.
    Depending upon their particular design, these storm-
water wetlands can vary significantly in their effectiveness in
removing  phosphorus and other nutrients. Given this wide
variation in effectiveness, it is imperative to design the wet-
lands based upon a thorough investigation of the hydrology
of the subwatershed involved.
    Wetland treatment systems have a number of advantages
over other treatment methods. They are comparatively less
expensive to construct, costing as little as one-fifth of the
cost of treating a similar amount of wastewater with a tradi-
tional system.  Wetland systems are typically designed for
gravity flow,  so  they  are  more energy-efficient  than
mechanical treatment systems. While constructed wetlands
require  ongoing operation and maintenance  expenses not
normally associated with natural wetlands, as  passive treat-
ment systems  they require much  less operation and main-

tenance expenditures than do traditional treatment systems.
Typical maintenance tasks involve sediment removal, mon-
itoring, and vegetation management. As an added benefit,
constructed wetlands can provide many of the same wildlife
habitat and other benefits as natural wetlands. When care-
fully designed,  constructed wetlands can  be a highly cost-
effective means of removing phosphorus  from stormwater
while providing an attractive amenity to the neighboring
B. Nonstructural best management practices
    1. Lawn and garden management. Runoff from lawns
and gardens is often a source of pollutant loadings. Efforts
directed at lawn care practices can be effective in reducing
pollutant loadings.  Such  efforts include  banning the sale
and/or application of phosphorus-containing fertilizers, regu-
lating the sale and/or application of herbicides and pesticides,
licensing and regulation of lawn care companies, encourag-
ing or requiring alternative ground cover, and promoting pro-
per disposal of yard waste.
    2. Animal waste/livestock management. Nutrient load-
ing and bacteria from animal waste may be a source of pol-
lutant loadings into water bodies. The sources of animal
wastes may be  extremely varied, ranging from large-scale
horse or hog farms and feedlots, to large resident waterfowl
populations, to domestic  pet wastes. Depending upon the
source of the animal waste, the following practices may
assist in the reduction of pollutant loadings from this source:
(1) use of zoning to place animal facilities  away from sensi-
tive water bodies; (2) reduction in resident waterfowl popu-
lations through relocation or destruction; (3) frequent re-
moval of animal wastes from parks and open spaces; and (4)
public education concerning the deleterious effects of poor
animal waste management.
    3. Erosion and sedimentation control.  Erosion produces
sediment, which carries nutrients, interferes with the working
of well drainage systems, and can, over time, decrease the
depth of a water body. Sediment being washed  into drainage
systems and water bodies may contain not only soil particles
and organic material, but also high levels of heavy metals,
nutrients, and agricultural chemicals. Thus, implementation
of erosion and sedimentation control measures can greatly
reduce nutrient and pollutant loadings. Best  management
practices may include on-site sediment control during and
after construction activities; encouraging property owners to
keep areas abutting drainage systems  and water bodies vege-
tated; and street sweeping to remove accumulated sediment.

Public education
Public information and education programs can be effective
tools for changing behaviors that have detrimental effects on
water quality and encouraging  stewardship  of water re-
sources. Public  information and education may also reduce
the future need for structural improvements to correct the
detrimental effects of harmful activities.
    Public education programs can focus on any number of
negative impacts on the water, and can be conducted through
a variety of mediums and directed at a variety  of audiences.
Examples of public education programs include:
 •  informing residents and businesses about proper
    methods for disposal of hazardous waste and yard waste,
    and minimum-impact automobile maintenance practices
 •  encouraging landowners, developers, and municipalities
    to use best management practices to control the

                      Concurrent Session 4: Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
    detrimental effects of certain land use practices
  •  use of stenciling of curbs and drainage system openings,
    neighborhood presentations, public service
    announcements, and Earth Day events to distribute

 Intergovernmental cooperation
 It is inevitable that any  significant lake restoration project
 will find itself in  the midst of potentially complex re-
 lationships between federal, state, and local governmental
 entities and private property owners. Some governmental
 agencies will provide a permitting and regulatory function,
 while others will contribute their financial and staff resources
 to different components of the project. It is vital that the
 contributing partners clarify their responsibilities to the proj-
 ect through a pre-implementation cooperative agreement.
    These agreements should outline general responsibilities
 and performance guidelines for the project. Often, it will be
 necessary  to provide an  organizational structure to  the
 project so that each  party's participation is assured and com-
 munication between the parties is facilitated. Large multi-
 year projects with a variety of participating agencies should
 have some form of coordinating board to  provide general
 oversight and policy direction for the project. Similarly, a
 cooperative agreement should provide for a technical com-
 mittee so that design and permitting issues are thoroughly
 discussed among the participating agencies.  Agreements that
 clarify how the project will be communicated to the public,
 and who will have the responsibility  for these commu-
 nications, are also helpful.
    There is a very fine line between too much and too little
 structure to these multi-party relationships. The scope and
 duration of a project, as well as the number of participating
 parties, will determine in each case how much structure will
 be useful.

 Citizen involvement
 Citizen involvement is  an important component  in both
 planning and executing a lake restoration project. Citizens
 can be directly involved in planning a project through cre-
 ation of a citizens advisory committee. This committee can
 be made up of any number of individuals representing
 various organizations, neighborhoods, and special interest
 groups. The committee can suggest goals for the project and
 assist in the selection of actions to be taken. Public involve-
 ment and input can also be achieved through public hearings
 and neighborhood meetings.

 Government permitting and approval
 Almost every lake restoration project, whether it involves
 dredging, the use of alum, or the construction of wet deten-
 tion basins or wetlands, requires some type of governmental
 permit or approval. Although the types of permits needed de-
 pend  upon the project, there are certain general permitting
 principles that should guide the permitting process for any
    First, prior to approval of the project, the entity construc-
 ting the project should determine exactly  what  permits and
 approvals are needed and from which governmental agen-
 cies. This determination is critical because the types of per-
 mits needed may affect both the design and the feasibility of
 the project.
    A second  guiding principle in obtaining permits is
 working with the permitting agencies in advance of submit-
 ting permit applications.  Agency personnel are a valuable
 resource in the design of projects. Consulting  them in ad-
 vance may lead not only  to a project that can be permitted
 but also to a more effective project. Working with the per-
 mitting agencies in advance will also speed the permitting
 process once a permit application is submitted  because the
 agency is already familiar  with the project.
    A third guiding principle is timing. Permits must be ap-
 plied for so that they can be obtained in advance of the antic-
 ipated start date of the project. While this may seem obvious,
 agencies receive many requests for a last-minute permit that
 an  applicant did not realize was necessary.  Almost all
 permits have public notice requirements that cannot be
 waived or altered. In addition, agency workload may prohibit
 agency personnel from acting on a permit application as
 quickly as the permit applicant desires.

 As  nonpoint source pollution  of our lakes and  rivers con-
 tinues to be a compelling  public concern, the watershed ap-
 proach is a comprehensive, effective way to restore water
 quality. Watershed districts in Minnesota have been involved
 in the  local management of water resources for decades. As a
 local unit of government defined in hydrological, rather than
 political, terms, watershed  districts are in a position to restore
 our water resources "one small watershed at a time."
    Dealing  with  Your  Data,  Part  2:  Know
     Your  Audience,  Tailor  Your Message
Moderator: Jerry Schoen, MA Water Watch Partnership
Presenters: Jerry Schoen, MA Water Watch Partnership;
William Deutsch, Auburn University Department of Fish-
eries; Steven Hubbell, Lower Colorado River Authority

                 Jerry Schoen
 Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership, Blaisdell House,
     University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003,
      Data Presentation Strategies

"Dealing with Your Data, Part 1" (Session 3) discussed what
it takes to produce basic data presentation tools, or ingre-
dients (e.g., graphs, maps, slides, charts, tables, text, written
reports). In this session, we talk  about using the tools to
make effective presentations to different audiences.
    The purpose of any monitoring program is not to gen-
erate data, but to generate solutions to environmental prob-
lems. Data sets are  only tools.  You need to decide if you
want to be a tool maker or a world changer. True, we need to


Concurrent Session 4: Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
make the tools, but to change the world, or our watersheds,
we must all use the tools we make.
    For instance: If your data use plan consists of writing a
report and handing it over to an agency, consider that the
agency personnel may not have the time, interest, or mandate
to review or use your data. Or their idea of how to use your
data  may be quite different from  yours, leaving you
dissatisfied with the degree and kind of action that results
from sharing your sampling results with them. The most im-
portant message you can get from this session is to DO IT
YOURSELF. Take ownership  of your own data, and use it
yourself to achieve your watershed protection goals. Don't
rely solely on others. In our experience, data use is the least
successful aspect of most citizen monitoring programs. (I am
not talking  about  telling the story of your program; I'm
talking  about  disseminating  the  actual  results of your
    Here are a few  ideas on how to  get your  data  out to
target decision makers:
 1. Consider your audience, or data users—from fanners to
    agency scientists to the general public. Consider their
    characteristics—knowledge of the issues, level of
    technical expertise, viewpoints, amount of time they
    have to look at your data, etc. (See table on page 53 for
    some typical data users and uses.)
 2. Consider the pitch: What you want them to do.
 3. Consider your repertoire of data presentation tools
    (graphs, slides, speakers, etc.), and the characteristics of
    each: user friendliness, motivational content, "quick
    grasp" vs. "slow read," etc.
    Use common sense  to mix and match your audience,
pilch, and repertoire to communicate the important infor-
mation  you have  to the appropriate audience, to. get the
desired response.
    Stated another way, you're involved in a three-part
 1. Produce your basic ingredients: graphs, maps, tables,
    and other props. Make them flexible; to the extent
    possible, make them interesting and comprehensible to
    both the expert and the general viewer. And, whenever
    possible, produce them in multiple formats. For
    example, say you produce a map. It's a relatively simple
    matter these days to use computer software and your
    own or commercial copying or graphics production
    services to generate it (a) on letter-size paper; (b)
    enlarged, to use in  a poster; (c) as an overhead
    transparency; (d) as a slide; and (e) as a computer file.
    These multiple format reproductions will make it easy
    for you to make your pitch at a dinner talk, in a report, at
    an environmental fair, or at other places.
 2. Assemble, or package, your ingredients into a pitch.
    Here's where you start to spread your message. You are
    going beyond pure data representation. You are
    establishing context for your data, which is essential if
    you want people to learn from it or act on it. A dissolved
    oxygen reading of 3.2 parts per million means nothing
    until your audience understands that the fish won't live
    at this level. It means even more if you can show them
    that the level dropped from 9 parts per million to 3.2
    after a pollution event on a particular day. Sometimes,
    the numbers can  actually get in the way. Busy tables full
    of numerical values of different parameters at different
    sites and dates can easily obscure the 3.2 DO reading.
    Highlighting it with accompanying photos, maps, etc.,
    will actually provide more information, even if you have
    to report less data.
 3. Delivery. Data and pizza have one thing in common—
    people want them delivered. You have to go to your
    audiences to get their attention. The venues at which
    your ingredients are shown and your pitch is made are
    an important consideration. These can range from
    storefront windows where posters are displayed, to
    Lions Club dinners where you give a slide show, to
    newspapers, public meetings, skywriting, etc.

    Pay attention  to all three elements of a data presentation
campaign. Make sure they are compatible with one another.

Data presentation examples
The  Green  River  Watershed Preservation  Alliance
(GRWPA) in northwestern Massachusetts is a small,  all-
volunteer  group.  They have produced a  report,  like most
groups do. But they also put together a very low-tech poster
that they used to good effect in river festivals  and in down-
town storefront displays. Some points about their poster:
 •  It's hand drawn. The base map was traced from a pasted-
    together blow-up of a road atlas. Major roads and a few
    key resources (e.g., a town beach) and pollution
    discharge points (e.g., urban areas, wastewater treatment
    plant) are drawn in. Using colored dots, the map
    indicates good, fair, or poor levels of bacteria and
    macroinvertebrate community health at several sites
    along the river. The look is simple and informal—which
    fits with the venues, where passersby will spend only a
    few seconds looking at the map. The intended audience
    is the general public. The message is quite basic:
    "Here's a rudimentary  look at the health of our river."
 •  By placing the colored dots on wide strips of transparent
    tape, GRWPA can easily update the map for subsequent
    sample events. All they have to do is peel off the old
    dots and replace with new ones if the values change.

    Another small,  all-volunteer Massachusetts group, the
Eagleville Pond Association, mixed some hi-tech graphics
with some old-fashioned persuasion to request an "order of
conditions" requiring a local fanner to reduce nutrient pol-
lution. Their data showed high nitrate levels  flowing from
the farm to the lake via a tributary stream. They anticipated a
hard sell with the local conservation commission (the  far-
mer's wife is on the commission) and wanted to make a good
pitch. With few resources of their own, they got help just by
asking for it. They  made  a number of calls and found re-
sources at the nearby University of Massachusetts (use of
GIS hardware and software, student interns willing to do the
digitizing  and map generation,  and some custom report- and
graph-production  donated by the Water Watch Partnership).
With  this help, the association had in their possession  a  GIS
map  of their  lake  and surrounding  watershed, showing
sampling sites in proximity to the farm and other land uses.
They also had a set of computer-generated color graphs of
nutrient levels at key locations. They prepared for expected
challenges to the quality  of their work by securing some
supporting documentation of  their results (and  of their
interpretation of the results) from the university and from a
private laboratory. They stated their concerns, illustrating
their points with these props, and they got the order of con-

                       Concurrent Session 4: Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
Visers and Uses of Data
Individual Citizens
Resource Managers
(e.g., farmers, conservation commissions, non-
regulatory agencies, large landowners)
Municipalities and Industry
Environmental Groups
Civic Groups
Educational Institutions
Monitoring Groups
* Risk assessment
("Should I swim in that water?")
* Stewardship
* Support for policy and program expenditures and
* Set up and evaluate goals, policies, and programs
* Program planning, management, and evaluation
* Protect human and ecosystem health
* Compliance with standards and permits
* Funding
* 305(b) reports
* Plan and policy development
* Operational decision making
* Conflict and dispute resolution
* Program evaluation
* Resource evaluation
* Water supply and discharge planning and
* Identify sites for development
* Standards and permit compliance
* Identify sites for protection
* Public health
* Economic development / tourism
* Self and government policy and program
* Support programs (e.g., Wild and Scenic
* Stewardship, environmental awareness, education
* Advocacy support
* Improve scientific understanding of ecological
* Civic pride
* Economic development / tourism
* Advocacy
* Stewardship
* Awareness
* Stewardship
* Involvement
* Career development
* Advocacy
* Program evaluation
* Monitoring program evaluation
   (Note: Table adapted from the "Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Network Study Design" guidance document,
   prepared by the Merrimack River Watershed Council.)
ditions they sought.
    Neither the GRWPA nor the Eagleville Pond folks are
rich in know-how, money, or fancy equipment. Yet both
made effective  data presentations—one  by using  old-
fashioned tools like tracing paper_and pencils, the other by
securing  assistance from those with advanced technical re-
    Another, somewhat larger organization, the Charles
River Watershed Association (CRWA), with a membership
of over 1,000 and a staff of 4 to 6, used GIS and Corel Draw
software to  produce some  simple but powerful graphical
representations of significant problems in their watershed. A
series of three maps of the watershed shows that the river's
quality changes under different weather conditions. In dry
weather, most of the river system meets swimmable-fishable
standards for bacteria. Under moderate storm conditions, a
significant portion of the river exceeds bacteria standards at
least part of the time, and in heavy storm conditions, virtu-

 Concurrent Session 4: Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
 ally the entire river exceeds standards all the time. By show-
 ing the affected river reaches in blue, purple and red (good to
 bad), CRWA's maps caused jaws to drop at EPA, in schools,
 and at town meetings throughout the watershed. CRWA used
 the same images in different formats: paper, slides, photos,
 overheads (whichever worked best for a given venue), and
 have gotten technical and lay audiences alike worked up over
 the situation.
     The Kentucky  Water Watch (KWW)  program relies
 heavily on public forums to educate community members
 and stimulate action about water quality conditions. Here's
 how the forums are produced: After about a year of data col-
 lection, KWW head Ken Cooke asks the group if they want
 to conduct a "Clean Water Forum." If the answer is yes, Ken
 suggests a list of the kinds of folks who ought to be at the
 meeting—stakeholders  such  as  SWCD board reps, Uni-
 versity faculty members, planning and zoning commission
 members, public health experts, local industry groups, farm-
 ers, and  civic and environmental groups. The group gets
 seven or eight of these stakeholders to agree to be panelists.
 In advance of the meeting, panelists are sent a copy of the
 group's data report.
     The public is invited to these meetings. Some school
 meetings will have as many as 500 in the audience, although
 it works better with about 40 people. A moderator, usually
 someone from the sponsoring  organization, introduces the
 panel. (Hint from Ken: Don't let the panelists talk about
 their programs! They'll go on too long.) The local group
 starts with a data presentation, using whatever charts, graphs,
 computer graphics they have. The moderator will then pose a
 scries of questions  to the group representative and other
 panelists, asking what they think the data mean and what
 solutions there might be to any problems discovered. After
 this round, questions are opened  up to the audienc.e. Some-
 times the media are invited, sometimes not, but generally
 they are welcome to attend. These meetings can be broadcast
 on local public-access cable TV.
     The whole forum runs about 90 minutes to 2 hours. It
 doesn't take a lot of work to  set it up. Ken spends 3 or 4
 hours helping the  local group, which will put in about 15 to
• 20 hours.
     One of the main benefits of these forums is that they
 bring together officials  and interested parties from all sides
 of the issue—health, zoning and planning departments, soil
 conservationists, sewer operators, etc.—people who, accord-
 ing to Ken, rarely seem to communicate on  these issues
 otherwise. Also,  by sticking to an open-ended format—
 letting the panel and the audience  do much or all of the spec-
 ulating—the  sponsors  are often able  to  get  the local
 community to generate suggestions for solutions. After all,
 most of us appreciate and listen to our own bright ideas
 better than we do those of others!
                    Bill Deutsch
    Alabama Water Watch, Department of Fisheries, 203
 Swingle Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849, 334/844-9119,
                wdeutsch@ag. auburn, edu

        Presentation Strategies for
              Different Audiences

 This presentation will  compare and contrast how  citizen
 water quality monitors in the rural Philippines and Alabama
 use their data to produce positive change. Four types of "au-
 diences" will be briefly presented (two from each country),
 with monitors' strategies  for (a)  creating ingredients, (b)
 packaging their presentation, and (c) delivering their mes-
 sage. Some  questions to think about: Are the audiences of
 these places really that different? Which citizen group pre-
 sently has the greater opportunity for "making a difference"
 with their data? What are some "global lessons learned" that
 can help both groups, and perhaps your group?

 Monitoring and data presentation in the Philippines
 Citizen volunteer water quality monitors in the Philippines
 are primarily young men  who have little or no technical
 training, but a strong interest in the environment and com-
 munity  service. The monitors regularly attempt to commu-
 nicate their findings to the general public, including women's
 groups, teachers, students, a tribal group, and local gov-
 ernment leaders. The parameters the community deemed
 most relevant to monitor were those that have direct applica-
 tions to agriculture (soil loss and total suspended solids) and
 health (fecal coliforms in surface water and drinking water).
    Data are most effectively presented to the general public
 in an "unprocessed" and visual form, such as bacterial plates
 with varying numbers and  colors of colonies, or filters with
 varying amounts and colors of suspended solids. The moni-
 toring group is slowly growing as diverse audiences within
 the community see the relevancy of water testing to their
 daily lives.
    The Local and Provincial Governmental Units and the
 Department  of Health in  the Philippines are concerned with
 declining water quality and quantity for the general public.
 For this audience, water data are effectively presented in the
 form of simple graphs, correlated with population, health,
 and land use data, in addition to the visual means used in the
 community presentations. Governmental leaders are recep-
 tive to recommendations for restoration and conservation of
 aquatic  resources after seeing evidence of degradation in
 visual displays and graphs. In that regard, monitors have a
 voice in the establishment of local ordinances and other
 means of environmental  regulation. National  policymakers
 are interested in a demonstration of data collection and qual-
 ity, as well as the applicability of successful citizen moni-
 toring programs  as regional and national models of decen-
 tralized resource management.

 Monitoring and data presentation in Alabama
 In the Alabama  Water Watch Program (AWW), about 30
 active groups monitor 200 sites  on 100 water bodies state-
 wide. The monitors and other interested citizens are kept
 informed about the program and general issues of water
 quality by means of two  semiannual newsletters, "Alabama
 Water Watch" and "Nonpoint Source." Citizen data are pre-
 sented in summary graphs, along with some interpretations
 of trends and questions to prompt dialog, in a "WQ" bulletin
 (published about four times  per year). Two new positions
 (Volunteer Monitor Coordinator and Teacher Coordinator)
 were recently created in AWW to present citizen data to
monitors, community leaders, and teachers  in  a more
systematic  and  personal  fashion. The  AWW program
remains primarily composed of white, middle class citizens,
 and special efforts beyond those presently used are needed to
reach other audiences (Native American, African-American,
 and rural poor).
    Citizen  data  are regularly presented to  the Alabama

                       Concurrent Session 4: Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
Department of Environmental Management in Quarterly and
Phase Reports (also used for Alabama Department of Envi-
ronmental Management's 305(b) Report to Congress), with
detailed raw data, summary tables, and graphs. Results of
side-by-side tests of citizen testing equipment versus Stan-
dard Methods chemistry are occasionally presented, along
with Quality Assurance protocols, to convey the credibility
of citizen data. Several monitors meet quarterly as a Citizen
Advisory Council to Branch Chiefs of the ADEM Water
Division. Data summaries and citizen concerns and recom-
mendations are presented to this audience. Contacts of citi-
zen monitors with representatives of the Alabama Legis-
lature has only begun, but a State Senator recently was the
keynote speaker at the AWW Association Annual Meeting.
Strong turnouts of citizens to such meetings, along with good
press coverage, may be the best form of "data presentation"
for audiences of elected officials, who may otherwise  be
hesitant to address environmental issues.
                 Steven Hubbell
  Colorado River Watch Network, P.O. Box 220, Mail Stop
   H219, Austin, TK 78767-0220, 512/473-3333, ex. 2403

           Taking  It to the Street:
   Going Public with Volunteer Data

The purposes of this presentation are (1) to summarize recent
initiatives by one volunteer monitoring program to publicly
use volunteer  data and (2) to suggest some  fundamental
questions program coordinators should address if they elect
to initiate similar projects. The project used as the case study
in this report has been under way for five months; there are
certainly issues which have yet to emerge. The questions
posed herein represent questions we had to answer to  im-
plement this project.
    In March  1996, the Colorado River Watch  Network
(CRWN or River Watch) embarked on  a new  adventure in
data use.  The  Lower Colorado River Authority  (LCRA),
which manages the CRWN program, hosted a series of pub-
lic meetings throughout the organization's service area to
provide a forum for communities to share their water-related
concerns. One recurrent sentiment that emerged was the pub-
lic's desire to receive timely information about the quality of
the river in their communities. In response to this request, the
LCRA decided to provide a monthly water quality index
report through news  outlets in riverside communities. The
River Watch program was asked to provide monthly data
reports to staff scientists to supplement the data gathered by
staff monitors  (who typically monitor every other month).
The combined results are used to generate a series of month-
ly water quality indexes for 14 communities along the river
and its major tributaries. Having grown into a solid moni-
toring network with over 50 active monitoring sites since its
inception in 1988, CRWN enthusiastically accepted the chal-
lenge. In addition to the obvious benefits of bringing public
attention to local waterways and establishing a forum for
communicating environmental concepts, CRWN  sees the
project as an opportunity to publicly acknowledge  the effort
volunteers expend to gather useful water quality information.
It also represents a giant leap forward in coordinating efforts
between aquatic scientists and trained volunteers.
    The indexes are  generated using algorithms developed
by LCRA scientists to rank the water quality in each of the
site areas as "Excellent," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor." Six wa-
ter quality indicators are used in the index: total dissolved
solids, nitrates, orthophosphates, temperature, dissolved oxy-
gen, and fecal coliform. Data from LCRA scientists are used
in conjunction with CRWN data to create the monthly in-
dexes, which are then provided to news organizations in the
14 communities. Since staff scientists monitor every other
month, while CRWN volunteers monitor an average of twice
a month, the much-touted "frequency of data collection"
benefit of volunteer monitoring is a vital asset for these
monthly  reports. Local publication of the indexes has
steadily increased since the project began. Response to this
initiative by volunteers and the general  public has been
     Llano River Water Quality
                 December 1996
     Water quality has improved  considerably  from  last
     month's flood event. The flood event along the Llano
     River caused a short-term deterioration of water quality
     as runoff washed large amounts of sediment, nutrients
     and fecal material into the river. Fecal bacteria levels
     and nutrients have decreased and  water clarity  has
     improved during the past month.
     Brought to you by the Lower Colorado River
     Authority   and  the  Colorado  River  Watch
     Network Monitors of Llano Middle School
           Example of how the LCRA water quality index
                 appears in a local newspaper

Following are the questions that  were addressed in devel-
oping LCRA's monthly water quality indexes:
 1. What'are our objectives? (Examples: respond to public
    requests, acknowledge volunteer efforts, inform public
    of current environmental conditions, contribute to
    general environmental understanding/awareness,
    publicize opportunities for involvement.)
 2. Who is our audience?  (Examples: the general public,
    schools, monitors, environmental agencies, the scientific
    community, governing bodies.)
 3. What data-reporting approach can our program structure
    a.  How frequently are data collected?
    b.  How consistently are data reported?
    c.  How many sites are monitored?
    d.  How reliable are the data (are we confident of the
       level of quality assurance)?
    e.  Will volunteer data be used exclusively, or will they
       be merged with other sources?
 4. What will the final product look like (approximate
    length, focus, and design)?
 5. What media will we use to distribute the indexes?
    (Examples: newsletter, newspapers, radio, television

 Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
     news, public service announcements, weekly
  6. How frequently will we produce the report? (To answer
     this, consider objectives, distribution media, data
     availability, and staff resources.)
  7. Who will perform the production tasks?
     a. Who will coordinate production?
     b. Who will determine the statistical method?
     c. Who will perform data entry and quality assurance
     d. Who will coordinate volunteer data reporting?
     c. Who will produce graphics, layout, and text?
     f. Who will serve as liaison with news media?
     Once these questions have been answered, a foundation
 should be in place to implement the data-reporting project.
 Inform volunteer monitors of your intentions, including pro-
 ject objectives and reporting schedule.
     To encourage news organizations to carry  the infor-
 mation, make it brief, informative, and locally relevant. For
 print media, make it visually interesting as well. We dis-
 cussed such ideas as happy fish vs. sad fish, an indicator such
 as the gasoline level indicator in a car, a map of the water-
 shed, and others before finally selecting a simple rectangle
 divided into four sections with an arrow placed in the section
 representing the appropriate index rating (see illustration on
 preceding page). Crediting the volunteer group(s) that
 collected the  data is a strong  local selling point,  as is
 invoking community spirit. Finally, if there  is hesitation by
 the  media to disseminate  the information, try different
 avenues (radio instead of television, weekly  instead of daily
 newspaper), ask volunteers to request the information from
 local news media, and persist in production.
     As  the public begins to see the results of water quality
 data collected by local monitors, a general appreciation for
 the value of volunteer monitoring may begin to take root.
 With careful planning and quality assurance  measures, clear
 delegation of responsibilities, straightforward communica-
 tions, and persistence, volunteer data can be regularly shared
 with the public as timely, relevant, and useful information.
                      Developing  a  Watershed
                                  Monitoring  Plan
Workshop Leaders: Jeffrey Schloss, University of New
Hampshire Cooperative Extension, and Geoff Dates, River
Watch Network

                   Geoff Dates
 River Watch Newark, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602,

                 Jeffrey Schloss
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program, University
of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 55 College Road,
    109 Pettee Hall, Durham, NH 03824, 603/862-3848

A watershed is a geographic area in which water, sediments,
and dissolved materials drain into a common outlet—a point
on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying aquifer, an estuary,
or an ocean.
    A watershed ecosystem is a functioning interacting
system composed of living organisms and  their physical
(including both land and water) and chemical environment.
Physical/chemical processes
The  main physical and chemical processes at work in a
watershed are  geology,  climate, light, temperature, water
current, and nutrients.  The fundamental physical process at
work in a watershed is the cutting of stream channels and the
carrying of materials downstream. This process is governed
by the underlying geology of the watershed and driven by the
climate (heat and freezing cycles, precipitation).
    Geology determines the bathymetry of a lake, which in
turn influences lake mixing  properties and flushing rate. It
also determines the gradient of a stream, which determines
the current velocity. Current velocity helps  determine the
composition of the stream bottom (by sorting different par-
ticle sizes), which helps determine what can live there. The
watershed geology may form deep canyons, which  may
shade the water for long periods  of daylight hours. This
limits light penetration. Light penetration is important in
determining water temperature and  photosynthesis, the
energy  that drives the whole biological system. Water
temperature helps determine the water's dissolved oxygen
content and governs the rate of many biological processes.
Watershed geology also helps determine the nutrient and
dissolved mineral content of the water. For example,
limestone geology tends to contribute more dissolved nu-
trients and minerals to the water,  providing essential ma-
terials for biological activity. Nutrients can enter the stream
dissolved in runoff, attached to eroded soil particles, or in
decomposing organic matter.
    The net result of the physical processes is the foundation
for the biological processes.

Biological processes
The fundamental biological process  at work in the watershed
is photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sun-
light into organic tissue.  This process happens both  in the
water and on the land and provides food for a host of other
types of organisms.
    Plants that convert sunlight into food are known as
primary producers. In the water they include algae, mosses,
and rooted plants. On  the land they include trees,  mosses,
grasses, shrubs,  and trees. This plant material is a food
source for secondary producers. In the stream, these include
microscopic animals, invertebrates  (such as insects, clams,
crustaceans, and worms), and vertebrates such as fish.

Biological processes in streams
Food for stream organisms is produced both instream and
out-of-stream. Instream sources include primary producers
growing on the bottom and in the water column. This
material is harvested by grazers and filter feeding organisms,
such as aquatic insects. Out-of-stream sources include leaves

                                                        Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
 and other plant and animal material that drops into the water.
 This is known as coarse paniculate organic matter (CPOM).
 CPOM is immediately attacked by decomposers, shredders,
 and gatherers, which break down these large particles into
 fine paniculate organic matter (FPOM). The FPOM is then
 carried downstream where it provides  food for filtering
 organisms. Finally, the stream  organisms which consume
 plant material are themselves food for predators.
     The food sources and the organisms that feed on them
 tend to change upstream to downstream. In the headwaters,
 the food source is primarily out-of-stream CPOM  from
 overhanging  vegetation.  Organisms that process  CPOM
 dominate. This same overhanging vegetation limits instream
 production by preventing sunlight from reaching the water.
 As the stream widens, overhanging vegetation shades less of
 the stream, and benthic (on the bottom) instream production
 becomes more of a factor. Grazers  and collectors become
 more prevalent.  In larger  rivers, neither overhanging
 vegetation nor benthic instream  production is as much of a
 factor as FPOM carried from upstream  and plankton and
 algae in the water column. Filtering organisms  dominate
 here.  So, how  organisms are distributed in a stream is
 determined, in part, by the food source.
     It's also  determined by habitat  types. These types
 include riffles, runs, and pools. These habitats are created by
 the physical processes described above. They form a gradient
 from  fast-moving,  shallow water  with relatively large
 particles on the  stream bottom  (boulders and  cobbles) in
 riffles, through slower deeper areas with smaller particles on
 the bottom (gravel and sand) in runs, to deep slow water with
 silt and mud bottoms  in pools. Each of these provides
 different  types of  niches  for  different organisms—for
 example, cover for fish and attachment surfaces for aquatic
 insects. These occur along the upstream-downstream gra-
 dient according  to the geology of the watershed, generally
 from larger bottom materials in the headwaters to fine par-
 ticles in the lower reaches. Habitat diversity (and therefore
 biological diversity) tends to be highest in the mid reaches.
 Biological processes in lakes
 Food for lake organisms that inhabit shoreline areas bordered
 by riparian forest can be processed in a similar fashion as in
 streams, but lakes tend to  be most similar to large rivers at
 the downstream end of the continuum. Primary production is
 limited by the depth of sunlight penetration, with rooted and
 emergent plants favored in the shallow waters or littoral area
 and planktonic algae being produced in the photic zone of
 the open waters.  Thus the majority of lake production occurs
 from within. Filter-feeding organisms run the gamut from
 microscopic water fleas to fish like the alewife, which has
 gill rakers to collect the algae which  are filtered through its
    Habitat types include the littoral  zone,  pelagic open
 waters, and the deeper bottom  area or benthic zone, all
 dependent on depth.  Habitat conditions are also 'defined by
 temperature stratification in deeper lakes where a warmer,
 homogeneous layer of water (epilimnion) is separated from a
 colder bottom layer  of water (hypolimnion) by an area of
 rapid temperature decrease (metalimnion  or  thermocline).
 The rooted plants  in  the littoral areas  of  a  lake offer
 attachment and protection for the smaller lake  organisms,
 while the colder temperature or (sometimes) low oxygen
level of the bottom water layer can offer refuge to organisms
that can tolerate these conditions.
    Often the  nutrient phosphorus is in shortest supply, so
 the extent of productivity in a lafce can be determined by the
 factors that supply phosphorus to the lake. These can include
 the  physical  character of the watershed (geology  and
 climate), the landscape (which may have vegetation that can
 intercept nutrients before they reach the lake), land use and
 cover, and  human  impacts. For a  given amount of
 phosphorus that may enter a lake, the productivity is in turn
 controlled by  factors  such as the extent of the photic zone
 and  how long the water is retained by the lake before it is
 released (flushing rate). The shallower the lake and the
 longer the water is retained, the more productivity will occur.
 Developing a watershed  monitoring plan:
 The process
 Developing a watershed monitoring plan involves  making a
 series of choices about your effort:
    A.  Define the watershed and scale
    B.  Determine why you're monitoring
    C.  Decide what indicators you'll monitor
    D.  Determine your data quality requirements
    E.  Decide what methods you'll use
    F.  Decide where you'll monitor
    G.  Decide when you'll monitor
 Each of these steps is briefly described below.
A. Define the watershed and scale
 Watershed truly is a relative term in that one watershed  can
have many nested sub watersheds. Whether you should be
considering a  small pond or first-order stream, or a large
river basin, lake watershed, or estuary, will depend on your
resources (time, money, staff, volunteers, and expertise), the
concerns you need to  address, your organizational perspec-
tive (Are you a watershed coalition? lake association? town
commission? regional entity?) and objectives (screening,
management, restoration, etc.).
    Once chosen, the scale of your study will be an im-
portant consideration as  you decide what, where, and when
to monitor.
 1. Landscape-level scale
    •  Involves a large geographic area to allow for the
       assessment of cumulative impacts.
    •  May involve determining the proportion of land
       cover types (e.g., riparian area, impervious surfaces).
    •  Emphasizes studying upland conditions of the
       watershed and the resulting water quality and/or
       quantity of a representative site or sites downstream.
    •  Generally involves multiple political units (states,
       counties, towns).
    •   Terrestrial keystone or integrating species monitoring
       (eagles, osprey, lynx, warblers, bluebird) favored
       over aquatic chemistry and biological sampling.
    •   Facilitated through use of Geographic Information
       Systems (GIS)  and spatial analysis capabilities.
 2. High-order streams, lakes
   •   Geographic extent can be large, so cumulative
       impacts also assessed.
   •   Magnitude of change in water quality at
       representative site can be low due to dilution, but
       duration of change will be longer due to longer
       residual time.
   •   Changes detected are less likely to be influenced by
       ambient flows.

Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
    •  Loadings are more important than concentrations.
 3. Lower-order streams
    •  Smallest geographic area to cover.
    *  Magnitude of change in water quality will be greater
       but duration will be shorter.
    •  Ambient flow conditions will exert a significant
    •  Unless acute impacts are apparent, more timely
       monitoring will be required.
    •  Concentrations are more important than loadings.

B. Determine why you 're monitoring
The first step in designing a watershed monitoring program
is  to define the reasons for it. This involves a number of
 1. Research existing reports, data, and standards.
 2. Identify uses, values, and threats.
 3. Identify issues: conflicts among uses, values, and
 4. Define program goals: what are your goals for your
    water body?
 5. Define specific monitoring questions.
    The specific questions you develop will  provide the
basis for making the other choices.
C. Decide what watershed indicators you'll monitor
Indicators help assess environmental or human health  con-
ditions and trends. The following definition places indicators
in the context of watershed assessment: An indicator is a
measurable feature that provides evidence of
    •  the magnitude of stress, or
    •  the degree of exposure to stress, or
    •  the degree of ecological  response to the exposure, or
    •  habitat characteristics.
There are three types of indicators:
Early Warning: Indicators that can detect early  signs of
    ecosystem change.
Compliance: Indicators that tell us whether we've  achieved
    our ecosystem objectives.
Diagnostic: Indicators that provide insight into the causes of
    Indicators provide essential information  about whether
management objectives have been  achieved and whether
actions are working. Management  objectives for watersheds
include the following:
    •  fish, shellfish, and wildlife consumption
    •  aquatic life support
    •  water supply and food processing
    •  recreation: fishing
    •  recreation: water contact
    •  hydropower
    *  industrial
    •  forestry
    •  agriculture
    •  transportation
The main categories of indicators are:
    •  Biological indicators (e.g., macroinvertebrates, fish,
       wildlife, pathogens)
    •  Chemical indicators (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen,
    •  Physical habitat indicators (e.g., gradient, bottom
    •  Watershed-level stress indicators (e.g., pollution
       loading, land use)
    •  Ecosystem integrity indicators (e.g., habitat quality,
       aquatic life support)
    •  Public health indicators (e.g., occurrence of disease,
       closed shellfish waters)
    •  Human land and water use indicators (uses
    •  Economic indicators affected by ecological condition
       (e.g., property values)
NOTE: For a more complete listing of indicators in each of these
categories, see the Session 5 workshop titled "Watershed Indi-
cators: A Closer Look" (p. 64).
Following are some things  to think about in  selecting in-
Scientific considerations
    •  Does the indicator help you  answer your questions?
    •  Can you measure and quantify it?
    •  Does it respond over  a reasonable time period?
    •  Can you isolate the conditions that cause it to
    •  Does it integrate effects over time and space? Does it
       respond to changes in other indicators?
    •  Is it a true measure of the condition you're assessing?
       Is there a reference condition?
    •  Does it provide early  warning of changes?
Practical/programmatic considerations
    •  Do you have the resources to measure the indicator?
    •  How difficult is it to measure?
    •  Does it help you understand a major part of the
    •  Is it explainable to your target audience?

D. Determine your data quality requirements
Decide whom you expect to  use your data and for what pur-
pose. These users and uses will determine your requirements
for the quality of your data.  Briefly, these requirements will
cover the following:
    For sampling
    Completeness: how many samples do you need?
    Representativeness: how representative are your samples
       of the conditions you are monitoring?
    For analysis
    Precision: how close do repeated measurements have to
       be to each other?
    Accuracy: how close do measurements have to be to the
       true value?
    Sensitivity: what is the minimum level of an indicator
       you must detect?
Data quality requirements should be listed for each indicator.

E. Decide what methods you'll use
Once you've selected indicators and established your  data
quality requirements,  the next step is to select a method for
sampling  and analyzing each indicator. The table on the
following page lists the various types of monitoring methods.
For each type, there is at least one (and probably several)
specific methods available.

                                                        Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
     Following are some questions to consider when selecting
 Scientific considerations
     •   Does the method meet your data quality
     •   How accurate is it?
     •   How precise is it?
     •   How sensitive is it?
     •   Will it measure the indicator in the range you need?
     •   Does it yield samples that are representative?
     •   What lab facilities and equipment are required?
     •   Is it comparable to methods used by agencies
        collecting similar information?
 Practical/programmatic considerations
     •   Do you have the resources to do it?
     •   How difficult is it?
     •   How time-consuming is it?
     •   How expensive is it?
     •   Will it produce data useful to your target audience?
          Types of Monitoring Methods
   Water and Aquatic Life Sampling and Analysis
                Direct field measurements
                      Visual surveys
                     Remote sensing
                   Habitat assessments
    Direct field measurements of channel characteristics
                      Visual surveys
             Sediment sampling and analysis
        Field inventories (erosion, vegetation, wildlife)
                   Habitat assessments
                     Remote sensing
       Shorelines, Riparian Areas, Watersheds
                     Visual surveys
       Field inventories (land uses, resources, wildlife)
             Sediment sampling and analysis
                    Site assessments
           Remote sensing (land cover, use, etc.)
                   Habitat assessments
              Functional value assessments
               Human Users and Uses
                 Epidemiological surveys
                      User surveys
                   Perception surveys
               Discharge permit compliance
             Water supply system compliance
                    Sanitary surveys
F. Decide where you'll monitor
Where you sample is determined by what you want to know
and what indicators you're measuring. 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, sampling stations should be located at a
variety of sites that represent the variety of conditions in the
watershed. On the other hand, if you want to measure the im-
pact of a human alteration (such as a pollution discharge) on
a water body, sites should be  chosen to isolate the impact
being assessed from other potential impacts.  To select sam-
ple sites:
 1. Use a topographic map to do a preliminary selection of
     sites that appear to meet your study goals.
  2. Field-check each site for accessibility, representative-
     ness, safety, and appropriateness. Record directions to
     the site, a brief description of the site, and other relevant
     information on a field sheet.
  3. Photograph each site at the sample collection point.
  4. Place the site description and the photograph in a loose-
     leaf binder for permanent archiving.
  5. Map each site.
  6. List all the sites selected, along with the rationale for
     each site, in your study design.

     Following are  guidelines for selecting  sampling loca-
 tions for each type of water body.

 For rivers:
 The relatively quick downstream movement of water (and
 pollution) is reflected in the site selection guidelines.

 General site selection guidelines
  1. Sampling stations should be located at a variety of sites
     that represent the variety of conditions in the watershed.
     These might include:
     •  waters located in areas of different land uses (urban,
       agricultural, forested)
     •  streams and rivers of different orders (sizes)
     •  waters located at different altitudes
     •  waters receiving point source discharges
     •  waters receiving nonpoint pollution
  2. Where possible, sites historically monitored  by the state
     water quality agency.
  3. Sites at areas of public use for water contact recreation
     (e.g., swimming areas).
  4. Sites at habitat areas of sensitive species (e.g., holding or
     spawning areas important to Atlantic Salmon and other
     cold water species).
  5. Sites that are representative of the part of the river of
  6. Sites that are safely accessible. Avoid steep,  slippery, or
     eroding banks or sites where landowner permission
     cannot be obtained.
  7.  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.
  8.  Consider variable flow patterns caused by artificial
     physical structures such as  dams, weirs, and wing walls.
     These may influence the representative quality of the

Benthic macroinvertebrate site selection guidelines
Sites for macroinvertebrate collection should be shallow (1-2
feet deep) "riffle" areas with current between 0.4 and 2.0 feet
per second, and rocky/gravelly bottoms.

Pollution or erosion impact site selection guidelines
Generally, three sites should be chosen to "bracket" the pol-
luting/eroding areas:
  1. a reference or control site immediately upstream of
    any potential impact
 2. an impact site immediately downstream of the
    alteration (at the point where the impact is completely

Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
    integrated with the water)
 3. a recovery site downstream stream of the impact (where
    the water has at least partially recovered from the
    It  is very important that all  the sites  be as similar as
possible in  every respect except for  the  impact being

Tributary impact site selection guidelines
Consider tributaries as nonpoint discharge "pipes" to the
main  stem. Four sites should be chosen to  bracket the
tributary confluence.
 1. a reference or control site immediately upstream of the
    tributary confluence
 2. an impact site immediately downstream of the tributary
    at a point where the water from the tributary is
    completely integrated with the main stem water
 3. a recovery site downstream stream of the tributary
    where the main stem water has at least partially
    recovered from the impact (for example, downstream
    from where a cleaner tributary has entered)
 4. an "integrator" site in the mouth of the tributary. Be
    sure that you are not sampling a backwater of the main

For lakes:
Lakes  are relatively closed water bodies, lacking the strong
downstream movement of rivers.  However, strikingly
different conditions may exist throughout the lake depending
on shape, embayments, depth, and wind fetch. The first step
is  to get a bathymetric map of  your lake showing depth
contours, inlets, and outlets. Use it to identify the following

General site selection guidelines
 1. The primary sampling station(s) should be located at a
    site that represents the typical condition of the lake. The
    best sites will be in the deepest part of the lake, or, in the
    case of a large lake, the deepest part of an arm or bay.
    Avoid nearshore areas, areas near inlets, secluded areas
    that may lagoon, or areas downwind that may collect
    windblown algae and debris.
 2. Where possible, sites historically monitored by the state
    water quality agency.
 3. Secondary sampling sites may include tributary inlets;
    outlet; extensively developed or cleared vs. non-
    developed shoreline areas, coves, or embayments; areas
    with older development; or seasonal camp to year-round
 4. Sites at areas of public use for water contact recreation
    (e.g., swimming areas).
 5. Consider the influence of temperature stratification.  For
    chlorophyll analysis (algae biomass surrogate) you
    might want to take an integrated (composite) sample of
    the open water epilimnion as a representative sample.
    For oxygen or phosphorus you may want to get a point
    sample close to the bottom of the lake to check for
    stagnation and internal nutrient loading.

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 navigational aids.

General site selection guidelines
 1. Where possible, sites historically monitored by the state
    water quality agency.
 2. Sites at areas of public use for water contact recreation
    (e.g., swimming areas).
 3. Sites which are representative of the part of the estuary
    of interest.
 4. Sites that are safely accessible.
 5. Sites should be located in the main current and away
    from the banks or shoreline. If that is not possible, locate
    the site where homogeneous mixing of the water occurs,
    such as on an outside bend of the shoreline.
 6. Consider variable flow patterns caused by artificial
    physical structures such as piers, groins, and bulkheads.
    These may influence the representative quality of the
 7. 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.

G. Decide when you'll monitor
The  whys  of monitoring, your resources,  and your data
objectives will  often dictate  when  you monitor.  It is
important to try to  consider all of the many factors  that will
have an influence on the indicator you've chosen:
 •  Will there be seasonal differences due to natural
    conditions or resource use/impact timing?
 •  Are there base flow, low flow, and high flow conditions
    to be monitored?
 •  Do groundwater levels have an influence?
 •  Will tidal cycles make a difference?
 •  Should monitoring be done during storm events? If so,
    how big a storm is significant and at what stage should
    monitoring start?
 •  Is any stocking, removal, or harvesting of organisms
 •  Are dam releases or lake draw-downs scheduled?
 •  Are there life-cycle details that are important?

    In addition, methods employed  might influence the
scheduling of sampling:
 •  Do you have to return samples before a hold time
    expires or a lab closes?
 •  Are there time-of-day or sun-angle considerations? (e.g.,
    Secchi disk)
 •  Are there time-dependent safety considerations?
 •  Is it easier to conduct a visual survey in the fall after
    trees have lost their leaves?

Cairns, John, Jr. 1993. A Proposed Framework for Developing
    Indicators of Ecosystem Health. Hydrobiologia 263, pp. 1-44,
    Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hunsacker, C.T., and D.E. Carpenter, eds. 1990. Environmental
    Monitoring and Assessment Program: Ecological Indicators.
    Office  of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on  Monitoring).  1995.
    Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the
    United States—Final Report. Washington, DC.
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on  Monitoring).  1994.

                                                          Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
    Strategy for  Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the       Fish. Report # EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. EPA, Washington,
    United States—Technical Appendices. Washington, DC.             DC.
Leopold, LunaB.  1994. A View of the River. Harvard University   U.S. EPA. 1996. World Wide Web Site:
    Press, Cambridge, MA.                                         indicator/defme.html
Plafldn, James L, et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for   Vannote, Robin L. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Canada
    Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and       Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 37, pp. 130-137.
                                                                                      — End of Concurrent Session 4 —

Concurrent Session 5: Watershed Indicators—A Closer Look
     Watershed  Indicators:  A Closer  Look
Moderator: Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Presenters: Geoff Dates; Mike Rigney,* San Francisco Es-
tuary Institute; Cynthia Lopez, Harvard School of Public
Health/River Watch Network

 River Watch Net\vork, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602,

      Brief Overview off Watershed
          Ecology and Indicators
NOTE: Some sections of this presentation repeat material presented
in Session 4, "Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan."
    A watershed is a geographic area in which water, sedi-
ments, and dissolved materials drain into a common outlet—
a point on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying aquifer, an
estuary, or an ocean.
    A watershed ecosystem is a functioning interacting sys-
tem composed of living organisms and their physical (in-
cluding both land and water) and chemical environment, in-
cluding upstream-downstream relationships.
    Watershed processes occur in predictable patterns along
a continuum, based on the upstream-to-downstream changes
in the watershed's physical characteristics. These changes in
the physical environment produce corresponding changes in
the biological communities that are also predictable. This is
known as the river continuum concept.

Physical/chemical processes
The  main physical and chemical processes at work in  a
watershed are geology, light, temperature, water current, and
nutrients. The fundamental physical process at work in a wa-
tershed  is the cutting of stream channels and the carrying of
materials downstream. This process is governed by the
underlying geology of the watershed.
    Geology determines the gradient of the stream, which
determines the current velocity. Current velocity helps deter-
mine the composition of the stream bottom  (by  sorting
different particle sizes), which helps determine what can live
there. The watershed geology may form deep canyons, which
may shade the river for long periods of daylight hours. This
limits light penetration. Light penetration is important in
determining water temperature and photosynthesis, the ener-
gy that drives the whole biological system.  Water tem-
perature helps determine the water's dissolved oxygen con-
tent  and governs the rate of many biological processes.
Watershed  geology also helps determine the nutrient and
dissolved mineral content of the water. For example, lime-
stone geology tends to contribute more dissolved nutrients
and minerals to the water, providing essential materials for
biological activity. Nutrients  can enter the stream dissolved
in runoff, attached to eroded soil particles, or in decomposing
organic matter.
    The net result of the physical processes is the foundation
for the biological processes.
Biological processes
The fundamental biological process at work in the watershed
is  photosynthesis,  the process by  which  plants convert
sunlight into organic tissue. This process happens both in the
water and on the land and provides food for a host of other
types of organisms.
    Plants that convert sunlight into food are known as pri-
mary producers. In the stream they include algae, mosses,
and rooted  plants. On the land they include trees, mosses,
grasses, shrubs, and trees. This plant material is a food
source for secondary producers. In the stream, these include
microscopic animals, invertebrates (such as insects, clams,
crustaceans, and worms), and'vertebrates such as fish.
    Food for  stream organisms is produced both' instream
and out-of-stream.  Instream sources include primary pro-
ducers growing on the bottom and in the water column. This
material is harvested by grazers and filter feeding organisms,
such as aquatic insects. Out-of-stream sources include leaves
and other plant and animal material that drops into the water.
This is known as coarse paniculate organic matter (CPOM).
CPOM is immediately attacked by decomposers, shredders,
and gatherers, which break down these large particles into
fine paniculate organic matter (FPOM). The FPOM is then
carried downstream where  it provides  food  for filtering
organisms. Finally, the stream organisms which consume
plant material are themselves food for predators.
    The food sources and the  organisms that feed on them
tend to change upstream to downstream.  In the headwaters,
the food source is primarily out-of-stream CPOM from over-
hanging vegetation. Organisms that process CPOM domi-
nate. This same overhanging vegetation limits instream pro-
duction by  preventing sunlight from reaching the water. As
the stream widens, overhanging vegetation shades less of the
stream, and benthic (on the bottom)  instream production
becomes more of a factor. Grazers  and  collectors  become
more prevalent. In  larger rivers, neither  overhanging vege-
tation nor benthic instream production is as much of a factor
as FPOM carried from upstream and plankton and algae in
the water column.  Filtering organisms dominate here. So,
how organisms are distributed in a stream is determined, in
part, by the food source.
     It's also determined by habitat types.  These types in-
clude riffles, runs, and pools. These habitats are created by
the physical processes described above. They form a gradient
from fast-moving, shallow water with relatively large parti-
cles on the stream bottom (boulders and  cobbles) in riffles,
through slower deeper areas with smaller  particles on the
bottom (gravel and sand) in runs, to deep slow water with silt
and  mud bottoms in pools. Each of these provides different
types of niches for different organisms—for example, cover
for fish and attachment surfaces for aquatic insects. These
occur along the upstream-downstream gradient according to
the geology of the watershed,  generally from larger bottom
materials in the headwaters to fine particles  in the lower
reaches. Habitat diversity (and therefore biological diversity)
tends to be highest in the mid reaches.
 *No paper submitted

                                                         Concurrent Session 5: Watershed Indicators—A Closer Look
 What are indicators and how are they used?
 In typical lyrical fashion, the U.S. EPA defines environ-
 mental indicators as follows:
    A measured or observed property or some value derived
    from properties which provides managerially significant
    information about patterns or trends in the state of the
    environment or about relationships among such vari-

    Kerens another definition—one that places indicators in
 the context of watershed assessment:
    An indicator is a measurable feature  that provides
    evidence of the magnitude of stress, or the degree of
    exposure to stress, or the degree of ecological response
    to the exposure, or habitat characteristics.

    Taken together, these two definitions describe indicators
 as measurable  features that help  assess environmental or
 human health conditions and trends.

 There are three types of indicators:
  1. Early warning: Indicators that can detect early signs of
    ecosystem change.
  2. Compliance: Indicators that tell us whether we've
    achieved our ecosystem objectives.
  3. Diagnostic: Indicators that provide insight into the
    causes of problems.

    Indicators provide essential information about whether
 management objectives have been achieved and whether
 actions are working. Management objectives for watersheds
 include the following:
    •  fish, shellfish, and wildlife consumption
    •  aquatic life support
    •  water supply and food processing
    •  recreation: fishing
    •  recreation: water contact
    •  hydropower
    •  industrial
    •  forestry
    •  agriculture
    •  transportation

    The use of indicators in the decision-making process is
shown schematically below.

Categories of indicators
The main categories of indicators are:
    •  biological indicators
     •  chemical indicators
     •  physical habitat indicators
     •  watershed-level stress indicators
     • , ecosystem integrity indicators
     •  public health indicators
     •  human land and water use indicators
     •  economic indicators (affected by ecological

     The box on page 64 shows a list of indicators in each of
these categories. This list was compiled from the sources
listed in  the references.  Consider it a sampling, not a
comprehensive list.

Choosing appropriate indicators
Choosing among this bewildering array of indicators is part
of the process of designing your monitoring program. This
process  includes researching  your  watershed,  framing
specific questions you  wish to answer, determining who's
going to  use this  information and  for what purposes,
selecting  indicators to  answer your  questions, selecting
methods to measure those indicators,  selecting monitoring
locations, determining  monitoring frequency, and quality
     So, selecting indicators  is  just  one of these steps.
Following are some things to think about when selecting

Scientific considerations
     •  Does the indicator help you answer your questions?
     •  Can you measure and quantify it?
     •  Does it respond over a reasonable time period?
     •  Can you isolate the conditions that cause it to
     •  Does it integrate effects over time and space? Does it
      respond to changes in other indicators?
     • Is it a true measure of the condition you're assessing?
      Is there a reference condition?
     • Does it provide early warning of changes?

Practical/programmatic considerations
    • Do you have the resources to measure the indicator?
    • How difficult is it to measure?
    • Does it help you understand a major part of the
    • Is it explainable to your target audience?
                                    Jf    Indicator

Concurrent Session 5: Watershed Indicators—A Closer Look

        Biological Indicators
        • Macroinvertebrates
        • Fish
        • Wildlife (aquatic, riparian, terrestrial, avian)
        • Pathogens and fecal indicator bacteria
        • Phytoplankton
        • Periphyton
        • Aquatic and semi-aquatic plants
        • Zooplankton

        Chemical Indicators
        • Oxygenation (e.g., DO, BOD)
        • Ionic strength (e.g., pH, alkalinity, conductivity)
        • Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus)
        • Potentially hazardous chemicals (in the water)
        • Odor, taste, unaesthetic chemicals
        • Potentially hazardous chemicals (on the bottom
          or attached to suspended  sediment)

        Physical Habitat Indicators
        a. Water Column and Channel
        • Water quantity
        • Temperature
        • Water clarity
        • Bed sediment & substrate characteristics
        • Geomorphology (channel characteristics)
        • Habitat (type, distribution)
        b. Riparian and Watershed Areas
        • Riparian or shoreline characteristics
        • Habitat (types, fragmentation, linkages)
        • Groundwater (springs and seeps)
        • Land (geology, soils, topography)
        • Vegetation (type, diversity)

        Watershed-Level Stress Indicators
        • Land use type and intensity (historical/current)
        • Land cover and vegetation
        • Application of chemicals, sewage, or animal wastes
        • Air-borne contaminants
        • Assimilative capacity
        • Channel or flow modifications
        • Ecoregional characteristics
 Ecosystem Integrity Indicators
 • Habitat quality
 • Aquatic life use support
 • Indices of biotic integrity
 • Species at risk
 • Wetland acreage

 Public Health Indicators
 • Occurrence of disease
 • Exposure to disease-causing agents
 • Failing drinking water systems
 • Drinking water systems at risk
 • Protected water sources  .
 • Fish consumption advisories
 • Closed shellfish waters

 Human Land and Water Use Indicators
 • Drinking water uses supported
 • Fish and shellfish consumption supported
 • Recreation use supported
 • Total water consumption
 • Land-use patterns

 Economic Indicators
 (affected by ecological condition)
 • Property values
 • Fish/shellfish harvest levels
 • Impacts of nuisance plant and animal species
 • Reservoir capacity
Cairns, John, Jr. 1993. A Proposed Framework for Developing
    Indicators of Ecosystem Health. Hydrobiologia 263, 1-44,
    Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hunsackcr, C.T., and D.E. Carpenter, eds. 1990. Environmental
    Monitoring and Assessment Program: Ecological Indicators.
    Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force On Monitoring).  1995.
    Strategy for Improving  Water-Quality Monitoring in the
    United States—Final Report. Washington, DC.
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force On Monitoring).  1994.
    Strategy for Improving  Water-Quality Monitoring in the
    United States—Technical Appendices. Washington, DC.
Leopold, Luna B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University
    Press, Cambridge, MA.
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, Wash., DC.
U.S. EPA. 1996. World Wide Web site:

Vannote, Robin L. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Canada
    Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 37: 130-137.
                  Cynthia Lopez
  11024 Montgomery NE, #127, Albuquerque, NM87111,

               A Closer Look at
         Human Health Indicators

Human  health, well-being, and quality of life may be ad-
versely impacted by disturbances in the health of a watershed
ecosystem. Contaminants such as sewage or toxic chemicals
that are dumped into a waterway can adversely affect not

                                                          Concurrent Session 5: Watershed Indicators—A Closer Look
 only the watershed, but also the human and animal life that
 comes into contact with the water. Degradation of a water-
 way can also affect human health by creating a favorable
 environment for waterborne disease agents  to thrive and
 cause illnesses.
    Humans cannot be treated like animals or insects, which
 can be placed in experimental laboratory settings, purposely
 exposed to varying doses  of contaminants, and then "sacri-
 ficed" to see if any adverse health effect has occurred. There-
 fore researchers use the discipline of epidemiology, defined
 as "the study of the causes and distribution  of disease in
 human populations," to examine the occurrence of disease
 within defined human populations. Epidemiologists look at
 disease in the presence and absence of exposure to  con-
 taminants, while controlling for exposures to other disease-
 causing agents. Once the  exposure and disease status of a
 human, or group of humans, is known, an epidemiologist
 compares unexposed and exposed groups to see if there is a
 difference in getting disease. Epidemiologic research is gen-
 erally considered the strongest evidence of potential human
 health effects from contamination.
    Monitoring human  health indicators incorporates prin-
 ciples common to both epidemiology and water monitoring.
 For example, in both epidemiology and water monitoring,
 the researcher usually studies a representative sample.
    For human  samples,  it is important to determine the
 human's exposure to the water contaminant that can cause
 disease. For example, humans come into contact with water
 by swimming, fishing, and recreating. Methods for assessing
 whether humans are exposed to disease-causing agents found
 in water include (1) using surveys that ask people to report
 their behavior, (2) observing humans in the field, (3) looking
 at medical records, or (4) sampling  human tissue (blood,
 skin, etc.) and examining it in the lab.
    It is crucial  to determine whether humans are sick, or
 become sick, in relationship to their exposure.  The presence
 of disease can be examined  in many ways, including the
 collection of biological samples  such as blood or tissue)
 physician exams, or symptom reports using surveys.
    Most human health studies are difficult to do because
 they are time-consuming,  costly, and an imposition on the
people who are interviewed or examined. Subtle or small
 health effects may be difficult to find and measure. To detect
rare diseases, sometimes a large sample size is needed. To
 detect long-term effects, the population must be followed for
 a long time period. Effects of contamination may not be
detected in time to prevent  widespread health problems.
    In spite of these difficulties, gathering human health data
can be a valuable complement to other aspects of watershed
monitoring. Clearly, it has the potential to generate public
interest in volunteer water monitoring because the results are
usually extremely relevant to the people living in the water-
 shed. Using volunteer labor lowers the costs typical of an
 epidemiologic study. Also, because volunteers usually are
 from the community in which they monitor, they often have
 valuable "inside"  information  about the region and the
 people that can be incorporated into a health study.
     Currently, few volunteer monitoring organizations use
 their data in epidemiologic studies or actually monitor human
 health. Two groups that are monitoring human health are the
 Rio Bravo River Watchers (RBRWs) and the Missisquoi
 River Keepers. The RBRWs are surveying residents who live
 in impoverished human settlements  on the floodplain of the
 Rio Grande/Rio Bravo. These residents come into  contact
 with the river by swimming and fishing in it. Their wells are
 also located in the drainage basin of the river. Many of these
 residents suffer from respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses
 that are associated with their contact with the river.
     The Missisquoi River Keepers are monitoring the Mis-
 sisquoi River and its fish for mercury. They are interviewing
 anglers about fish consumption behavior  and health prob-
 lems. Few anglers  are aware of the fish consumption ad-
 visory in the state of Vermont. Many anglers, particularly
 those of Native American descent, continue to consume large
 quantities of mercury-laden fish from this river.
     Data on human use of watershed resources is a related
 type of data  that can also be monitored in a volunteer pro-
 gram. Human use of resources will respond to environmental
 degradation. For example, restrictions on water use may
 result from degradation of a watershed, or fish consumption
 or swim  warnings  may  be posted due to contamination.
 There may also be  a decline in the commercial fishing in-
 dustry or recreational use. Monitoring human  use indicators
 typically involves inventorying current use, determining the
 quality of the resource, attaching dollar values to  the re-
 source, and then  comparing results to some  baseline. For
 example, current fish  harvest rates may  be  compared to
Replenishment rates to determine the potential for depletion.
    Human  perceptions  of environmental quality, and
quality of life,  may  contribute to  watershed  resource
^management decisions. Common indicators of perceptions of
 environmental quality include overall satisfaction  with cur-
 rent conditions, property values, and resource  use. Monitor-
 ing perceptions may involve opinion surveys, questionnaires,
 or other data regarding human use.
    One limitation of human use or perception indicators is
 their reliance upon  attaching monetary value to resources.
 Some resources are not amenable to such valuation. In ad-
 dition, current generations may inappropriately estimate the
 net present value of such resources, harming  future gener-
    To my knowledge, no volunteer monitoring group cur-
 rently monitors human use or perception indicators.

Concurrent Session 5: Innovative Observations
                     Innovative  Observations
Moderator: Rebecca Pitt, Maryland Save Our Streams
Speakers: Diane Calesso,  U.S. EPA Region  2; Gary
Casper,* Milwaukee Public Museum; Jill Goodman Bieri,
Center for Marine Conservation; Valerie Brennan, Gun-
powder Valley Conservancy

                 Diane Calesso
   U.S. EPA Region 2, 2890 Woodbridge Ave, Edison, NJ
                 08837, 908/906-6999

     Reef Fish Monitoring  by Divers

The objectives of the Fifth National Volunteer Monitoring
Conference include expanding watershed stewardship, moni-
toring environmental trends, and encouraging a commitment
to growth and development of volunteer monitoring in the
U.S. and worldwide. REEF, the Reef Environmental Educa-
tion Foundation, has had these  same objectives since its
inception in 1991. REEF is a volunteer group of over 6,000
SCUBA divers from 50 states and 41 countries who survey
tropical reefs. Just as  bird watchers with the Audubon
Society count and identify birds, REEF volunteers identify
fish species they sight while diving.
    Some scientists have described coral reefs as "the rain
forests of the sea." These fragile ecosystems are being threat-
ened by anthropogenic influences before their resources have
even been understood. The marine environment offers virtu-
ally untapped resources for pharmaceutical research. A reef
is the  first natural defense from  the destruction of storms.
Coastal slates use artificial reefs to bolster their shorelines
and to increase breeding habitat for commercial  and
recreational fisheries. In the United States alone there are
now 13 designated Marine Sanctuaries as well as natural
coral reef systems in Florida, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories
of Guam, Puerto Rico,  the U.S. Virgin Islands,  American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
    REEF trains recreational divers to positively identify
fish species by performing "roving diver" surveys. These
surveys help identify the geographical distribution of species.
The diver also has the option of estimating the abundance of
each species sighted. Species and abundance surveys provide
a clearer picture offish populations and fluctuations over the
years  and between seasons.  The University of Miami
compiles the data and  makes it  available to anyone inter-
ested.  Managers of the Florida Keys  National Marine
Sanctuary are already reaping  the benefits of this baseline
information to help create their management strategy for this
recently designated marine reserve.
    The validity of using volunteer divers was closely
studied during the summer of 1993. The results have been
published by E.F. Schmitt and K.M. Sullivan (see reference
list  below). The paper concludes that data collected by
volunteer divers with only basic training provides a valuable
species list and abundance record that uniquely characterize
the environment.
    REEF volunteers currently conduct coral reef surveys in
the waters of Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean. Their
future goal is to collect species and abundance data through-

*No paper submitted

out the world, on a continuing basis, on all the plants and
animals that make up the coral reef ecosystem.
    A survey of diving enthusiasts in 1983 .by Skin Diver
magazine noted that 1.2 million divers took 600,000 trips to
locations with coral reefs in the continental United States.
Imagine  the invaluable information these divers could
provide if trained as REEF volunteers!

Humann, P., and N. DeLoach. 1991. Reef Fish Identification, 2nd
    edition. New World Publications, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.
    396 pages.
Schmitt, E. F., and K. M. Sullivan. 1996. Analysis of a Volunteer
    Method for Collecting Fish Presence and Abundance Data in
    the Florida Keys. Bulletin Marine Science vol. 59.
              Jill Goodman Bieri
   Center for Marine Conservation, 306A Buckroe Ave.,
           Hampton, VA 23664, 804/851-6734

       The National  Marine Debris
  Monitoring Program: Using Trained
          Volunteers Nationwide

The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program (NMDMP)
is an EPA program that is being coordinated by the Center
for Marine  Conservation to  answer  specific questions  re-
garding the sources and trends of beach debris. The program
utilizes trained volunteers nationwide.
   Marine debris has been recognized as a significant pol-
lution problem since the early 1970s,  when it was estimated
that close to 14 billion tons of garbage were dumped into our
oceans every year. This does not  even include garbage that
has its sources on land. Not  only is  debris on our beaches
unsightly, but the costs to wildlife habitat and human and
animal well-being are enormous.
   The data from the past  10 years  of the International
Coastal Cleanup has  enabled us to classify debris into two
major categories: ocean- and land-based. Sources  of ocean-
based debris include recreational boats,  cargo ships, pas-
senger day boats, small public  vessels, commercial fishing
vessels, offshore oil platforms, rigs and supply boats, pas-
senger cruise ships, and research vessels. Ocean-based debris
is generated during the normal course  of vessel operations
and may also be accidentally lost or discarded at sea. Sources
of land-based debris include  stormwater drains, inadequate
sewer systems, landfill sites,  plastic manufacturers and pro-
cessors,  offsite  balloon releases, and  beach-goers.  Land-
based debris reaches the ocean via inland waterways or is
directly discharged into coastal water.
   In 1988, the U.S. Congress  ratified Annex V  of the
international treaty on marine pollution known as MARPOL.
Ratification addressed the centuries-old practice of disposing
of ship-generated garbage at sea. Annex V prohibits the
disposal  of all plastic garbage and  establishes  limits  on
disposal  of other garbage. Unfortunately,  MARPOL and
other agreements and legislation do not guarantee that there

                                                                       Concurrent Session 5: Innovative Observations
     be \ess trash in our oceans. Not only is enforcement of
 these laws difficult, but in some areas 60-80% of shoreline
 debris is from the aforementioned land-based sources. In
 addition,  there was  no way  to  measure  the  effect  of
 MARPOL and other regulations on the amount and types of
 marine debris that end up on our  beaches. Monitoring
 programs were needed to measure these changes.
     Representatives from EPA, NOAA, NFS, USCG, CMC,
 and selected scientists formed a Marine Debris Monitoring
 (MDM) Workgroup in the early 1990s to design a statisti-
 cally rigorous  marine debris monitoring program that meets
 all federal agencies' goals and guidelines. The Workgroup
 met for over two years and developed the NMDMP protocol.
 The U.S. was divided into nine regions based on ocean cur-
 rent patterns, marine debris information, and logistics. Power
 analysis was used to determine the necessary number of sites
 per region, size of sampling area, common debris items, and
 frequency and duration of sampling to detect a change over
 time. CMC established pilot studies to collect data for power
 analysis and to answer other questions (e.g., Can volunteers
 collect scientific data? Does debris move laterally along the
     Like any scientific program, the NMDMP was designed
 to answer specific questions:  (1) Is the amount of debris on
 our coastlines  decreasing? and (2) What  are the sources of
 this debris? The Workgroup, using results from the power
 analysis, came  up with general survey details: 20 sites will be
 selected within each of the nine U.S. regions; volunteers will
 sample each 500-meter site monthly for a period of 5 years;
 and the survey will measure trends  of 30 specific common
 debris  items.  The protocol standardized the selection of
 shoreline to include only beaches that meet  the following
    -   sandy or small-gravel composition
    -   moderate to low slope
    -   no other routine cleaning
    -   unprotected from ocean
    -   accessible for monthly cleaning
    —   at least  1,500 meters of accessible length.

    Surveys will be conducted every 28 days, as close to low
 tide as possible, and all 20 sites within a region will conduct
 their survey on the same day, using a  specific walking pat-
 tern to cover the entire area.
    Volunteers will collect data on 30 specific items month-
 ly while adhering to quality assurance procedures (QAP).
 Quality assurance  ensures that  independent studies are
 repeatable and  comparable. QAP begins with  the design of
 the protocol and is followed through data collection,  com-
 pilation, and analysis. One of the most important features of
 QAP in this program is the training of volunteers. The Pro-
 gram Manager trains Survey Directors, who in turn train
 their volunteers. Training covers recognition of the 30 debris
 items,  filling in the data card, and the importance of the
 volunteers' participation. Slide presentations and handbooks
 are provided for training purposes. Survey Directors conduct
 QAP four times per year by following behind the volunteers
 and re-identifying collected items. The identifications are
compared and  the percent error of data  collection is cal-
culated. The NMDMP's structure allows for quality assur-
ance to be followed at all levels.
    The NMDMP has  been implemented in Regions 4
(Mobile Bay, Alabama, to Port  Everglades, Florida, plus
 Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and 5 (border of
 Mexico to Mobile Bay). Forty sites within these regions are
 surveying monthly and submitting  their data to CMC for
 analysis. Regions 2 (Cape Cod to Beaufort, North Carolina)
 and 3 (Morehead City, North Carolina, to Port Everglades)
 will be implemented by the spring of 1997.
              Valerie Jane Brennan
   Gunpowder Valley Conservancy, 25 Burke Ave., Towson,
    MD 21286, 410/296-9164,

       Monitoring Construction Sites

 What is sediment pollution?
 Pollution has degraded the water quality of many U.S. rivers,
 lakes, bays, and oceans. Pollution stems from many different
 sources, including one that is far from obvious. When soil
 enters a waterway in excessive quantities, the result is sedi-
 ment pollution.
     While all lands erode, only a few are significant sources
 of sediment pollution. For instance, erosion on forested land
 rarely exceeds one-half ton  per  acre per year. Generally,
 croplands and mining and construction sites erode to a de-
 gree that is sufficient to cause sediment, or "mud," pollution.
 While soil loss from farmland  is approximately 7 tons per
 acre per year, each acre on a construction site can release
 more than 100 tons of mud per year into downstream areas.
     Sediment can be just as deadly to aquatic life as cyanide
 or DDT. Sediment blocks sunlight for photosynthesis, clogs
 gills, and coats aquatic larvae. In the 1950s, construction of a
 bridge in Maryland resulted in the killing of over 100 million
 yellow perch fish eggs and larvae when several  storms
 washed mud into the river.
    The accumulation  of sediment may cause  fish barriers
 and sediment bars. It may close tributaries, fill in reservoirs,
 or necessitate costly dredging operations. When mud pol-
 lution fills in water supply reservoirs, it reduces the available
 capacity for water retention. In addition, the removal of sus-
 pended sediments accounts for much of the cost of treating
 drinking water.
     Sediment pollution robs boating and shipping channels
 of depth, necessitating expensive dredging at public expense.
 The  cost of a current dredging operation in the Baltimore
 Harbor is in the vicinity of $300 million.
    Sediment also binds with toxins like lead, zinc, fertiliz-
 ers, and pesticides and carries these pollutants into the water
 through runoff. Fish and other organisms may bioaccumulate
 toxins  carried from sediment, which may affect organisms
 along the food chain. The loss of revenue from a decline in
 aquatic resources can affect  the livelihood of millions  of
 individuals through lost business, license fees, taxes, and
 tourism. A study conducted by Maryland Save Our Streams
 in 1993 showed that for each dollar spent keeping sediment
 on construction sites taxpayers would save $83 in waterway
 maintenance and restoration expenses.

 How is sediment pollution controlled?
Local, state, and national laws have been enacted that require
builders to develop plans to keep sediment on construction
sites and out of our waters. Prior to disturbing the earth, the
builder must submit a sediment control plan for the approval
of local sediment control authorities or Soil Conservation
Districts (SCD). Before construction can  begin, that sediment

Concurrent Session 5: Innovative Observations
control plan must be reviewed and must conform to specific
standards and specifications to retain the maximum amount
of sediment on site.
    By  law, the  sediment control  plan will call  for two
approaches  to minimizing off-site soil loss. The first ap-
proach is perimeter control. This approach relies on the use
of various  devices  to slow the velocity of the runoff and
capture  the sediment (see box). Basins and traps are essen-
tially holding ponds for runoff, and rely on settling to control
soil loss. Straw bales and silt  fences filter the runoff as it
passes through, removing the sediment and holding it onsite.
    Perimeter control devices are located at  the downslope
perimeter of exposed soils. A system of ditches, dikes, or
swales will be used to divert runoff to these devices. The
devices  are designed to store the settled particles of sediment.
Perimeter control can  stop 30-70% of the eroded soils from
leaving  the  site. Their effectiveness will vary according to
many factors, including the erodibility of the soil, the degree
of slope on the site, and the condition of the  devices
    The second approach is known as temporary stabili-
zation. Temporary  stabilization measures are designed to
reduce the  susceptibility of soil to erosive forces. The best
type of sediment control is natural  ground cover—trees or
grass. The  next best is temporary seeding and straw mulch
applied so  that no bare exposed  soil shows through the
mulch. Total coverage is important because the mulch serves
to lessen the impact of rain as  it strikes the ground, to slow
down the rain as it  follows its  runoff route, and to hold the
soil from being  moved by runoff. Mulching can reduce
sediment pollution  by 95%. Work  areas where mulching is
not practical, such as roads  and  access points, must be
covered with crushed rock.
    Temporary stabilization is required on all exposed soils
not currently undergoing grading and is much more effective
than perimeter controls alone. The higher  level of  effec-
tiveness makes temporary stabilization the  most desirable
method of controlling sediment pollution.
    Once the plan  is approved, the builder can begin site
development. Maryland state law  requires  the  builder to
ensure that one of his or her employees is trained in sediment
control. This person must carry a  card certifying that they
have completed an erosion and sediment control training
program. It is this person's responsibility to  check  required
erosion and sediment control  measures at the end of each
working day and make sure that each measure is in proper
working order.
    Maintenance is the key to the effectiveness of both peri-
meter controls and temporary stabilization.  Both measures
require steady attention.  Silt  fences and straw bales may
wear out, basins and traps may need to be  emptied, and a
temporary  seeding may not take the first time. Sediment
control enforcement authorities must visit every  major
construction site on a regular basis. The  inspector may
represent a city, county, or state. The inspector walks the site
to determine whether the builder is in fact complying with
the sediment  control plan. The provisions of the  plan are
enforced through verbal or formal written orders to correct
any deficiencies. If the builder fails to make repairs within a
specified time, the inspector may issue a "Stop Work Order."
This order halts all work on  site  except  that necessary to
correct the violation,  which is a very costly penalty to buil-
ders. Legal action may subject the violator to a fine, im-
prisonment, or both.
  Sediment basin: resembles a pond and is normally
    fitted with a spillway constructed of corrugated metal
    pipe. Like all perimeter control measures, basins trap
    sediment by slowing down the velocity of the runoff
    to the pond. "Ponding" can only occur if the basin
    spillway is constructed watertight.
  Sediment trap: also resembles a pond, but is smaller
    than a basin and  usually served by a  spillway
    constructed of 2-to-8-inch stone.
  Straw bale dike: consists of a row  of straw bales
    tightly butted together,  set into a trench and firmly
    staked into the earth. A  straw bale dike cannot drain
    excessively long slopes. Straw bale  dikes are only
    effective for about 3 months. There must not be any
    point  along the dike where rainwater runoff could
    flow beneath the bales.
  Silt fence: consists of a fine mesh synthetic fabric
    (known as filter cloth) which is usually colored black
    and supported  by a wire fence. The bottom  of the
    cloth must be inserted  into the earth to a depth of
    about 8 inches. If there is any point  where the cloth is
    torn or deeply filled with mud, or where runoff could
    flow under,  over, or around, record  this violation.
  Storm drain system: can allow sediment-laden run-
    off to bypass perimeter control measures. The exis-
    tence of storm drains on a site will be revealed by the
    presence of inlets along the streets. If storm  drains
    are  present, determine  where the collected runoff
    discharges.  If the runoff is released into a basin or
    trap, the system can be disregarded. If, however, the
    storm drain system bypasses control measures, each
    inlet must  be  protected.  There are  three ways to
    protect the  inlets: (a) seal the inlet completely and
    divert runoff to a basin or trap, (b)  install a sediment
    trap at the  inlet, and (c) reduce sediment entry by
    layering filter cloth across the opening which is then
    covered by stone.
    Surveys by Maryland Save Our Streams have shown that
despite this rather comprehensive program, only 15-25% of
all active construction sites fully comply with sediment con-
trol standards. This means that thousands of tons of sediment
are allowed to enter waterways needlessly every year. Mary-
land Save Our Streams has assisted community groups in be-
coming actively  involved  in sediment  control practices.
Campaigns coordinated by volunteers across Maryland have
achieved correction of sediment control violations on thou-
sands of sites since the early 1970s. In 1992 the Gunpowder
Valley Conservancy held a two-day Construction Site Moni-
toring Workshop  during which  local residents received
hands-on training in the field by inspectors, Maryland Save
Our Streams staff, and cooperating builders. Those who at-
tended the second day's workshop were trained in the state's
sediment and erosion control program and were certified.
The participants were asked to complete a survey  of their
neighborhoods and evaluate construction sites within a three-
week period.
    The goal of the Gunpowder Valley Conservancy's Con-
struction Site Monitoring Workshop was to train a core of
volunteers who would work with builders to ensure that the

                                                                   Concurrent Session 5: Restoring Stream Habitats
site, was itv compliance -with sediment control standards. Re-
porting noncompliance to sediment control authorities was
discouraged since it has been our experience that builders
work with the volunteers to evaluate and correct the prob-
lems, without intervention from the authorities.

What can I do?
Whenever you pass a construction site, look the site over and
ask yourself, "Would rainwater runoff from all the exposed
soils drain to a pond, a row of straw bales, or a silt fence?"
To conduct a survey, stay on the public portion of the site.
You should be able to see all you need from adjacent public
areas. You may be  trespassing even if you  walk  on com-
pleted sidewalks, streets, and other public areas of the de-
velopment. You should never venture onto any portion of the
site where heavy equipment is operating.
    Usually, the names of the developer and builder are lo-
cated on a sign  advertising the development. It may be a
good idea to contact the builder or developer and ask them
for permission to tour the site, perhaps with one of their su-
pervisors. It  has been our experience that most builders and
developers have allowed us to view the site and that some
have come out to tour it with us!

What to look for
Construction site monitoring takes a little bit of knowledge
about regulations and structural devices and a lot of common
sense. Before you visit the site, you may want to call your
local sediment control  enforcement agency and ask for a
publication on regulations concerning construction sites and
talk to one of the inspectors. When you visit the site:
 1. Record the date, the location and name of the
    development, and names of persons you have contacted.
 2. Survey the entire construction site and note the
    percentage of the site that is not covered by temporary
    stabilization (e.g., grass, straw, mulch, crushed stone).
    Record this as the percentage of bare, exposed soil.
    These bare areas will be the main source of sediment
    pollution from the construction site. Again, all soils that
    are not treated with temporary stabilization must drain to
     a functioning perimeter control measure. To verify
     compliance with this requirement, proceed to step 3.
  3.  Walk the entire downslope perimeter of the site to
     determine if there is any point where runoff from
     exposed soils could exit the site prior to reaching a
     basin, trap, row of bales, or silt fence. If you find any
     point of escape, record the exact location and write a
     description of the problem. For example, you may write
     "Silt fence knocked down and mud is spilling over off
     site 50 yards east of the southwest corner of the
  4.  Check the condition of the sediment control devices and
     record any visual problems or questions you may have
     along with the name of the device and a description of
     the location.
  5.  If you note any portion of the site where exposed soils
     are not being frequently disturbed by foot or equipment
     traffic, request the builder or sediment control enforcer
     to require temporary stabilization of the area.

     If you contact the builder or sediment control enforce-
ment authorities, give a clear location of the site and a con-
cise description of the violation. Note the name of the  in-
dividual who took your report and record the date and time
the referral was made. Request that you be notified of the site

Saving our waterways
We  tend to rely on government to end our water quality
woes, but the job is too big for government alone.  A sedi-
ment control plan can only succeed if it is actively supported
by the public. Gathering information from construction sites
throughout an entire watershed will enable an organization to
organize a campaign to curb mud pollution. Construction site
monitoring may be performed by an individual,  but it is more
effective and fun when done with a group.

For more information about monitoring construction sites, you may
   contact Valerie Brennan at 410/296-9164, e-mail vbrennan®; or Maryland Save Our Streams at 410/969-0084.
                  Restoring  Stream  Habitats
Moderator:  Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of
Speakers: Dennis  O'Connor, restoration ecologist; Don
Rosebloom,* Illinois State Water Survey

               Dennis O'Connor
    P.O. Box 42447, Portland, OR 97242, 503/292-2087

       Enhancing Stream Habitats

To  achieve water quality benefits, enhancement projects
need to:
    •  reduce sediment transport to the river and its streams
       by stabilizing streambank soils
    •  reduce nutrient loadings by controlling excessive
*No paper submitted
    •  minimize temperature gains in tributary streams by
       shading the water
    •  reduce bacteria loads by providing a vegetated filter
       between human or farm activities and the stream

Enhancement projects may also provide additional benefits,
    •  flood management
    •  habitat protection
    •  passive recreation
    •  public safety
    •  education
    •  aesthetics

Concurrent Session 5: Interdisciplinary Studies and Monitoring
Following are the steps to take in developing a Stream En-
hancement Project:
    1. Obtain information (maps and data) on the watershed
      where the stream is located.
    2. Complete a landscape characterization and analysis.
      The five major components will be: historic timeline,
      soil study, hydrology/water quality, land use, and
      habitat characteristics.
    3. Determine preliminary site potential and characterize
      the site conditions based on the information you
      discovered in Step 2.
    4. Perform a site assessment in the field. You should be
      assessing the stream system's geomorphology/soils,
      hydrology/water quality, vegetation, land use, and
      wildlife habitat.
    5. Identify appropriate enhancement techniques. Look
      at the streamside problems and identify potential
      enhancement solutions.
Typical streamside problems may include:
    Bank: lacking vegetation, scoured, eroding, slumping.
    Channel: no shelter for fish/wildlife, artificially
      straightened, riprap present, debris in channel.
    Water quality: high water temperature, elevated
      phosphorus levels, elevated nitrogen levels, elevated
      bacteria counts, low dissolved oxygen levels, trash,
      chemical contamination.

Potential enhancement solutions may include:
    • Pole cuttings
    • Brush layering
    • Fascine bundles
    • Branch packing
    • Palmiter brush pile
    •  Tree revetments
    •  Hand-laid rock
    •  Live wood crib wall
    •  Gabions
    •  Snag and clearing
    •  Container planting

It is essential to match the appropriate enhancement tech-
niques with the identified problems. Base your decisions on
the overall findings from the site analysis.

Here are some general rules of thumb regarding enhance-
    1. Know your site, in all of its seasons.
    2. Never disturb a site more than is absolutely
    3. Ask for help from a qualified professional when you
      are in over your head.
    4. Prepare the site from the top down; plant the site
      from the bottom up.
    5. Submit permit applications, when needed, months
      prior to project installation.
    6. Do not underestimate the power of nature to take
      your project downstream.
    7. Recognize that those who live at your site (beaver,
      deer, birds, people) may change it to suit their needs.
    8. Maximize the opportunities and resolve constraints
      before you develop a plan.
    9. A failed monitoring effort typically leads to a failed
   10. Don't plant trees near the active bankfull flow
      channel. Keep them above the seasonal high-water
Interdisciplinary  Studies  and  Monitoring
Moderator: Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters
Panelists: Sandy Fisher, University of Florida LAKE-
WATCH; Dwight Shellman,* Caddo Lake Institute; Patty
Madigan, Adopt-A-Watershed

                  Sandy Fisher
Florida LAKEWATCH, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL
             32653, 352/392-9617 ext. 228

      Interdisciplinary Studies and
       Monitoring by the Students
              of Eagle Eye, Inc.

Eagle Eye, Incorporated (EEI) is a student-directed environ-
mental monitoring project in the ninth and tenth grades at
Walker Memorial Junior Academy in Avon  Park, Florida.
Each school year EEI will be the cooperative effort of the

*No paper submitted
Biology, Earth Science, and Computer Literacy classes. Two
teachers and approximately 40 students will be directly in-
volved in the project.

EEl's "corporate structure"
EEI is modeled after the modern corporation. The corporate
officers—president, vice-president, and secretary—are elec-
ted at the beginning of the school year. These officers orga-
nize and direct the monthly meetings. Division  and depart-
ment managers are also chosen to provide leadership and ex-
perience to the different departments. The officers and man-
agers of EEI are selected from the tenth-grade class,  which
has one year of experience working in EEI.
    There are four divisions of EEI: Data Retrieval, Data
Control, Lake Restoration, and Public Relations. Each divi-
sion includes several departments, which have  specific job
descriptions. All departmental activities are conducted by
students.  Following are the job descriptions of each depart-

                                                       Concurrent Session 5: Interdisciplinary Studies and Monitoring
     The Data  Retrieval Division has three departments:
 Florida LAKEWATCH, Chemical Tests, and Benthic Macro-
 invertebrates.  The  LAKE WATCH Department collects
 monthly water samples from a nearby lake. These are ana-
 lyzed for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a
 content. This department also measures water clarity and
 depth and conducts a site survey. These procedures are
 conducted under the direction of the Florida LAKEWATCH
 Program at the University of Florida.
     The Chemical Test Department collects monthly water
 samples and evaluates the samples for dissolved oxygen, 5-
 day biochemical oxygen  demand, pH,  temperature,  fecal
 coliform, total solids, total nitrates, phosphates, and turbidity.
 Using a statistical analysis method, this department provides
 EEI with a monthly water quality index.
     The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Department collects
 monthly bottom samples to determine the kinds of inverte-
 brates on the bottom of the lake. Using statistical analysis
 methods, they  provide EEI with several indices of water
 quality—pollution tolerance, sequential comparison, taxa
 richness, and diversity.
     The Lake  Restoration Division has two departments:
 Lake Management and Environmental History: The Lake
 Management Department researches problems that may exist
 on a lake, primarily using the data from the Data Retrieval
 Division. Once a problem has been identified, solutions are
 designed and carried out. For example, a problem of storm-
 water runoff has been identified, so a storm drain stenciling
 project is now under way.
     The Environmental History Department compiles  a
 historical account of the area's geological, social, and eco-
 nomic development. A unique aspect of this historical record
 is a series of videotaped interviews of local people recount-
 ing their memories of the area.
     The Data Control Division oversees the input of data
 into the appropriate spreadsheets and databases. This depart-
 ment supplies EEI with charts and tables for both monthly
 and year-end reports. They also ensure quality storage of all
 data collected.
    The Public Relations  Division has two  departments:
 Promotions  and Networking. The Promotions Department
 manages several large projects, such as a monthly newsletter,
 press releases, development of multimedia presentations, and
 grant writing. The Networking Department coordinates all
 communications between EEI and its constituency, using
 various  forms of communication including the World Wide
 Web, email,  and the postal service.

 Creating an Environmental Monitoring Network
 A new component of EEI is to create a network of schools
 and assist  them in the development  of  water quality
 monitoring projects of their own. The instructions for setting
 up a water quality monitoring project will be prepared by the
 Promotions  Department of the Public Relations Division.
 They will design a series of videotapes that will demonstrate
 a multi-level system, from a simple form of monitoring to a
 more sophisticated  model. This multi-level system of
monitoring will allow  participation by schools that have
limited resources, and by most grade levels.
    The network of schools will be organized and main-
tained by the Networking Department of the Public Relations
Division. This will be done using several methods. Students
of EEI will create a home page on the Web. The schools will
be able to interact with the EEI home page, uploading and
downloading data from the network of schools participating
 in the project. Other schools not able to access the Web can
 either phone or mail in their data. EEI will organize the data
 and return to the schools appropriate charts and reports of the
 data from all the schools in the network.
     Several multimedia presentations have been developed
 to publicize this plan. The  presentations include photo-
 graphic slides, PowerPoint slides, video overhead projec-
 tions, handouts, and a brochure.  EEI students have made
 presentations at teacher in-service meetings, a countywide
 civic association meeting, and a statewide technology con-

 Potential impact of EEI
 EEI has several educational, social, and environmental goals.
 The achievement of these goals will  have a significant im-
 pact on the schools involved as well as the communities they
     Educational goals.  Writing,  computing,  research,
 communicating, and science laboratory skills, all taught in
 traditional classes, will be reinforced in EEI through relevant
 learning experiences. The students will experience the value
 of doing science in their environment and learn that knowl-
 edge acquired and applied will make  a difference. Through
 working together in cohesive units and achieving common
 goals, the students will gain insight into the importance of
 contributing  their  individual talents. Multimedia presen-
 tations by EEI students will provide a powerful educational
     Social goals. The student body of Walker Memorial
 Junior Academy consists of a mixture of Caucasian (42%),
 Asian (25.9%), Hispanic (26.4%), and Black (5.7%). The
 activities of these EEI students within their communities will
 set a positive image for young people of all ethnic groups.
     EEI students will serve as mentors for students in partic-
 ipating schools,  assisting in the development  of their own
 environmental monitoring projects. It is the goal of the En-
 vironmental Monitoring Network to involve at-least 10
     Environmental goals.  On the  Lake Wales Ridge in
 Polk and Highlands Counties in Florida, 80 miles from either
 coast, isolated remnants of ancient shoreline dunes remain as
 a legacy from an age when the sea very  nearly prevailed.
 These ancient scrubs of Central Florida are the only habitat
 on Earth for more than 30 species of plants and animals. This
 is  the ecosystem in which EEI operates. Working with local
 environmental civic groups, schools, and government agen-
 cies, EEI strives to increase community awareness and stew-
 ardship of our fragile environment.

 NOTE: The above report was written by the students of Eagle Eye
 Incorporated and presented by Sandy Fisher of Florida LAKE-
                 Patty Madigan
AmeriCorps Watershed Project, P.O. Box 1697, Mendocino,
        CA 95460, 707/964-0395,

   Engage Yourself in the Elements:

The  AmeriCorps Watershed Project  is  an environmental
service-learning partnership between the California Conser-
vation Corps and Adopt-A-Watershed. Service-learning is a
method of learning through active  participation in thought-

Concurrent Session 5: Communicating Data Through the Digital Highways and Byways
fully organized service that is conducted in a community
while meeting the needs and utilizing the assets of that
community. The Watershed Project uses a service-learning
strategy that combines integrated hands-on science curricula
with an innovative implementation model based on school/
community collaboration. Students adopt a local watershed
and use it as the focal point for their science curriculum, do-
ing at least three service-learning projects a year. Adult
volunteers from a broad range of organizations  in the
community  work closely with the students, lending  their
expertise in the planning and implementation of the service-
learning projects. Secondary students serve as mentors to
younger students, and together with a core group of school
and community  leaders, provide the foundation for sus-
tainable local programs.
    The Watershed Project is designed to bring the resources
and expertise of communities into the classroom, and out to
the local watershed. Teachers need support in identifying,
planning, and implementing service-learning  projects.
AmeriCorps service-learning coordinators oversee the inter-
face between schools and the  community and develop
science education curricula into a total watershed education
model. AmeriCorps Service Crew members act as mentors
on field trips and help with restoration projects. The Water-
shed Project, based in California, is a collaborative model for
national service and high quality environmental service-
learning.  The Adopt-A-Watershed curriculum is currently
being piloted in five states besides California.

Service-learning strategy
The service-learning strategy, based on the Adopt-A-Water-
shed curriculum, has five elements:
 1. The science curriculum is applied to the local
 2. Students and community volunteers engage in long-term
   field studies.
 3. Students and community identify and perform needed
   restoration projects.
 4. Students inform the public about their watershed
   service-learning activities.
 5. Participants engage in reflection about their watershed

   The Watershed Project further recommends that com-
munity/school partnerships build these components into their
 1. Develop a full K-12 program that teaches science across
   the curriculum.
 2. Include a training element for cross-age tutoring and
   mentoring activities.
 3. Build strong connections between resource professionals
   and teachers.
 4. Model an ethic of service and a spirit of stewardship in
   all activities.

   In 1997 the Watershed Project will serve 20,000 students
in over 700 classrooms in more than 250 schools within 12
regions  of California. It will involve an average of 50
partners in each region. We are presently working with the
Presidio Center for the Environment to develop some criteria
and best practices for environmental service-learning. Our
goal  is to build linkages to strengthen the environmental
education community through service-learning partnerships.
The service-learning strategy, developed by Adopt-A-Water-
shed and implemented through the Watershed Project, is a
model for community organizations and projects to examine
if they are exploring or developing a comprehensive water-
shed education program.
         Communicating  Data  Through  the
              Digital  Highways  and  Byways
Moderator: Ken Cooke, Kentucky Water Watch
Panelists: Vera  Lubczenko  and  Michael  Cassidy,
Waterwatch Australia;  Brian Embley, Stony Brook-
Millstone Watershed Association

     Vera Lubczenko & Michael Cassidy
     Watenvatch Victoria, 6/232 Victoria Parade, East
       Melbourne, VIC 3002, phone 61-3-94124663,
               vlubczenko ©peg. ape. org

              Data Down Under:
 Data Management, CIS, Internet, and
    CD-ROM in Waterwatch Australia

As a national community water quality monitoring program,
Watenvatch Australia has developed a variety of tools for
data management, interpretation, and communication. These
include an offline data entry program, a database, a variety of
Internet sites, the use of GIS, and new titles using interactive

Overview of the Waterwatch Australia program
Waterwatch is a national water quality monitoring program
with more than 50,000 people involved across Australia in
every state and territory. The Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, which coordinates the Waterwatch Australia pro-
gram, is based in the national capital, Canberra. Each state/
territory has a  statewide facilitator, and these people,  to-
gether with the  national facilitator, make up the Waterwatch
Australia Steering  Committee.  A statewide Waterwatch
facilitator will support between five  and twenty local
catchment coordinators, depending on the size of the state
and the maturity of the program.  (Note: "Catchment" is  the
Australian term for "watershed.") Local catchment coordina-
tors are employed by a Waterwatch group or local govern-
ment authority, such as a water authority, and support up to
30 or more schools, Landcare, or cpmrnunity groups working
on the ground.              /
    While this structure may appear hierarchical and bureau-
cratic, it has provided a vitaJ'forum for strategic planning and
sharing information  and id(:as, and has catalyzed the devel-

                                  Concurrent Session 5: Communicating Data Through the Digital Highways and Byways
 opment of common tools, materials, and protocols. In this
 national approach, each state is an equal partner and deci-
 sions are made by consensus.

 Data flow
 The goals of regional or catchment-based Waterwatch groups
 generally encompass both awareness raising and monitoring
 of water quality. Monitoring ranges from simple testing to
 providing high quality data to agencies or sponsoring indus-
 tries for the purpose of managing waterways. Primarily, data
 that is generated locally is stored and used locally. However,
 the capacity to share data between groups, regions, and states
 is currently being put in place.

 The tools
 All the data management tools used in Waterwatch have
 been developed with the recognition that most important of
 all is local  data  usage and ownership. This emphasis on
 delivering local usability  as well as a capacity to compare
 information at a variety of scales has been imperative in
 building a variety of products. At the national steering com-
 mittee level, we spent a considerable amount of time in the
 design phase,  which included much lively discussion before
 reaching consensus on the choice of parameters and units for
 these products. The result  is a system which provides  useful
 outcomes for both a local Waterwatcher and a statewide
 program. Use of unique catchment coding information has
 been built into the products. For example, in the Waterwatch
 database a nationally agreed-upon site-coding system ensures
 that data sets can ultimately be merged to provide a regional,
 state, or national overview.

 Offline data  entry (ODE)
 Waterwatch Australia has developed an offline data entry
 (ODE) program which is based on these nationally agreed-
 upon parameters and units. It has been developed in both PC-
 based and Macintosh versions and is primarily seen as a tool
 which can be  used by individuals and groups to enter their
 own data onto a disk. Because the ODE is very simple in its
 design, and very intuitive, it does not require extensive train-
 ing. The ODE has a number of built-in error checks and
 produces a comma-delimited file which can be uploaded to
 either a database, a spreadsheet, or, more recently, a database
 on the Internet. (Waterwatch Victoria is also testing  direct
 submittal of information to the Internet using the ODE.) The
 rationale for allowing Waterwatchers to enter their own data
 is to automate  the process and alleviate the need for the local
 coordinators to do all the data entry, thus freeing their time
 for data checking. Waterwatchers can send their data to a
 local coordinator on disk, email the information, or, as a last
 resort, submit paper copies of their data.

 Access database
 The Waterwatch database,  which is now being tested,  is de-
 signed as  a tool for local  groups to convert data to infor-
 mation  to meet local goals. It uses a run-time version of
 Microsoft Access (a relational database). Training of Water-
 watch coordinators in the use of the database takes  about
 three hours. Training assumes only a low level of familiarity
 with computers and  takes  trainees to the stage -where they
can enter their own data,  manipulate  data, and produce a
variety of reports, tables, and graphs. The use of unique site
codes within each state/territory ensures that local databases
can be merged. Waterwatch Victoria  is currently investi-
gating use of an Access database on its Internet site.
 Data from the  Waterwatch (Access)  database can  be
 exported to a GIS environment to produce a variety of maps,
 thereby enriching the value of monitoring work being done
 by Waterwatch groups. GIS in the Waterwatch program is
 being used for "State of the Environment" reporting, for
 location of monitoring sites, in "marrying" scientifically col-
 lected data with community-collected data, and to incor-
 porate other natural resource information to provide a total
 catchment overview.

 Many of the state/territory Waterwatch  programs have
 developed or are in the process  of developing their own
 Internet sites. With Waterwatch Australia providing a parent
 Internet site to link all state/territory sites, a very useful
 communication tool is now in place for use by all Australian
 Waterwatchers. Waterwatch Victoria's Internet site uses ani-
 mation  and attractive design  and provides an innovative
 forum area that allows anyone to post messages and reply in
 a very easy way. A series of projects has also been set up in
 this forum area to encourage  greater use of telecommu-
 nications, particularly in schools. Development and use of a
 variety of templates on the Internet site ensures that the site
 can be regularly updated by Waterwatch  coordinators
 without the need to know any HTML (the language of Inter-
 net programming). The URLs (addresses) for our Internet
 sites are as follows:
 •  Waterwatch Australia:
 •  Waterwatch Victoria:
 •  Waterwatch South Australia: 1 www.htm
 •  Waterwatch New South Wales (called Streamwatch in
    this state):

 The New South  Wales Department  of Land and Water
 Conservation, in collaboration with Woolongong University,
 has recently produced an interactive CD-ROM entitled
 "Exploring the Nardoo." This innovative CD uses an imagi-
 nary inland river environment to allow the user to explore the
 ecology of four physical regions across four time zones. It
 uses a comprehensive and captivating set of multimedia
resources. You can also use simulators, make measurements
in the river, read newspaper articles, listen to audio reports,
view video reports, and browse the information in the filing
cabinet. This type of approach provides a very useful model
for investigating catchment issues  without being site-speci-
fic. Although not commissioned by the Waterwatch program,
it is being promoted as another useful resource to supplement
our programs. A variety of other interactive CD-ROMs are
planned within the Waterwatch Australia program.
    Although we are 'aware that none of the data manage-
ment products we've developed is perfect, we believe a fun-
damental principle has been the ability to share and develop
these tools using a national approach.  The result is that we
can deliver data at a variety of scales: local, regional, and

Concurrent Session 5: Communicating Data Through the Digital Highways and Byways
                Brian R. Embley
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, 31 Titus Mill
       Road, Pennington, NJ 08534, 609/737-3735

   Displaying Your Data and Beyond

Over the past few years, volunteer monitoring programs have
been inundated with technological buzzwords like the. Inter-
net, World Wide Web, CD-ROM, email, RDBMS, and so on.
Each  new tool is  touted as  the latest revolution in data
management and  a  necessity  for any  organization  that
crunches large datasets and seeks to provide its data to the
general public. All these acronyms and technological overkill
have many volunteer monitoring program managers feeling
dizzy. This presentation is to designed to demonstrate how a
small environmental nonprofit organization  need not be
intimidated by  technology  but  can use one of the hottest
buzzwords around—"GIS," or geographic information sys-
tem—to enhance a monitoring program.
    By now you have heard how wonderful geographic
information  systems  are—but what can a GIS do for your
volunteer monitoring program? The heart of a GIS is its
unique ability to integrate  tabular data, like your water
quality database, with spatial data, like the features on  a map.
A multi-talented system, 'GIS can be used to  create pretty
maps with your existing water quality data and also to study
the relationship between your  water  quality  findings and
surrounding geographic features  such as land use or proposed
development schemes. A resulting series of colorful maps
can show decision makers and the public how these complex
relationships  work. Sound  intimidating?  Well,  our
environmental nonprofit organization with its own volunteer
water quality monitoring program is doing just that. If we can
do it, so can you.
    The  Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
(SBMWA) is a private, nonprofit environmental organization
in central New Jersey. Since its  birth back in 1949, the Wa-
tershed Association has been supported largely  by individual
membership dues in our efforts to enhance the quality of the
natural environment in the 285-square-mile area drained by
Stony Brook and the Millstone River. To that  end, a volun-
teer water quality monitoring program, StreamWatch, was
started in 1992 and has now grown to include 180 volunteers
conducting chemical and physical water sampling, perform-
ing visual assessments of waterways and their riparian zones,
and, most recently, sampling macroinvertebrate populations.
The continued success of  the  StreamWatch  Program has
resulted in reams  of data  being spit out by  the database
computer and assembled twice annually into The Stream-
Watch Report. This report, which is distributed to regulators
and made available to the general public, contains valuable
water quality information, yet in the past has been too tech-
nical for nonscientists to comprehend.
    Recently, the SBMWA began to utilize the power of its
existing desktop geographic information system to integrate
the raw water quality data into colorful, simple, and easy-to-
understand maps. The GIS, which was originally intended
for studies of land use and land cover in the region, is a
natural tool for putting the data into a friendly  format and
also promises to be invaluable in applying the  data to future
studies of land use vs. water quality. Assembling and operat-
ing such a system is not as difficult as you might think, as
long as the following points are kept in mind.
    Every geographic information system is comprised of
four essential elements: software, data, a person to operate
the system, and hardware. Each is as important as the others,
and if one is neglected the effectiveness of the system will be
greatly compromised.
    GIS software has come to the desktop computer in the
past couple of years and is easy enough for almost anyone to
use. The package used by the SBMWA is called Arc View
2.1 by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI),
Inc., which costs under $1,000 and runs in Windows or on a
Macintosh. Arc View 2.1 uses existing spatial data in a digital
format to be stored, analyzed, and displayed. The SBMWA
acquired its  copy for free,  through a joint  grant program
between  ESRI and the NJ  Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). Recipients of the free software entered
into a data-sharing agreement with NJDEP in which digital
GIS data would be provided to the organization, at minimal
or no cost, from the NJDEP's existing databanks. In turn, any
original data  developed by  the organization would also be
shared with the NJDEP.
    Development of high quality GIS  data is often the most
lengthy and expensive component of building a GIS. Many
data layers—such as roads, streams, lakes, political  and
watershed boundaries, and land use—provide the backdrop
for your water quality data and are essential for analyses.
    The third component is a trained person to manage and
operate the system. Training is essential for this person and
can be found in  classes taught by ESRI or at colleges and
universities. Management must allow the appointed operator
time and resources to develop the system. A GIS  is never
"completed"  but instead evolves over time and becomes
more powerful with the accumulation of expertise.
    Finally, you  need a computer to run the entire system on.
Few volunteer monitoring programs have the necessary high-
end desktop machines to sufficiently power a GIS. For a few
thousand dollars, such a machine can be purchased and a
little creativity usually can find  a funding  source for this
equipment. Such is  the case with the SBMWA, which re-
ceived funds  through a partnership with a local educational
    Once the software, hardware, GIS data layers, and train-
ing are assembled, you can start to work. First, you will want
to use your GIS data to produce a base map on which most of
your future work will begin.
    Now that you have your GIS data organized you can
begin to integrate your water quality monitoring data that
your volunteers  have diligently been collecting. Assuming
your water quality data is already in a  computer database, all
you need is to identify the correct geographic feature to link
to your data. In the SBMWA's case, and most likely yours as
well, sampling sites are that  logical feature. A simple process
of on-screen digitizing can be used in Arc View 2.1 to make a
data layer of your sites; a more accurate method is to
pinpoint the sites in the field with a global  positioning
system (GPS) receiver. SBMWA has  completed the former,
and will  begin  the  latter  upon arrival of our new GPS
receiver. Some universities, colleges, or agencies are willing
to provide GPS training and the use of a receiver. With your
sites now a layer in your GIS database, it is a couple of sim-
ple points and clicks of your mouse in Arc View to link the
sites and your water quality data together.
    At this  point you are  ready to use your data!  At the
SBMWA we first performed some calculations on our water
quality data  to allow us to divide our sampling sites into

                                 Concurrent Session 5: Communicating Data Through the Digital Highways and Byways
categories based on overall water quality. The GIS allows the
categories to be easily changed if need be and produces
colorful, understand-at-a-glance maps. The Watershed Asso-
ciation is now using its GIS to perform stream corridor
studies and is looking to future  land use/water quality
    An important point to remember when implementing
your own GIS: Just because you are new to the world of GIS
does not mean that you are alone. Many agencies  and
universities (remember where you got your GIS data layers
from!) have GIS professionals who are more than willing to
answer your questions. In New Jersey, so many environ-
mental nonprofits are using GIS that we formed our own
user's group to support one another. Cultivate partnerships
with others, whether it is for equipment, expertise, or both.
As your own system evolves and you become more and more
competent, you may find others looking to you for guidance
in putting GIS to work for them. In the beginning it is natural
to feel intimidated or overwhelmed, but after a software
training class and some time to play with your system, you
will be making maps  before you know it. Remember, if we
did it, so can you.
                                                                               — End of Concurrent Session 5 —

Concurrent Session 6: Innovative Data Presentation and Reporting Techniques
         Innovative  Data  Presentation  and
                        Reporting  Techniques
Workshop Leaders: Jerry Schoen, Massachusetts Water
Watch Partnership; Robert Craycraft, University of New
Hampshire Cooperative Extension

                 Jerry Schoen
 Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership, Blaisdell House,
 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, 413/545-

               Robert Craycraft
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program, University
 of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Pettee Hall, 55
     College Rd., Durham, NH 03824, 603/862-3848

Part I (presented by Jerry Schoen)
The objective of this session is  to present and describe
several examples of innovative data presentation methods
and to  provide an opportunity for session participants to
discuss their experiences with other imaginative means of
reporting  data. (Note: For additional useful information on
outreach concepts and strategies, the reader is referred to
Session 2, "Getting in Step: A Pathway to Effective Outreach
in Your Watershed," and Session 4, "Dealing with Your
Data, Part 2.")
Objectives of data presentation
We suggest that  groups developing data presentation
campaigns consider five objectives of data presentation:
 1. Educate your audience about watershed ecology.
 2. Inform your audience of existing conditions.
 3. Suggest or point out causes of conditions and sources of
 4. Suggest solutions to problems that cause conditions.
 5. Motivate people to participate in developing and
    implementing solutions.

    For each audience you target,  for each presentation you
make or report you produce, you will try to accomplish one
or more of these objectives. Which you shoot for depends on
the level  of expertise of your audience, their interests and
viewpoints, your own program goals, and a number of other
factors. For instance, unless your audience possesses some
understanding of watershed ecology, it may prove difficult to
get them  to care about nutrients in your lake, maintaining
riparian trees, etc. In this case, you might want to accompany
your graphs of nutrient levels with schematics of the hydro-
logic cycle, photos of farm runoff, and so forth.
    Note that this list of objectives demonstrates something
of a trend—from communication that is primarily intellectual
or informative to communication that is more emotional or
visceral. Motivational presentations often aim for a gut-level
response. By including a bit of positive or negative rein-
forcement in your presentations, you may strike a chord that
a more scholarly approach does not sound.
    Before you pitch your data to an audience, consider what
they know and  what is likely to motivate them. Then make
your pitch in a way that accomplishes the appropriate educa-

tion or advocacy objectives. The sidebar on page 77, "Data
Presentations That Meet the Five Objectives," provides sev-
eral examples of presentations that target each objective.

What constitutes "innovative" data presentation?
We've set the bar pretty low in our definition of "innovation"
in data presentation, primarily because our experience and
research has shown that too many groups do little or nothing
with the data they collect. Many are content with a written
report that serves for all their intended audiences. With this
in mind, we view innovation as any method or approach that
you don't normally use, or any method that recognizes the
five objectives mentioned above and designs the presentation
to meet the appropriate objectives. Innovation can also be:
 •  Portraying unusual parameters or an interesting mix of
    parameters. Example: The Charles River Watershed
    Association uses a bar graph that portrays groundwater
    withdrawals in the basin on top of monthly streamflow
    averages for the river. The graph clearly shows that in
    summer months, as much as 50% of the potential
    streamflow for the river is being withdrawn. In
    presenting this graph, the Association manages to inform
    people and motivate them at the same time.
 •  Using unusual media or an interesting mix of media.
    Examples include (1) a T-shirt that shows how sensitive
    surface waters in each town in Massachusetts are to
    impacts from acid rain; (2) displaying aquatic plants
    submersed in plastic bottles alongside maps that show
    macrophyte coverage of your lake; (3) using photos of
    eroded banks alongside turbidity or macroinvertebrate
 •  Accompanying your data with accessories, like the
    aquatic plant and photo examples above, or actual
    specimens of embedded stream rocks, aquatic insects in
    an aquarium, etc.
 •  Presenting or discussing your results at different
    venues—for example, displaying exhibits at
    environmental fairs, placing Secchi data charts at boat
    launching ramps or bait stores, or holding community
    clean water forums.

Part II (presented by Robert Craycraft)
Water quality data are all too often portrayed as a series of
parameters that illustrate a water body's condition, such as
its trophic status. However, one might ask, "What does this
mean?"—a question that arises particularly when working
with a lay audience. If one is to generate interest in the vol-
unteer monitoring effort and sustain the endeavor, a  link
must be made between the collected data and the resource at
    In the case of Squam Lake, New Hampshire, an in-lake
habitat assessment was performed to identify critical wildlife
habitats that warranted protection. These included common
loon nesting sites, smelt streams, salmon habitat, and other
important habitats. By seeing photos of the creatures and
their habitat as well as water quality data, the public gets a
better sense of the connection between in-lake resources and

                                           Concurrent Session 6: Innovative Data Presentation and Reporting Techniques
               THE FIVE OBJECTIVES

 Objective 1: Educate your audience about
 watershed ecology.
 •  Graph of dissolved oxygen values superimposed on range of
   DO tolerances for cold- and warmwater fish species, as found
   in the scientific literature.
 •  Graph showing complementary relationship between water
   clarity and trophic status.
 •  Pie charts of macroinvertebrate samples, presented with
   schematics and maps to show how communities shift from
   shredders to collectors as stream order increases.

 Objective 2: Inform audience of existing
 conditions in water body.
 •  Annual report comparing monthly nutrient levels at three sites
   on your lake.
 •  Newsletter that lists levels of 8 different parameters from your
   most recent sampling.

 Objective 3: Point out causes of conditions
 and sources of degradation.
 •  Pictures of cows in a stream, portrayed next to graphs of DO
   or bacteria data.
 •  Map showing land use categories in areas upstream of your
   sample sites.
 •  Graph showing coliform and/or turbidity levels, superimposed
   with rainfall data.
 •  Photos, maps,  and data charts comparing pollution levels at
   two sites that bracket a factory.
 •  Map and chart showing elevated stream temperatures in
   reaches that lack riparian vegetation.
 •  Turbidity data that include site and date, linking a construction
   activity, rainfall, and muddy water.

 Objective 4: Suggest solutions to problems.
   Data that show effects of BMPs ("best management
   practices"), such as fencing cows away from streams or
   upgrading septic systems. Depending on the BMP, these can
   be "before and after" or "above and below" comparisons.

Objective 5: Motivate people to participate in
developing and implementing solutions.
  Photos of dead fish in a stream, presented alongside your DO
  and temperature data.
  Photos or videos of people recreating in a restored waterway
  ("This could be us!").
  Historical trend data, showing big improvements in the last
  decade ("We're almost there!").
  Oral presentations by school children, describing both their
  sampling results and their disgust with the conditions they find.
  An acid rain display that cites figures indicating more
  Americans die of pollution-caused respiratory diseases each
  year than were killed during the entire Vietnam war.
the potential demise of these habitats through water quality
    Temperature and dissolved oxygen data are commonly
collected among volunteer monitoring  programs and can
dictate what types of fish species will survive in the water
body. These parameters can be presented in a manner that
emphasizes their influence on  a water body's fishery. You
can use cartoons and catchy visuals to make the link in a
simple, humorous fashion.
    The Vermont Department of Environmental Protection's
volunteer monitoring program built sturdy wooden signs
illustrating  weekly changes in water clarity (Secchi disk
depth). Screw-in pegs recorded the weekly changes, and the
signs were displayed in public areas such as boat launches
and store windows—places where resource users are likely
to congregate.  Volunteer monitors in the New Hampshire
Lakes Lay  Monitoring Program  have posted weekly
temperature profiles at local marinas  and bait shops. Visiting
anglers use the data to  help find the fish, and at the same
time they learn  about the activities of volunteer monitors.
    Here are a  few additional examples from various volun-
teer monitoring groups:
 •  An exhibit  that displays aquatic plants submerged in
    alcohol in clear plastic jars. Features: Uses actual
    specimens; eye-catching. Good for lake association
    meetings and festivals.
 •  The "Bugquarium": a four-compartment aquarium used
    to display live macroinvertebrate specimens. Features:
    Eye-catching; interactive; good for use at festivals and
    other public and school events. By arranging the bugs in
    different compartments, it can be used to teach several
    concepts: general watershed ecology, the river
    continuum  concept, habitat and water quality
    requirements of bugs, taxonomic  differences, etc. Works
    well in conjunction with data graphs.
 •  Acid rain poster developed by the Sierra Club. Features:
    Good mix of photos, graphs, and  text to meet several
    data presentation objectives (educate, inform, and
    motivate audiences); illustrates importance of marketing
    the exhibit once it's produced (the Sierra Club hired an
    intern to book the exhibit at museums, fairs, and other
    events throughout the Northeast). When posters are
    created in "modular" fashion (by  using Velcro to attach
    text, photos and charts to a backboard), it's easy to
    rearrange them for later use in different settings and as
    new data are obtained.

Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
            Monitoring  Macroinvertebrates
Moderator: Geoff Dates, River Watch Network
Presenters: Geoff Dates; Connie Fortin, Hennepin County
Conservation District; Denise Stoeckel, Illinois Natural
History Survey

 River Watch Network, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602,

      An Introduction to Monitoring
      Macroinvertebrates in Rivers

What are they?
Benthic macroinvertebrates are aquatic  animals without
backbones that spend at least a part of their life cycle on the
river  bottom. Examples include aquatic insects—such as
mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, midges, and beetles—as
well as crayfish, worms, clams, and snails. Most hatch from
eggs,  and mature from larvae to adults. Most of the insects
spend their larval phase on the river bottom and, after a few
weeks to several years, emerge as winged adults. The aquatic
beetles, true bugs, and other groups remain in the water as
adults. Macroinvertebrates we collect from the river bottom
arc either aquatic larvae or adults.
Where are they found?
They  inhabit all types of running water habitats from rushing
mountain streams with rocky bottoms to sluggish, mean-
dering rivers with sand and mud bottoms. They are found in
three main habitat types:

Riffles: Shallow (<2 feet), fast-moving (0.5-2.0 feet/second)
    reaches with cobble bottoms.
Runs: Deeper (>2 feet), slower-moving reaches with sandy
    and gravelly bottoms.
Pools: Deep, slow-moving reaches with muddy bottoms.

    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. A variety of food is also found in
riffles: leaves and other large organic particles on the bottom,
smaller decomposed bits of food or live microorganisms
carried in the water column, and algal communities growing
on the cobbles.
Why are they used to monitor rivers?
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities are used to assess
the river's ecological integrity—that is, to answer the ques-
tion, Is the river ecosystem healthy and functioning properly?
They are good indicators primarily because they are an inte-
gral part of the river ecosystem and reflect its  physical,
chemical, and biological conditions and processes.
    For example, benthic macroinvertebrates are essential to
the river's food web. They process food in four main ways
and, based  on their  feeding  strategy,  can be separated into
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 from the stream
    bottom (gathering collectors).
Scrapers/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.

    Knowing which feeding groups are present tells us
something about the nature of the food source in the stream.
Food might be produced naturally in the stream (via photo-
synthesis) or out of the stream' (dropping from riparian vege-
tation). It may also be affected by human activities that add
organic matter to the stream (e.g., sewage) or remove it (e.g.,
by removing streamside vegetation).
    Other reasons that benthic macroinvertebrate commu-
nities are good indicators include:
 •  They can't escape pollution, so they integrate the effects
    of short-term pollution events and long-term water
 •  They can tell us things about the river that other
    monitoring can't.
 •  They are relatively easy to sample.

What do benthic communities tell us about the
The macroinvertebrate  community can be used to evaluate
the biological responses to pollution as well as physical
habitat changes. This response can be used to compare con-
ditions upstream to downstream, above and below pollution
sources, from season to  season, and from year to year.
    The response of the benthic  macroinvertebrate com-
munity to human impacts is measured in a number of ways.
For each of these measures, data summaries known as
metrics are calculated. Each tells us something different
about the condition of the river:
Abundance: the number of organisms present. Nutrient-
    and food-enriched streams will usually have a greater
    abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates. Both toxicity
    and physical habitat degradation (silt or sand erosion)
    will usually decrease the abundance.
Richness: the number of different  types (taxa) of organ-
    isms present. This is a rough measure of the diversity of
    the macroinvertebrate community. Usually the greater
    the number of taxa, the healthier the stream. However,
    some pristine headwater streams may be naturally low in
    richness, due to a relative lack of habitat diversity and
    food (quantity and different types), and a generally
    lower abundance of organisms.  In these areas,  an in-
    crease 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 cad-
    disflies should be  well represented. As a group, stone-
    flies are the most sensitive to pollution from sewage and
    other organic material. They usually make up a rela-
    tively small percentage of the sample (5-10%) and are

                                                                  Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
    Finally, since the community changes naturally from
source to mouth, you must take these natural changes into
account when you survey the macroinvertebrate community
in a river. Otherwise, you may attribute upstream-to-down-
stream changes to human  impacts, rather than the natural
 How benthic macroinvertebrates are monitored
 Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring involves a number of
  1. Collecting samples
  2. Processing the samples
  3. Identifying the critters: to what taxonomic level
  4. Summarizing and analyzing the data

 Each of the steps is briefly discussed below.

 I. Collecting samples:
 A. Where to collect. Benthic macroinvertebrates are found in
 riffles, runs, pools, leaf packs, and woody debris habitats. So
 the first  question is:  Which  habitats should you sample?
 Considerations include:
     •   Which habitats are present?
     •   Which habitats tell you what you want to know?
     •   Will you sample a single habitat or multiple habitats?
     •   What are your sampling capabilities?

     The focus of most benthic macroinvertebrate collection
 is riffle habitats. These are defined as follows:
     •   Well-scoured predominantly rubble/cobble (2-10"
     •   Current velocity of 0.5 - 2.5 feet per second
     •   Depth of 0.5-2.0 feet

     Once you've selected the types of habitats you will mo-
 nitor, you then need to find reaches that have these habitats
 and locate sites that will answer your question. In general,
 there  are two main types of benthic macroinvertebrate
 studies. Each has its own set of site selection criteria.
     The river biological characterization study- is intended
 to establish the presence and range of the macroinvertebrate
 communities in an entire watershed area in order to evaluate
 the changes in these  communities within a river system. The
 results are compared  with  a  reference site  that  has been
 selected to represent  the best  attainable conditions  in a
 region. The following types of sites should be considered to
 characterize a watershed:
     •  Different sizes or drainage areas
     •  Different altitudes
     •  Different habitat types
     •  Differing predominant land use (urban, agricultural,
     •  Receiving point source discharges
     •  Receiving nonpoint pollution
     •  Reference sites representing the best attainable
       macroinvertebrate habitat conditions in your area for
       each type of river reach (e.g., headwaters, mid-reach,
       larger rivers). Consult with an experienced aquatic
       biologist who is familiar with the characteristics of
       the rivers in your area. The sites need not be on your
       river, but should have similar habitat characteristics.
       Many state agencies have already identified these

    The impact assessment study evaluates the effect of a
human alteration of the river (e.g., pollution discharge, dam,
etc.) on the organisms living there. This type of survey is
intended to establish the changes in the biological commu-
nity due solely to the alteration. The following types of sites
should be  selected:

Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
Reference or control site: This site is located immediately
    upstream of any potential impact from the alteration
    being evaluated. The benthic macroinvertebrate com-
    munity at this site will be considered as a reference to
    which the downstream communities will be compared.
Impact site: One  station should be located immediately
    downstream of the alteration at the point where the
    impact is completely integrated with the river water.
Recovery site: This site is located downstream of the poten-
    tial impact from the alteration being evaluated, where
    the river has at least partially recovered from the impact.
B. How to collect.  Sampling can either be qualitative or
quantitative. Quantitative sampling standardizes the level of
sampling effort, either by standardizing the area of collection
and/or  the  time  involved in the collection.  Qualitative
sampling does not standardize the level of effort.
    There are many types of sampling devices, but the two
most commonly used are collection nets and artificial sub-
strates. Nets can be either qualitative or quantitative de-
pending on the collection technique. Artificial substrates are
quantitative if left out for a standard period of time.
    Nets are used to catch organisms which are dislodged
from the river bottom immediately upstream. The organisms
arc swept into the net by the current. This technique is best
suited for use in riffle habitats. Metal frame nets and seines
are the two most common types.
    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
    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
commonly used: Multi-plate samplers, which consist of tiles
stacked with spacers on an aluminum turnbuckle, and rock
baskets, which consist 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 yields more repeatable samples than the kick-seine
method because  it helps eliminate variations in  sampling
techniques  and  it standardizes the type  and  area of
macroinvertebrate habitat among sites. This is particularly
important in impact assessment surveys, where upstream and
downstream sites will be compared. Artificial substrates also
may enable sample collection in areas that do not lend
themselves  to  the use of nets. For example, they can be
suspended in the water column in deep rivers with sandy or
silly 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. Another potential  problem is that
artificial substrates 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, it represents an ideal physical habitat, which
may not really exist at the site. Therefore, the organisms that
colonize it might not be able to live at the site (due to heavy
sedimentation, for example).
    A final consideration is how many samples  you will
collect at each site. Replicate samples are multiple samples
collected at the same site at different spots  in the riffle.
Composite replicates are samples collected from multiple
habitats within  a riffle, and combined into one sample. The
most representative samples are composite replicates.

II. Processing samples
Once the samples are collected, they  may be processed and
identified either in the field or in the lab. Processing samples
involves picking a subsample and identifying the organisms
to some taxonomic level: order, family, genus, or species.
Field processing usually involves identification to order and
some families. Lab processing involves preservation of the
sample or subsample  and bringing it  to  a  lab  for later
identification, usually to family and some genera or species.

III. Identifying the critters
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 non-biologist. Family level taxonomy involves
knowledge of some fairly subtle differences in body charac-
teristics, and requires the availability, at some point, of  an
aquatic biologist or entomologist to verify the identification.
     The sensitivity  of the study refers to its capability to
detect changes in the community from site to site. Sometimes
these changes  are subtle. For example, there are families
within the mayflies and caddisflies that are very sensitive to
pollution, and others that are fairly tolerant.  Identification to
order might show a predominance of mayflies and caddis-
flies. Identification to family might  show that they are  all
from pollution-tolerant families.  Family-level identification
also allows the identification of functional feeding groups  for
each organism. So identification to'  family provides addi-
tional information about the  pollution sensitivity of the

IV. Summarizing and analyzing the data
After you've identified the critters, you can use the metrics
discussed below to characterize your benthic macroinver-
tebrate samples in terms of abundance,  diversity, pollution
tolerance, composition, how they compare with each other,
and how they compare with a theoretical "model" or actual
reference community. The metrics you are able to use will
depend on whether you've collected qualitative or quanti-
tative samples and the level of taxonomy.

Methods options
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring methods are "pack-
ages"  of site selection, collection, sample  processing, and
data analysis techniques. They are mixed and matched in a
bewildering variety of ways depending on who designed  the
method. These  methods form a continuum of complexity and
sophistication,  from simple field assessments used for edu-
cation, awareness, and screening to  rigorous and intensive
surveys used for enforcement.
     As reference points, here are four methods that fall at

                                                                Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
various points on that continuum:
    A.   Streamside Assessment or Survey
    B.   Semi-Quantitative Collection: Level 1
    C.   Semi-Quantitative Collection: Level 2
    D.   Quantitative Collection: Artificial Substrates

The following table summarizes these methods:

of Effort
# of Samples
Field, all
Major group
Field subsample
Lab ID
Major group
3 composite
In selecting a method, consider the following:
 •  The specific question you're trying to answer about the
 •  Who you expect will use your data and for what
 •  Your data quality goals: how representative, precise, and
    sensitive to change your method must be
 •  Your human and financial resources
 •  The types of habitats present in your river

    The following table summarizes how these methods
address data use, data quality, and resource considerations:

Data Use
to Change
Major group
Add local
Major group
Add state
- Family
    In general, the more rigorous the method, the more
options for data uses you have and the higher the level of
precision  and sensitivity to change. Note, however, that
artificial substrates may not detect some changes as readily
as net  collection methods. That's because  they  create
artificial habitat that might mask the impacts of degradation
of the "native" habitat. The more rigorous methods require
more human and financial resources.
    Ultimately, the method that works best for you balances
these practical and scientific considerations. And it's not all
or nothing. For example, you can use the streamside  survey
as a screening method to help you identify sites for more
intensive work. You can start simple and get more complex
as your data use and quality goals change. Regardless, one
size does not fit all and you should select a method that's
appropriate for your unique situation.
 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.
 Dates, Geoff, and Jack Byrne. 1985. Benthic Macroinvertebrate
     Monitoring Manual. River Watch Network, Montpelier, VT.
 Klemm, Donald J., et al. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Labo-
     ratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Sur-
    face Waters. Report # EPA/600/4-90-030. U.S. EPA, Envi-
     ronmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati OH.
 McCafferty, W. Patrick. 1981. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bart-
     lett Publishers, Inc., Boston, MA.
 Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An Introduction to the
    Aquatic Insects of North America, 2nd Edition. Kendall/Hunt
     Publishing Co., Dubuque, I A.
 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,
 U.S. EPA. 1995. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual
     (Field Test Draft). EPA 841 D 95-001, Office of Water,
    Washington, DC.
                  Connie Fortin
 Hennepin Conservation District, 10801 Wayzata Blvd. Suite
        240, Minnetonka, MN 55305, 612/544-8572,

      Macroinvertebrate Education
                and Monitoring:
         Producing Quality  Results

This paper describes the Hennepin Soil and Water Con-
servation District's macroinvertebrate  education and moni-
toring program. The Hennepin Conservation District (HCD),
located near Minneapolis, Minnesota, is  a special-purpose
local unit of government with staff having expertise in soil
and water resources. Hennepin County is primarily an urban
area. HCD is coordinating  a macroinvertebrate monitoring
program for the creeks of Hennepin County. The program's
purpose is to provide hands-on environmental education
opportunities for high school and college students and to
gather information on the creeks in our county.
Program goals
Our short-term goal (1995-1997) is to  get schools  involved
and interested in the program. We are promoting the program
through local newspapers, television, and educational bro-
chures  and by attending community events and speaking to
community groups.
    Our long-term goal (1997-1999) is to obtain scientific
quality data on the creeks and streams in Hennepin County.
We expect the high schools to provide scientific quality data,
to network among themselves, and to share and  compare
data. As part of the .project, we hope to give high school
students an understanding of nonpoint source pollution and
how it impacts the creeks. Although  we are interested in
education, if this effort proves that high schools and colleges
cannot produce usable data  it is likely that the focus of this
program will change.

Our program  uses high school and college students to per-
form habitat assessment and macroinvertebrate sampling and
identification. HCD supplies the schools with all the neces-
sary equipment. Kick nets are used to collect three  replicate

Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
invertebrate samples per site. Each school performs iden-
tification to the family level. We have developed a spread-
sheet for schools to enter the results of their identification.
The spreadsheet will calculate diversity, abundance,  and
water quality rating. This sampling method  was obtained
from the River Watch Network Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring Manual.
Teacher training
Effective teacher training is critical to a successful program.
We  have discovered that teacher training, both field  and
classroom, must be hands-on and that teachers should go
through every step that they  will expect their students to
perform. HCD conducts a four-hour training session twice a
year. Our experience has shown us that teachers want to be
invited to training sessions even if they have already been
trained. The training session  gives them additional con-
fidence for working with their students as well as an  op-
portunity to network with other teachers involved with this
project. An excellent training tool is to give each teacher a
vial with unidentified invertebrates in it and  have them go
through  the exercise of identifying the organisms to the
family level, labeling the vials, and preserving the specimen.
This also starts the school's  reference set of organisms,
which is very useful to the students.

Site selection and sampling
Site selection should take into account a variety of factors. A
strictly scientific  approach would  be to locate riffles in
stream  segments  that  we want  analyzed.  Our current
approach also takes into account some human factors. Thus
we look for riffle areas that provide safe access for students
and arc located in a stream segment that we want analyzed
within  a watershed  or local  community  that provides
financial support for this program. We try to assign sample
sites as close to the participating high schools as possible.
For all of our high schools this still requires transportation,
which is arranged and paid for by the schools.
     Sample collection is the students' first task. We prefer to
gather samples prior to  habitat assessment so the sampling
area will not be disturbed. Students measure off a 200-foot
segment within which the study will occur. Sample  col-
lection  involves walking upstream to riffle area, then using
the kick net to obtain three separate samples from the creek
     The schools  perform habitat assessments using River
Wateh Network habitat assessment data sheets. Information
is collected on types of bank vegetation, river depth, tem-
perature, velocity, adjacent land use, and river bottom com-
position, just to name a  few. From our experience, habitat
assessment is not  a very exacting process. It has room for
interpretation. We notice that the schools' results may  vary
greatly from one sample session to the next, even given the
same sample site.
Processing and identification
Processing the samples is a classroom activity. It involves
emptying  the contents  of the sample into a gridded  tray,
selecting random squares of the tray, and removing all
organisms found in one square before proceeding to the next
square. This is repeated until at least 100  organisms are
selected. You can imagine that if you asked students to select
 100 organisms from the entire tray, chances are they would
select the 100 largest invertebrates. By random subsampling
you are more likely to get a representative sample.
     Identification of the invertebrates is a slow, precise

activity. This is the area  where many teachers  lack ex-
perience and confidence, and unfortunately is the area where
students find it most difficult to concentrate. Having a refer-
ence set of invertebrates available gives the teachers more
confidence and provides a comparison tool for the students.
Quality control is very important for us at this stage. HCD
collects the identified organisms from the  schools at the end
of each sampling period. This  allows us  to review the
students' work to see if the results are accurate. This also
provides us an opportunity to speak to each teacher indi-
vidually and answer any questions they may have.

Data analysis
Analysis of the results takes place when the schools submit
their results to HCD. HCD  provides  each school with a
spreadsheet for entering their results. The schools are asked
to enter the organism count by family and per sample. The
spreadsheet will calculate all the metrics  the schools are
interested in, including the water quality rating. However,
even  though the  schools have been asked to use this
spreadsheet, so far they seem uncomfortable reporting their
results electronically and seem to prefer to use paper. HCD
will continue to encourage schools to use the spreadsheets
and Internet to communicate with HCD and with other
schools. HCD compiles the results  and reports them  to the
participating high schools, watershed management organiza-
tions, and other interested agencies.

Program improvement
Program improvement is an ongoing concern for HCD. We
send surveys to the participating high schools twice a year. In
addition we talk to the teachers as  often  as possible  to see
what their ideas and concerns are. This spring HCD formed a
benthic macroinvertebrate  steering committee comprised of
educators, HCD staff, a DNR aquatic entomologist, and other
interested agencies. This committee meets twice a year to
review the progress of the program.
    As we work with the high schools it is important to keep
in mind that the easiest way to get kids excited about science
is to get their teachers excited about science.
           Denise B. Stoeckel, Ph.D.
  Illinois Natural History Survey, Forbes Biological Station,
      P.O. Box 590, Havana, IL 62644, 309/543-3950

             The Development of
      Macroinvertebrate Collection
         Procedures for the Illinois
             RiverWatch Network

 The Illinois RiverWatch Network was established in April
 1993 as a partnership  among Illinois citizens to monitor,
 restore, and  protect  the state's rivers and streams, and  to
 complement  the Illinois Critical Trends Assessment Project
 (CTAP), the first comprehensive assessment of the state's
 environment. One of the key findings of CTAP's 1994 report
 was that insufficient data were available to adequately assess
 the quality of Illinois' aquatic ecosystems. By establishing a
 statewide volunteer stream monitoring network, Illinois will
 be able to monitor long-term ecological trends and obtain
 information on how Illinois stream ecosystems are changing,
 the rate of change, and factors causing change.
     The goals of the Illinois RiverWatch Network are  to

                                                                Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
provide consistent high-quality data that can be used by
scientists; to measure how the quality of stream ecosystems
is changing over time; to educate and inform Illinois citizens
about the ecology and importance of Illinois streams; and to
provide  an opportunity for Illinois citizens to become
involved in protecting the health of local streams. My goal as
the technical advisor/quality assurance officer of the Net-
work has been to design a statewide volunteer stream mon-
itoring program that will be found acceptable by the scien-
tific community of Illinois. Before I designed the sampling
program I  had to first determine who wanted this data and
how were  they going to use it. I realized that the program
would serve no use if volunteers were collecting data that no
state organization would use.

Data users' needs
After several telephone calls, I found that the Illinois Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (IDNR), Illinois Natural History
Survey (INKS), and Illinois  Environmental  Protection
Agency (IEPA) were interested in using the data collected by
our volunteers.  The IDNR wanted data that could detect
trends in macroinvertebrate communities, to complement the
CTAP program. They also wanted information that would
complement their fish data because macroinvertebrates are
important as a  food resource for fish and streams are fish
habitat. INHS  wanted information on the distribution of
stream macroinvertebrates and community  composition.
IEPA wanted stream quality information  on streams  they
were not monitoring due to limited resources. (Currently,
IEPA has resources to monitor approximately 45% of Illinois
stream miles each year.) Where IEPA and the Network
monitor the same streams, volunteer stream monitoring will
complement the IEPA estimates for streams or stream

Volunteer monitoring in other states
Because  I was planning a statewide volunteer stream mon-
itoring program, I wanted to know if other states  were
currently running  similar programs. I called programs in
Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, Texas, Maryland,
Ohio, and  Connecticut. Through these telephone calls  I
found that most of the volunteer stream monitoring programs
conducted  water chemistry testing (i.e., DO, pH, turbidity).
However, some were beginning to develop, or were in the
first year of, a macroinvertebrate program. If the group col-
lected macroinvertebrates, they used, or modified, the Izaak
Walton League  method;  that is, they had a purely qualitative
program, and identified  the macroinvertebrates to the taxo-
nomic level of order. Few, if any,  identified macroinver-
tebrates to family  level. The age of the  volunteers  par-
ticipating in these programs ranged from children to adults.
    After determining Illinois' data needs,  I concluded that
most states did not possess a macroinvertebrate sampling
program that would satisfy these needs. I began to wonder if
the development of a volunteer program that identified
macroinvertebrates would be possible. I searched for scien-
tific papers on the topic and found two that studied the
accuracy of volunteer data collection. The first paper, by
Mark A. Dilley (1990), compared volunteers of the Ohio
Department of  Natural  Resources (ODNR) Scenic Rivers
Stream Quality Monitoring Program to Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) personnel. He ran comparisons
of both groups conducting similar procedures; he then
compared volunteer data collected via the Izaak Walton
League  method to  data collected  by  OEPA  personnel
 following state stream assessment procedures. Volunteers
 collected from riffle areas only, whereas OEPA personnel
 sampled from several stream habitats and used state-specific
 assessment protocols. Dilley found that the volunteer data
 did not necessarily agree with OEPA's quantitative stream
 quality ratings of GOOD, FAIR, and POOR. However, the
 volunteer data did agree to some extent with OEPA's
 qualitative ratings of attainment and non-attainment. Another
 paper, by Penrose and Call  (1995), compared volunteer-
 collected data to  state personnel-.collected data in South
 Carolina. Volunteers in South Carolina were trained to col-
 lect macroinvertebrates following modified state procedures,
 and to identify macroinvertebrates to the taxonomic level of
 family. In this study, volunteer data did not totally agree with
 data collected by state personnel because of  the insensitivity
 of the family-level biotic index. Both these papers stated that
 volunteer stream monitoring programs could collect useful
 data that provided  information on the general condition of a
 stream, though not necessarily on subtle changes in stream
 quality. Both papers also emphasized that training of volun-
 teers is important to the quality of the program. From this I
 concluded  that  the success of the  Illinois  RiverWatch
 Network would be dependent upon the  quality of training
 that the volunteers received.

 Designing a program for Illinois
 After learning what volunteer stream monitoring programs
 across the country had done, I had to consider any unique
 characteristics the state of Illinois possessed that would
 influence a statewide sampling program. First, not all
 streams in Illinois have rocky bottoms.  This  meant that a
 monitoring program that involved sampling from riffles only,
 like most volunteer stream monitoring programs, was not
 adequate. A sampling program had to be designed that could
 be used on all types of streams in Illinois (i.e., rocky, sandy
 bottom, and hardpan). The IEPA Facility Related Survey and
 U.S. EPA  Rapid  Bioassessment Protocols  consisted  of
 sampling from every possible macroinvertebrate habitat
 within a stream site. After consultation with INHS aquatic
 ecologists, we decided to have volunteers sample from the
 "two most diverse macroinvertebrate  habitats" in a 200-ft
 site.  This way volunteers would be collecting for the best
 possible sample  of pollution-intolerant organisms in their
 stream site. The reduction in the number of habitats sampled
 would shorten the time the volunteer would spend in the field
 and reduce the number of organisms that a volunteer would
 have to identify.
    The IEPA had already determined tolerance values for
 stream macroinvertebrates in Illinois and a macroinvertebrate
 biotic index (MBI). Also,  the procedures for the lEPA's
Facility  Related  Survey  called  for identifying macro-
invertebrates  to different taxonomic levels, depending on
tolerance values—that is, that not all macroinvertebrates
have to be  identified to the level of family. For example,
 stoneflies are  identified to the level of  order (Plecoptera)
 since all but  one stonefly species found in Illinois has a
tolerance value of 2 or less. Mayfly families,  on the other
hand, vary widely with respect to tolerance values (from 0 to
6). Some mayfly families with similar tolerance values are
clumped together—for example, "crawling mayflies" (toler-
ance value = 5.5), which consist of  the families  Tri-
corythidae and Caenidae. Also, because of the distribution of
tolerance values of caddisfly families, caddisflies are iden-
tified simply as Hydropsychidae or Non-hydropsychidae.

Concurrent Session 6: Monitoring Macroinvertebrates
    My next question  was,  "What should I expect out of
volunteers?" Based on my own personal experience with
volunteers who conduct annual breeding bird counts and
butterfly monitoring, I expected that a  typical  volunteer
would be one who had  very little ecological knowledge, yet
was  concerned about  the environment. This was a low
expectation,  since I know that many volunteers involved with
monitoring  have  some knowledge about the organism of
interest. But I wanted to be prepared for the worst-case
scenario and  be  sure  that the program trained the least
educated individual for the job. Also, I knew that volunteers
tend to be motivated people who lead  busy lives, and  I
wanted to design  a program that would keep their interest.
Since several state agencies had shown  an  interest in the
data, I solicited their help in the development  of  the
macroinvcrtebrate collection methods for the Network.  I
received help from the INKS, IEPA and IDNR. Dr. Mitchell
Harris, formerly  of INKS and  now of USGS, contributed
greatly to  the development  of the habitat assessment

Sampling procedures
The  macroinvertebrate sampling protocols were estimated to
take no more than about 30 minutes to perform. Together
with the habitat assessment protocols, the whole field portion
of the program should  take about 2 hours. Additional time,
though, would be needed in a laboratory setting to identify
the organisms. We estimated that sorting and identification
of the sample (consisting of  100-200 organisms) would take
a trained volunteer just over 1 hour to complete.
     The sampling procedures  involved the collection of
macroinvertebrates from the two most diverse habitats avail-
able in a 200-ft section using a  12-inch dip net. Habitats, in
order of decreasing diversity, are: riffles, leaf packs, snags,
undercut banks, and sediment. After collection, a subsample
of at least 100 organisms is taken if the sample is very large
(i.e., over 200 organisms). The volunteers then sort, enu-
merate, and  identify the sample. Macroinvertebrate data are
used to calculate various  indices such as  taxa richness,
density, percentage composition of key indicator taxa, and a
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI). All sampling pro-
tocols are found in the Illinois RiverWatch Network Stream
Monitoring Manual (1994). We modified a field iden-
tification key developed by Joyce E. Lathrop (1989) so that
only those indicator macroinvertebrate organisms were iden-
tified. All procedures, keys, and educational materials were
placed in our stream monitoring manual. Volunteers were
provided with a minimum training of 4 hours in the field for
collection  procedures, and at least 4 hours  of  macro-
invertebrate identification. Regional coordinators offered ad-
ditional assistance when requested by the volunteers.

Ensuring data quality
Quality control procedures, such as equipment and pro-
cedural specifications  and data verification, maximize the
reliability of the data for use by the scientific community. At
least 30% of the volunteer-collected samples are verified by
the  quality  assurance officer  each year. Quality  control
procedures  for  data entry involve a  three-step  process
whereby the volunteers verify their data sheet entries while  at
the stream site, the regional  coordinators "recheck" the data
sheets for any missed errors and carefully enter the data into
the databases, and finally the quality control officer inspects
the  database entries  before  uploading onto  the IDNR
electronic bulletin board,  the  EcoForum.  Consistency of
equipment such as dip nets, measuring tapes, thermometers,
subsampling pans, and velocity spheres (practice golf balls)
is assured by providing stream monitoring kits for loan at
each regional Illinois RiverWatch Network office. To ensure
the quality of training,  quality  control officers visit each
regional office to observe actual training workshops.
    The first Illinois  RiverWatch  Network  Annual
Assessment  was held  from May  1 to June  30, 1995.
Approximately 200 volunteers monitored  108 sites on 93
streams throughout the state of Illinois. After the data were
collected,  several  problems  were identified.  It  was
discovered that bloodworms and non-bloodworm  midges
were misidentified by the volunteers in 22% and 24% of the
samples verified, respectively. This  raised a major concern
because bloodworms have a tolerance value of 11, and non-
bloodworms have a tolerance value of 6. Yet, stream ratings
based  on the MBI did  not change  after sample mis-
identifications were corrected and MBIs re-calculated. There-
fore, the misidentification of bloodworms and non-blood-
worm midges was only a  minor  problem for the first year.
Other misidentification problems were found with riffle
beetles, some mayfly families, and damselfly families. These
problems were considered minor since fewer than 10% of the
samples contained misidentified organisms of these taxa. To
alleviate future problems,  the  Network provided more
training and developed a macroinvertebrate study guide to
replace the dichotomous key. Many volunteers found the
dichotomous  key (Lathrop)  to  be  confusing, as  well  as
intimidating.  A study guide was developed that consisted of
large drawings and  key identifying  features of each organ-
ism. Also, to help with the identification of bloodworms
(which  can  be easily identified by  body  shape and their
"blood-red" color), we modified our collection methods.
Bloodworms are now separated  from the total sample and
preserved in  alcohol (either isopropyl or 75% methyl); the
remaining organisms  of the sample are preserved  in  a
separate container.  Finally,  volunteers verify their blood-
worm identification in a laboratory setting.
     Another major data-quality problem involved data entry.
Many mistakes were made during the entry of data into the
databases by the regional coordinators. We determined that
the mistakes were due to the coordinators' inexperience with
computers. Training in computer use, data entry, and quality
control procedures was  given more  emphasis for 1996. We
also increased the  emphasis on data quality and  quality
control procedures in the volunteer training sessions.
     The Illinois RiverWatch is  a successful scientifically
based volunteer stream monitoring  program. The Network
has shown that volunteers  can collect data of sufficient
quality if provided  with proper  training  in  scientific
procedures, including data quality and macroinvertebrate
identification. The IEPA has used the first year's data in their
state water quality report. In the future, information on zebra
mussel sitings will be included in  an Illinois-Indiana  Sea
Grant database of exotic species.

Literature cited:
Dilley, M. A. 1990. A Comparison of the Results of a Volunteer
     Stream Quality Monitoring Program and the Ohio EPA's Bio-
     logical Indices.  Undergraduate Honors Research  Project,
     School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University,
     Columbus, OH.
Penrose, D., and S. M. Call. 1995. Volunteer Monitoring of Benthic
     Macroinvertebrates:  Regulatory  Biologists' Perspectives.
     Journal of North American Benihological Society 14(1): 203-

                                                                Concurrent Session 6: Restoring Estuarine Habitats
 Lathrop, I.E.. 19&9. A. Naturalist's Key to Stream Macroinverte-
    brates for Citizen Monitoring Programs in the Midwest; pp.
    107-118 in W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon (eds.), Proceedings of
    the 1989 Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting, Chi-
    cago, IL. USEPA Region 5, Instream Biocriteria and Ecolog-
     ical Assessment Committee, Chicago, IL,, EPA 905/9-89/007.
 Illinois RiverWatch Network Stream Monitoring Manual. June
     1994. Office of Realty and Environmental Planning, Illinois
     Department of Natural Resources, 524 South Second Street,
     Springfield, Illinois 62701.
                Restoring  Estuarine  Habitats
 Moderator: Christy Williams,  Izaak Walton League of
 Speakers: Clifford Kenwood,  Lake Pontchartrain Basin
 Foundation; Robert Musser, Jr., Tampa Bay Watch, Inc.;
 Aimee Guglielmo, Jefferson Parish Environmental Devel-
 opment Control Department

              Clifford M. Kenwood
 Project Coordinator, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation,
     P.O. Box 6965, Metairie, LA 70009, 504/836-2215

  Volunteer Sea Grass  Restoration in
      Lake Pontchartrain,  Louisiana

 The Lake Pontchartrain Basin
 The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is  a 3,400-square-mile water-
 shed located in southeast Louisiana. The basin is home to
 over 1.5 million people and includes most of the metropoli-
 tan New Orleans area. Land uses range  from  urban to
 suburban to agricultural. The basin also contains thousands
 of acres  of productive wetlands, including three national
 wildlife refuges.
    The  centerpiece  of the basin is Lake Pontchartrain,
 which, ironically, is not a lake. Rather it is a 620-square-mile
 estuary (average depth is only 12 feet) connected to the Gulf
 of Mexico through tidal passes and manmade channels. The
 Pontchartrain estuary is one of the most productive in the
 United States, supporting a multimillion-dollar fishery and
 providing recreational opportunities to the citizens of south-
 east Louisiana. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, a
 nonprofit citizens' organization  dedicated to restoring and
 preserving the Lake Pontchartrain Basin,  was  founded in

 Lake Pontchartrain's sea grass beds
 Sea grass beds form one of the most productive habitats in
 the basin. Tape grass  (Vallisneria americana), generally
 found in fresh water, is the dominant species in this estuarine
 system. The other primary species are Ruppia maritima, a
 true sea grass, and Najas guadelupensis. Values of the grass-
 beds include fisheries production, wildlife habitat, nutrient
 uptake and "recycling," shoreline protection, oxygen pro-
 duction, recreation (including commercial and recreational
fishing), and ecotourism.
    Unfortunately, the grass beds are also one of the lake's
most threatened habitats. They have declined by more than
 80% since  the  1950's and are  now  relegated, to  a geo-
graphically small area off the lake's north  shore.  Probable
causes of the decline include shoreline "hardening" projects
 (seawalls, stone revetments, etc.), eutrophication, storms and
hurricanes, urban  runoff, dredging, loss of shoreline
wetlands, and prop damage by recreational boaters.
 Sea grass restoration in Lake Pontchartrain
 In 1994, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation teamed up
 with researchers from the University of New Orleans Depart-
 ment of Biological Sciences (UNO) on a project to replant
 sea grasses in Lake Pontchartrain with volunteer assistance.
 Funding was provided by EPA Region 6's Johnston Basin
 Cleanup Fund.
    UNO performed extensive pre-monitoring to determine
 areas that could support sea grasses. The following water
 quality criteria were measured: light availability (by Secchi
 disk and photosynthetically active radiation, or PAR), pH,
 salinity/conductivity, alkalinity,  carbon dioxide, and water
 depth. Three sites were selected  based  on  water quality
 criteria and public access. At each site, four PVC and plastic
 mesh enclosures were constructed to reduce predation on the
 grasses, buffer wave energy, and prevent people  from
 walking on the grasses while they were taking root. The
 enclosures measured 12 feet on each side,  with a height of 4
 feet and open tops and bottoms. The enclosures were placed
 in 2 feet of water.

 Volunteer training
 An extremely  diverse group of volunteers,  ranging  from
 college students to professionals  to retirees, were trained to
 harvest  and transplant sea grasses and to perform weekly
 water quality monitoring at the transplant sites. Volunteers
 were  trained at two levels. For each PVC transplant en-
 closure, one captain was trained at an evening session at
 UNO in proper planting techniques. Three additional volun-
 teers assisted each captain on planting day. These volunteers
 were  trained on-site prior  to planting. Several harvesting
 captains were also trained at  an evening session  in iden-
 tification procedures (fairly easy due to the low number of
 species in the lake) and proper harvesting techniques. On
 planting day, each harvesting captain worked with three ad-
 ditional volunteers.
    All  volunteers were briefed  on safety concerns before
 planting. Safety concerns included glass on the  lake bottom
 (volunteers were required to wear shoes);  stingrays (volun-
 teers were told to shuffle their feet, not to step directly on the
 bottom); heat  exhaustion  (it  was  over  90  degrees  with
 humidity levels above 80%); and basic water hazards.

 Planting, harvesting, and monitoring
 Plants were harvested from existing healthy beds  in about
 one foot of water. Beds were "thinned" rather  than "clear-
 cut" to minimize damage to them. Volunteers reached into
 the sand below the roots and  carefully "fluffed" the  sand
 below the plants to release them. Plants were driven approxi-
mately 15 miles to the transplant site.
    Wearing a mask and snorkel, volunteers used their hands
to dig a small  hole in the  sand, then anchored individual
plants in place with a small metal pin. (The staples  were

Concurrent Session 6: Restoring Estuarine Habitats
 removed a few months later, after the plants had taken root.)
After planting, volunteers returned weekly to test water
quality  inside each cage  at all  three sites.  Volunteers
measured pH, water temperature, dissolved carbon dioxide,
salinity/conductivity, alkalinity, turbidity (by Secchi disk and
PAR), and water depth. They also performed a visual survey
of the grasses and repaired the protective cages each week.

Plants thrived at the two transplant sites on the lake's less
urbanized north shore, reproducing both sexually and vegeta-
tively in their enclosures.  Plants also expanded outside of
some of the enclosures at these sites. Plants  fared poorly at
the more urbanized, higher-energy site on the south shore of
the lake, where a powerful winter storm dumped approxi-
mately 6 inches of sand and gravel on top of the young
plants, many of which never recovered.
    A severe blue-green algae bloom (possibly the worst on
record)  completely covered the natural and transplanted
grasses for nearly a week in July 1995, harming the existing
beds and completely denuding the transplanted beds. How-
ever,  by the fall of 1995,  the beds were showing signs of

Difficulties encountered
Scheduling. Planting had to be rescheduled three times be-
    cause of rough, turbid water and rain.
Human  impacts. Children  (and adults)  were seen walking
    around inside the cages at two sites. Crabbers threw their
    traps inside the cages. A local aquarium club was caught
    harvesting plants from  one of the cages.
Water quality/weather. A massive algae  bloom in July 1995
    had a  severe impact on the transplanted  and natural
    grasses. In addition, extreme low tides in winter caused
    desiccation (drying out) at all transplanting sites:
Maintenance.  Cage maintenance was extremely  time-
    consuming. Cages had to be repaired weekly and com-
    pletely rebuilt at least 5 times after storms.
Cheap waders. Cheap "stocking foot" waders are not a bar-
    gain. We went through at least 12 pair before we broke
    down and bought real waders for our volunteers. Be-
    cause of leaky waders, some water quality data was not
    collected during the winter months.
Possibility of total failure. There was a distinct possibility
    that the project could have failed completely, leaving
    volunteers (and coordinators) demoralized. Volunteers
    who planted at the south shore site were discouraged
    when their grasses died. These volunteers were taken to
    sec  the successful plots at the other sites to boost their

The project was considered a success. Researchers at UNO
gained valuable information about sea  grass transplanting
and the public was made aware of the values of sea grasses.
A great deal of media attention was generated, resulting in
six television  news stories and  over a dozen  newspaper
articles, including two favorable editorials.
    The project also fostered stewardship of the grassbeds.
In 1996, a state shoreline  protection project was proposed
that  could have  harmed  25% of  the lake's  remaining
grassbeds.  An outcry came up from project volunteers and
members of the public; as a direct result of their actions,
changes were made to the project that protected the beds.

    Sea grass restoration by volunteers has been one of the
most rewarding and proactive activities conducted by the
Lake  Pontchartrain Basin Foundation,  and one that the
Foundation plans to continue.
             Robert E. Musser, Jr.
 Tampa BayWatch, Inc., 8401 9th Street North, Suite 230-B,
         St. Petersburg, PL 33702, 813/896-5320

   Estuarine Habitat Protection and
  Restoration  in Tampa  Bay Through
          Volunteer Stewardship

Tampa Bay was once Florida's most diverse and productive
estuarine system, but years  of rapid urban and industrial
development have significantly altered the ecology of this,
the largest estuary in the  state of Florida.  From the head-
waters of the Hillsborough River through  its mouth at
historic Egmont Key, Tampa Bay has drastically changed.
Over the past 100 years, the bay has lost 44  percent of its
original 25,000 acres of mangrove and salt marsh habitat,
and 81 percent of its  original 76,500 acres of seagrass
expanses. Causes of  this  dramatic decline include habitat
losses from anthropogenic sources such as dredge-and-fill
actions, poor water  quality due to urban and industrial
stormwater runoff, population increases, and various illegal
and/or unintentional acts.
    These losses have been acknowledged by the surround-
ing Tampa Bay communities. With a growing population of
2.2 million people in a tri-county area and over 100,000 reg-
istered boaters,  the stresses placed on natural systems are
intense—but through community involvement  and education
change is possible. Significant strides have been made to
correct not only habitat losses but associated water quality
problems throughout the bay.
    Tampa BayWatch, Inc., a nonprofit environmental
group, was formed to help combat these losses and problems
by taking a stewardship  approach to bay protection and
restoration. Our mission is to  coordinate volunteer participa-
tion in restoration and protection projects, monitor environ-
mental conditions in Tampa Bay, identify and report prob-
lems, and educate the public  on the importance of resource
protection. We have accomplished these tasks by means of
partnerships with state and county agencies, in which Tampa
BayWatch supplies the volunteer task force to complete
restoration projects—thereby saving taxpayers thousands of
dollars. We also assist understaffed governmental agencies
by identifying environmental problems and impacts and
assisting in the resolution of these problems.
    Because Tampa BayWatch provides trained staff and
group leaders, who in turn train new volunteers in restoration
techniques, the partnerships have allowed state agencies to
concentrate on site preparation rather than volunteer training.
On average, the volunteers  save taxpayers  $1 per plant
installed, and salt marsh restoration projects usually range in
size from 5,000 to  10,000 plants. Providing plants through
our high school  wetland  nursery program will save even
more money by eliminating the need to purchase many of the
    Tampa BayWatch has involved thousands  of community
volunteers of all ages in salt marsh restoration events, storm
drain marking projects, coastal cleanups,  and  bird island

                                                                    Concurrent Session 6: Restoring Estuarine Habitats
               cleanups, and has specifically involved high
 school students in our award-winning high school wetland
 nursery program. To date volunteers have helped to intro-
 duce and restore nearly 50 acres of salt marsh habitat back
 into Tampa Bay.
     The high school wetland nursery involves constructing a
 wetland habitat on school property using a wooden frame,
 pond liner, and irrigation system. Salt marsh plants are either
 purchased or gathered from previously completed restoration
 projects and planted in  trays in the nursery. The plants
 mature  over a period  of about six months and are then
 transported to a bay restoration site. Students assist in all
 aspects of building, planting, and harvesting the nursery, and
 get hands-on knowledge  about the function of marsh
 systems. They also get the added bonus of helping to restore
 habitat  back  into  Tampa Bay,  hopefully instilling an
 environmental ethic that will endure into their adult lives.
     The success of the stewardship approach can be illus-
 trated through improving water quality, increased wetland
 and intertidal habitat, safer wildlife nesting and sanctuary
 areas, greater scientific knowledge, and the instillment in our
 students and citizens  of an  environmental ethic toward
 protection, restoration, and conservation.

 Boler, R.N., ed. 1995. Surface Water Quality, Hillsborough County,
     Florida:  1992-1994. Hillsborough County Environmental
     Protection Commission, Tampa, Florida.
 Lewis, Roy R., Ill,  and  Ernest  Estevez. 1988. The Ecology of
     Tampa Bay: An Estuarine Profile. U.S. Department of the Inte-
     rior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(7.18).
 Martin, Dean P., ed. 1995. "Symposium of Human Impacts on the
    Environment of Tampa Bay." Florida Scientist, Special Publi-
    cation, Vol. 58. 248 pp.
 Martin, Morton, and Valentine Dobrzynski. 1996. Estuaries on the
    Edge: The Vital Link Between Land and Sea.  Washington:
    American Oceans Campaign, pp. 269-278.
 Treat, S.F., J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman, eds.
     1985. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information
    Symposium (BASIS), May 1982. Florida Sea Grant College
    Report No. 65. Bellwether Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
 Treat, S.F. and P.A.  Clark, eds.  1992. Proceedings, Tampa Bay
    Area Scientific Information Symposium 2 (BASIS 2), February
    27 - March 1,1991, Tampa, Florida. TEXT, Tampa, Florida.
               Aimee Guglielmo2
  Jefferson Parish Environmental and Development Control
  Department, Coastal Zone Management Program, 1221
    Elmwood Park Blvd. Suite 703, Harahan, LA 70123,

           Santa Saves the Marsh

Louisiana loses 30 to 50 square miles of coastal wetlands
every year. The potential solutions to our land loss problem
are most  often as  complex  as  the interaction of natural
processes and human actions that have led to this  catas-
trophe.  Concerned  citizens in Jefferson Parish are taking
aggressive action to implement a simple, inexpensive plan to
help slow marsh loss in the Barataria Basin. Since 1991, over

'Aimee Guglielmo is no longer with the Department. For
information on the Christmas tree project, please contact Mamie
Winter or Jason Smith at the phone number listed above.
 350,000 Christmas trees have been recycled into sediment-
 trapping brush fences. These "cribs" not only protect fragile
 shorelines, but also save valuable landfill space and serve as
 an extraordinary educational tool.
     Jefferson Parish's  innovative Christmas  Tree Marsh
 Restoration Project, the largest in the state, utilizes two types
 of crib  configurations. Cribs built along shorelines act as
 breakwaters and groins to prevent lateral drift. The fences are
 approximately 4 feet wide and  150 feet long, with 2-by-4-
 inch treated boards driven into the mud 2 feet apart. The tops
 of the 10-foot boards extend approximately 2 feet above the
 high tide of 2.8 NGVD (national geodatic vertical datum).
 Loose trees are transported by barges (donated by Texaco) to
 the project site.  Volunteers transfer the trees from the barges
 to their own boats and then into the pre-built cribs. Once the
 crib is filled with trees,  volunteers  walk on the top to pack
 down the trees,  then tie the trees in place with tar rope. This
 type of crib is currently protecting  11,000 linear feet of
 shoreline from  wave action and subsequent erosion. Sedi-
 ments are allowed to settle in the protected waters behind the
 fence, resulting in accretion.
     The second type of crib is built across abandoned, dead-
 end canals once used for oil and gas exploration and extrac-
 tion. These fences trap water hyacinths  (Eichhornia cras-
 sipes) in the canals, thereby initiating the process of floatant
 marsh formation. By  using to our advantage  the  charac-
 teristics that  make this invasive  exotic  species  such a
 nuisance, we have created floating mats that are now being
 invaded by a number of native species. Large bundles of
 trees are also placed directly into the canals to provide a
 lattice for  accelerated  colonization  by native plants. These
 trees are secured into bundles of 40 to 50 by volunteers,
 mainly high school students. The bundles are then barged to
 the project site where they are airlifted by Louisiana Army
 Air National Guard helicopters into  the canals.  Approxi-
 mately  20 acres of canals  are  currently undergoing  this
 transformation as a result of a demonstration project funded
 by the  Environmental  Protection Agency through the
 Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program.
    This project is a model  of corporate, inter-agency, and
 citizen cooperation. Although the project receives funding
 from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources each
 year, it is largely dependent on donations of equipment and
 manpower. Christmas tree fences would not be feasible with-
 out corporate  donors such as Texaco, Exxon,  Browning-
 Ferris, Waste  Management, and Cytec; without assistance
 from the Louisiana Army Air National Guard, the National
 Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
 Coast Guard,  the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
 Fisheries, and the Louisiana Department of Transportation
 and Development; or without the time donated by an average
 of 500 to 600 volunteers  each year from every sector of the
 community, including fishing and hunting clubs, scout
 troops, high school students, environmental organizations,
 civic groups, and concerned individuals. The media attention
 generated by the project has  been a key to our success with
 volunteer recruitment and corporate sponsorship. Aside from
the obvious benefits of protecting, enhancing, and creating
wetlands and saving landfill space,  this annual event con-
tinues to turn the public's attention to Louisiana's  coastal
loss problem.

Concurrent Session 6: Setting Program Goals That Incorporate Stewardship
                Setting  Program  Goals  That
                    Incorporate  Stewardship
Moderator: Sharon Clifford, Missouri Department of Natu-
ral Resources
Presenters:  Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters
Board; Jeanne Heuser, Missouri Stream Team; Rosie
Rowe*  and Vera Lubczenko,* Waterwatch  Australia;
Derek Foster,* Dept. of Primary Industries (Australia)

               Molly MacGregor
Mississippi Headwaters Board, P.O. Box 3000, Walker, MN
                56484, 218/547-7263

        How the Public Perceives
 Stewardship  of the Mississippi River

I will begin by describing the roles that have brought me here
    First, I am a member of the steering committee of the
National Volunteer Monitoring Conference and have helped
to organize the stewardship track of this conference.
    Second, I am a coordinator of a water quality monitoring
and protection network, established at 30 locations across the
drainage basin of the Mississippi River in Minnesota.
    Third, I am the manager of a river management program
regulating the Mississippi's first 400 miles.
    Fourth, I  am a board member of two national river
groups—the River Management Society (formed  through the
merger of the River Federation and the American River
Management Society) and River Watch Network.
    These roles illustrate the point that while  my profes-
sional life is based on realizing successful stewardship of the
Mississippi River at the local level, I am helped to  achieve
this by the support of national organizations and the oppor-
tunity to communicate with colleagues  from  across the
    The objective of this conference is to encourage volun-
teer monitoring groups to recognize and expand their role in
watershed stewardship. The objective of this session is to
help volunteer monitoring groups  incorporate stewardship
into their individual programs. In organizing this  session, we
realized that some groups started with volunteer monitoring
and arrived at stewardship as an outcome of that initiative;
others pursued stewardship as an organizing principle. The
goal of my remarks is to underscore the importance of the
connection between stewardship and monitoring: successful
monitoring leads to stewardship; successful stewardship
requires monitoring.
    The single most important action  a water resource
protection agency can take to create stewardship is to
establish a volunteer-based, scientifically based program,
which is fundamentally connected to decision making. I
propose to make this case using two sources: (1) Evidence
from  this  conference and previous volunteer  monitoring
conferences, and (2) Research about public perceptions of
stewardship of the Mississippi River conducted by the
McKnight Foundation of Minneapolis.
    At this conference, the various discussions  of steward-

*No paper submitted
ship include these elements: responsibility, action, and the
future. The critical elements of volunteer monitoring iden-
tified by speakers are: participation, credibility, communi-
cation, and action.
    At this conference we  discussed the idea that stew-
ardship is citizenship. Steve Born told us that citizen moni-
toring can create local ownership of a water resource. Joe
Farrell told us that stewardship requires an attitude of care
toward the resource. Paul Godfrey told us that successful
citizen monitoring reminds participants that each is part of a
participatory democracy. Certainly, successful—by which I
mean credible—volunteer monitoring gives citizens addi-
tional tools to participate in decision making about water
    These ideas are critical to keep in mind when  your
organization is designing, discussing,  and recognizing the
efforts of your volunteer monitors. You are not just cele-
brating the river, or understanding complex ecological con-
nections—you are providing people with a unique means to
govern their precious resources.
    The McKnight Foundation  is a family foundation
founded in 1953 by the founders  of 3M, or  Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing—the Scotch tape and video- and
audiotape people. The foundation is run by the  family and
gives about $8 million annually. Arts and education were the
prime giving targets. But the foundation has had a unique
perspective. As a statewide foundation, it was concerned that
its resources not be gobbled up by the Twin Cities metro
area. In the mid-1980s, it spawned five regional foundations
around Minnesota—which began with McKnight money but
are no longer dependent  on it. In 1991, it started  a
Mississippi River program, which has had a national focus.
The foundation devoted $9 million over five years to this
initiative. Characteristically, McKnight hasn't just made
grants. They have engaged in research designed to improve
the effectiveness of river protection groups operating up and
down the Mississippi.
    In fall 1995, McKnight staff decided that  market
research about public attitudes toward the Mississippi River
and the concept of stewardship would assist river groups.
This work was inspired by  the work of American Rivers,
which found that more than 90 percent of the American
public reacted strongly and positively to the statement, "We
ought to protect our rivers as a source of drinking water for
our children" (a finding that apparently was staggering to the
market research firm, which typically  studied public
responses to soft drinks and the like). The American Rivers
survey found that people didn't know where their drinking
water came from—and that a small percentage believed it
came from the oceans!
    McKnight convened three sets of focus groups—in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area, in rural Minnesota, and in the
Quad Cities area. These groups were designed to be middle
income, middle class and generally "middle of the road." The
market research firm worked with McKnight and its grantees
in designing the survey instrument. Research groups were

                                             Concurrent Session 6: Setting Program Goals That Incorporate Stewardship
 convened and interviewed. Some results:
  •  90 percent of the focus groups agreed with the
     statement, "We must be responsible stewards of the
     Mississippi River."
  •  Focus group participants said they generally felt
  •  People care about the Mississippi, but feel detached
     from it and lack any real connection to the river, other
     than driving over it.
  •  People don't have time to learn about the environment,
     and are not likely to make time.
  •  Three-quarters of the respondents use local TV news or
     small-town newspapers as their first and second sources
     of information.
  •  Focus groups respondents were asked to react to
     commonly used words and phrases. Interestingly, the
     reaction to the word "watershed" was negative.
  •  People respond to messages that the water quality of the
     river is threatened or that the heritage of the river is
  •  People favor local approaches to river stewardship—the
     words "community partnership" were very positive.
  •  People favor action-oriented approaches to river
  •  People think that polluters ought to be held accountable.
  •  People favor research and monitoring as stewardship

     As a result of the research, McKnight's research firm
 created the following checklist for river protection groups to
 use to evaluate ideas, projects, and organizations:
  •  Does the organization have a people-centered mind-set?
  •  Does the project focus on appropriate target audiences or
     does it preach to the converted?
  •  Is the project action-oriented rather than process-
     oriented? Does it tell individuals what they can do, and
     is  it realistic about what people will take on?
  •  Does the project propose strategies that will  move
     people from apathy to concern, connection, and
     ultimately, action?
  •   Do the group's communications identify solutions as
     well  as problems?
  •   Does the organization get its messages out in places
     where target audiences can be reached?

     The McKnight researchers also investigated the question
of how people describe their relationship with the river. Res-
pondents recognized the importance of the  river to them-
selves  in the  following ways: (1) the river's connection to
public health (the Mississippi provides  drinking water for
one-quarter of the state's population), (2) the river's ability
to enhance their enjoyment of life, and (3) the river as a leg-
acy to  future generations. Although respondents recognized
the importance of the river to themselves, they  needed
assistance in finding a way to express that relationship within
their own lives, in a way that they can manage.
    Despite recognizing that the river was important to
them, respondents felt that they did not have a direct connec-
tion  to the river. What experiences'can we provide to create
this  connection? Obviously, volunteer monitoring—which
literally puts you in the river—makes this connection. The
challenge that  we as volunteer monitors face is to help
individuals make that connection between their beliefs and
 the actions that they can engage in as individuals and, most
 importantly, as citizens of the watershed.
     The critical elements of stewardship discovered in this
 market research were its local, and even personal, founda-
 tion; its orientation toward people and their future; and its
 grounding in action. All of these are very close to the themes
 of responsibility, action, and the future which have seemed to
 define stewardship at this conference.
     At the start of this  conference, Gaylord Nelson  chal-
 lenged us to create a conservation ethic to address problems
 of population growth and to meet the challenge of estab-
 lishing a sustainable society.
     Two years ago in Portland, David Duncan confessed that
 at some point in his adult life, he had given up on the idea of
 saving the world. It was mathematically impossible, he
 decided. Instead, he had  become vitally interested in taking
 care of his small share of the planet,  and he described im-
 proving a trout stream on his Montana property.  A  few
 weeks ago, I had the good fortune to hear Duncan's next
 chapter of that story—the joy  of catching the  first brown
 trout from that stream, and then returning it to the stream.
    At this conference,  we have heard speakers describe
 stewardship as care, as citizenship, as democracy in action.
 Market research on  the Mississippi confirms these obser-
 vations. Clearly, we as the managers of volunteer monitoring
 have our hands on a tool that can help people make the
 connection between belief and action. We have the power to
 spark a conservation ethic.
                 Jeanne Heuser
  Missouri River Communities Network, Route 1, Box 4030,
          Jamestown, MO 65046, 816/849-2589

        Monitoring for Stewardship
            on the Missouri River

Defining stewardship
Stewardship is a word new to many of us. It is often hard to
define because it has a variety of interpretations, as will be
demonstrated in this presentation. My personal favorite is
"serving as a caretaker for the resource you love." In my
case, I love the Missouri River and live less than two miles
away from it. The creek crossing Echo Valley, the land I live
on in rural mid-Missouri, drains a small watershed that feeds
into the Missouri.
    But there is more to  stewardship. Its meanings can be
expanded to include:
 •  recovering the natural dynamic of the resource's
 •  managing the resource for the benefit of all the different
    human and animal uses
 •  solving problems by undertaking "hands-on" projects
    identified as necessary to improve the resource.

The Missouri River Communities Network
In June 1993,  after moving  to mid-Missouri, I attended a
workshop called "Missouri River Communities Conference:
Reconnecting Your Community to the River," hoping to get
more involved in issues affecting the river. Little did we
know that June just how "reconnected" communities would
soon get to the river when the Great Flood of 1993 hit the

Concurrent Session 6: Setting Program Goals That Incorporate Stewardship
following month.
    By the spring of 1994, the Missouri River Communities
Network was created  as a nonprofit organization with the
mission of serving as a partnership to rediscover the Missouri
River as a scenic, cultural, environmental, and economic
resource. I volunteered  to serve  as  the  director of the
fledgling organization—and that began my crash course in
learning  about this  incredible river that is the longest and
most highly engineered river in the country, has a watershed
covering one-sixth of the United States (including 10 states,
25 Indian tribes, and parts of Canada), and has elevations
that range  from 14,440 to 400 feet with significant dif-
ferences  in rainfall  from the Rocky Mountains to the con-
fluence with the Mississippi River in St. Louis.
Missouri River Dreamin' meetings held
to envision the river's future
During the winter after its inception, the Network held a
series of town hall  meetings entitled "Missouri  River
Dreamin'." Our goal was to identify the visions people had
for the future of the river, to help us determine our plan of
action for the Network. Over a two-week period we held
eight meetings, starting in St. Charles on the east and ending
in St. Joe on the west with 350 people attending. At each
meeting  the participants were split into small groups to
record their ideas.  The small groups  then  selected  their
priority issues by  using three  dot labels and totaling which
issues received the most dots.
    In general, comments were split between immediate
problems and future visions.  Responses fell into six  cate-
1. Political questions -private property rights, flood costs
    and subsidies, and government control
2. Coordinated management - expanding the dialogue and
    management of the Missouri River system
3. Watershed management —  flood control, floodplain uses,
    water quality, and  ecological recovery
4. Master Water Control Manual - issues around the
    changes suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers to
    manage the water flow in the river system
5. Economic development — balancing current river uses
    (i.e., agriculture and navigation) with new uses (heritage
    tourism and recreation)
6. Education — understanding the natural history and impor-
    tance of the river; taking pride in its cultural resources
    From the Dreamin' meetings the Network  developed
goals to:
 •  Encourage stewardship of the river's cultural, natural,
    and social resources
 •  Promote protection and recovery of the environment and
 •  Increase understanding of  the river to help communities
    make sound resource management decisions
 •  Assist government agencies to develop and implement
    programs that improve the health and economic viability
    of the Missouri River Basin in coordination with its

Network adopts the river as a Missouri
Stream Team
Note that word stewardship  in our very first goal! As our
first activity under the goal of stewardship, we adopted the

entire 553-mile stretch of the Missouri River through the
Missouri Stream Team program (a program coordinated by
the two state agencies, the Missouri Department of Con-
servation and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
and a nonprofit citizens' group, the Conservation Federation
of Missouri).
Missouri River Stream Teams have three goals:
 •  Education to understand how the river system functions
    within the watershed
 •  Stewardship to conduct hands-on projects such as
    stream-bank stabilization, litter control, restoration, etc.
 •  Advocacy to support efforts in the political world to
    improve natural resources.

    There is that stewardship goal again! The big question
facing  the  Network was  how  to begin our stewardship
activities with such a large resource: the  Missouri River
watershed covers two-thirds of the state and supplies drink-
ing water for close to 2 million people! The first thing we did
was divide the river into seven more manageable regions.
    Our stewardship activities focused on the water quality
of the river. We knew water quality problems were not re-
stricted to the river itself, and that towns and farms on tribu-
taries also contribute to pollution in the river through point
and nonpoint sources. We decided to work within  the exist-
ing structure of Stream Teams by forming associations of the
groups in each of our regions to conduct projects improving
water quality.  We  started  in Region 3, where  association-
building was already being initiated, and joined the effort to
create Show-Me Clean Streams.

Show-Me Clean Streams takes on storm water
By 1995, Show-Me Clean  Streams was organized, consoli-
dating all the Stream Teams in a four-county area with the
mission of serving as a partnership to conserve and enhance
the quality of mid-Missouri rivers and streams through edu-
cation, advocacy, and stewardship. Goals are to:
 •  Influence public policy by promoting sustainable
    development and water pollution prevention
 •  Increase public awareness and appreciation of watershed
    management issues
 •  Enhance watershed stewardship by expanding Stream
    Team involvement

    There's that stewardship goal again! Even before we had
a chance to finalize our plans, residents in Columbia, the
largest city within  the four counties, sought out Show-Me
Clean Streams to help with a problem they faced concerning
the meandering streams in their backyards. The city govern-
ment had begun implementing newly designed  plans for
storm water control and their streams were about to become
concrete channels  bordered on both sides by chain link
    In the stewardship world, most of us already know that
this type of storm water management strategy only exacer-
bates flooding farther  downstream—eroding stream banks,
clogging the water with sediment, and concentrating pol-
lutants. Unfortunately, the city is concerned only with flood
control and is not looking at storm water quality issues in its
planning—a big oversight for a community of almost 75,000
    Show-Me Clean  Streams  has taken on storm  water
management in  Columbia as a priority activity and  has

                                                    Concurrent Session 6: How to Assess Nonpoint Source Pollution
 helped form a group to address these issues directly with the
 city government. The Storm Water Partnership is supported
 by a variety of technical experts and local organizations and
 is currently providing alternative storm water planning ideas
 to the government. The Network is working on an EPA grant
 with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to help
 facilitate this process in Columbia and to determine exactly
 how an unregulated community needs to manage storm water
 for water quality improvement.
     At this time communities of under 100,000 population
 do not have to comply with NPDES  requirements for storm
 water  reporting, yet  all towns, regardless of size, are
 contributing to  nonpoint source water contamination from
 storm water runoff. The EPA grant will allow the Network to
 continue working with Show-Me Clean Streams and the
 Storm Water Partnership to help determine the best methods
 for storm water management through volunteer participation
 with GIS inventory mapping and water quality monitoring.
 After completion of this project, the Network will replicate
 the  process in  its  other six regions, with the long-term
 stewardship goal of improving the water quality  in the
 Missouri River.

 The many faces of stewardship
 Through all the examples in this presentation, stewardship
 has been one of the primary goals guiding the activities of
 each newly formed organization:
  •  Missouri Stream Teams' stewardship goal includes
     identifying problems and addressing them through
     hands-on projects that help improve the stream.
  •  Missouri River Communities Network encourages
     stewardship of the Missouri River as a goal and adopted
     the Missouri River as a Stream Team to begin forming
     associations of Stream Teams for water quality projects.
  •  Show-Me Clean Streams' stewardship goal means
     expanding the number of people involved in Stream
     Teams and influencing public policy for sustainable
     development and pollution prevention.

     Putting all the stewardship goals together enhances the
 ability of organizations to  form  partnerships to develop
 projects, like the Storm Water Partnership working with the
 city government on storm water in Columbia. Such partner-
 ships make it easier to raise funds and motivate volunteer
 participation  to help solve  local problems. By choosing
 stewardship as a goal of our organizations, we are accepting
 our responsibility as caretakers of our rivers and streams.
 Through this understanding of our connection to the waters
 we live near,  we can recover the health and vitality  of the
                                  How to Assess
                   Nonpoint  Source  Pollution
Moderator: Joan Drinkwin, Puget Sound Water Quality
Panelists: Joan Drinkwin,* Puget Sound Water Quality Au-
thority; Anne Rogers, Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission; Jeffrey Schloss, University of New Hampshire
Cooperative Extension

                  Anne Rogers
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P.O. Box
   13087, MC-150, Austin, TX 78711-3087, 512/239-4597

     Urban Watch: A New Approach
            to Monitoring Urban
        Nonpoint Source Pollution

The Urban Watch program is a new approach to volunteer
monitoring of nonpoint source pollution. It addresses several
pressing needs  relating to volunteer monitoring and to the
management of nonpoint source pollution in urban areas. The
monitoring provides cities with information they need to
meet the requirements of a federally mandated permit, the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The program educates citizens about nonpoint source
pollution and involves them in its management. The random
sampling schedule provides more flexibility for volunteers.
And the data interests volunteers because it is generally more
variable than that usually  collected when monitoring for
ambient water quality variables.

*No paper submitted
    Nonpoint source pollution is finally being recognized as
certainly a—if not the—major cause of surface water degra-
dation in urban areas. With the growing public awareness of
the problem comes a groundswell of good intentions aimed
at solving it. Urban Watch is a means to integrate these good
intentions with the mandates put on cities by the federal and
state governments. Urban Watch offers cities an opportunity
to obtain needed data while educating the public about
nonpoint source pollution. At the same time, Urban Watch
provides citizens with a means to effectively help solve the
problem of nonpoint source pollution in their community.
    The Urban Watch monitoring design was developed in
cooperation with the City of Ft. Worth's Department  of
Environmental Management, and follows the city's initial
field screening protocol to detect illicit discharges and illegal
connections to the city's storm drain system. It is a dry-
weather field  screening protocol. This means monitors are
looking for flow in. the storm drain  system during dry
weather (when flow should be absent or should consist only
of natural  base  flow). Therefore, monitors never sample
within 48 hours of significant rainfall. Volunteers monitor a
minimum of twice per month, with the two sampling events
performed within 24 hours of each other. This strategy helps
in detecting a  potential illicit discharge into the storm drain
system by having the volunteer sample at random times
rather than on a fixed schedule.
    Monitors do field tests for chlorine, copper, detergents,
phenols, ammonia-nitrogen, pH, temperature, turbidity, and
color. Each of these variables is an indicator of specific

Concurrent Session 6: How to Assess Nonpoint Source Pollution
pollutants related to illicit discharges and illegal connections.
For example, copper is a heavy metal used in many industrial
processes. Its  presence is a problem in itself,  but it also
indicates the possible presence of other heavy metals and
industrial pollutants. Chlorine, for another example, is used
in treating water for drinking and its presence can indicate a
leak into the storm drain  system from the sanitary sewer
system. Its presence can also indicate problems  with car
Nvashing, swimming pool draining, and possible industrial
discharge. Monitors also  take  note  of a  wide variety  of
physical characteristics at their site, including the presence or
absence of sewage, scum, and trash.
    The  Urban Watch kit  is manufactured by  LaMotte
Chemical Company and is the same field test kit developed
by the City of Ft.  Worth personnel  to perform their NPDES
storm drain  screening requirements.  The kit costs around
    The most  crucial  aspect of an  urban storm drain mon-
itoring project such as this is that there be buy-in from the
city at the beginning of a project's design. There is little state
or federal agencies can do with storm drain data as these
systems really  belong  to the city and it is the city which has
to address any problems related to the storm drain system.
Cities that implement volunteer monitoring of their  storm
drain systems  have taken a real step  forward in helping  to
identify and mitigate urban nonpoint source pollution.
77i/5 presentation was based in part on Joan Drinkwin's article,
"Urban Watch: A New Approach to Monitoring Urban Nonpoint
Source Pollution," in The Volunteer Monitor newsletter, Vol. 7, No.
2 (Fall 1995), pp. 4-5.
                 Jeffrey Schloss
New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program, University
of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 55 College Road,
    109 Pettee Hall, Durham, NH 03824, 603/862-3848

            "Following the Flow":
A Watershed NPS Evaluation System
             for Citizen  Monitors

New Hampshire was one of the first states  to show that
properly trained and equipped citizen monitors could collect
valuable water quality data useful for assessing the health of
lakes. Today, a variety of volunteer monitoring groups are
sampling estuaries, rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands and
providing much-needed information to agencies and decision
makers. In the process, the participants learn a great deal
about the dynamic nature  of these aquatic systems, their
value, and how our actions affect these resources. The parti-
cipants also spread the word to their children, neighbors,
town officials, and association members.
    When monitoring indicates a water quality problem, the
cause of the disturbance is often hard to detect if it involves
nonpoint source pollution. It is generally not cost-effective
for an agency, professional, or volunteer to sample  water
chemistry or investigate biological integrity throughout the
watershed. A visual  survey method  would  be  optimum.
Typically, even a subwatershed can have a variety of land
use impacts: Is sediment from a construction site causing the
problem downstream? Or are the nutrients lost from the corn
field just upstream the cause? How about the newly con-
structed logging road? Or is that just-fertilized lawn on the
lakeshore the culprit?
    Because there was no systematic approach or method for
the layperson to evaluate the seriousness of an erosion, sedi-
mentation,  or runoff problem, an  interdisciplinary, inter-
agency effort was undertaken in New Hampshire to create
this needed assessment tool.

An approach to conducting a visual survey for NPS
"Following the Flow" is a watershed site evaluation method
developed  through  the efforts of  the University  of New
Hampshire Cooperative Extension (UNH  CE), the New
Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program,  and the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service. As this was to be a
visual survey method, sediment was the primary nonpoint
source (NPS) pollutant chosen. Sediment is discernible as a
plume in the water after  a storm event, and during dry
periods it can be observed  to collect on-site  and in deposits
and deltas.  Sediment can also be a good surrogate indicator
for additional NPS pollutants such as nutrients (especially
phosphorus, which is often  attached  to particulate materials),
organic matter, pesticides, and bacteria.
    The approach of Following the Flow is  graphically
depicted on the next page. Basically, the method  uses the
following questions to evaluate NPS problems:
 •  What is the potential for erosion or pollution production
    to occur given the characteristics of the site (soils, slope,
    vegetation, etc.), site history, and contributing areas
    above the site?
 •  Is there evidence of sediment or related NPS pollution
    being generated on the site?
 •  Are there measures in place to limit or prevent NPS
    pollutants from being generated (best management
    practices, or BMPs)? If so, do they seem  to be working?
 •  If NPS pollution is generated on the site,  could it easily
    move off the site or are there vegetative buffers in place?
 •  Is there evidence that material has moved off the site?
 •  Is there a transport route that would allow this material
    to get to the water?
 •  Is there any evidence of impact on the receiving water?

    This method provides a systematic approach for the
student or layperson to evaluate the seriousness of erosion,
sedimentation, or runoff problems.  For each type of impact
site, specific questions relate visual  indicators, impacts, best
management practices,  and land use activity. While the
questions differ, the  approach described  above  remains
consistent.  Site worksheets have been developed for a range
of agriculture activities, logging operations,  construction
sites, shoreline areas,  residential developments,  roads,
parking lots, and boat ramps. A neighborhood evaluation has
been  developed to assess homeowner  practices  and the
density and design of developments. This section has also
been  modified for self-assessment by homeowners and
students. You can evaluate a site and then move down to the
receiving water (stream, river, lake, estuary, or wetland), or
you can start at the water and move up the  watershed. The
evaluation can be done at existing sites to determine actual or
potential pollution problems  or it can be used to estimate
potential impacts of proposed land  use changes for specific
watershed areas.

                                                      Concurrent Session 6: How to Assess Nonpoint Source Pollution
       (LAKE, POND,
          (^ _ J)

          C ___ ,)
          C. _____ )
          C. ___ _,)

 I Algae, Mats, Scums

 1 Fish/Macroinvertebrates

1 Aquatic Plants

                                                                                           POTENTIAL FOR
                                                                                          NPS PRODUCTION
                           EVIDENCE OF
                            EROSION SITE
      The "Following the Flow" Watershed NPS Site Evaluation Method is shown here in a schematic diagram. The method consists of a series of
          observations for the receiving water (lake, river, stream, or wetland), the impact site, and the transport route that connects the two.
    .The  receiving waters  evaluation  can  be strictly
 qualitative using the assessment sheets provided, but there is
 also the option of utilizing water quality information from
 any of the New Hampshire agencies or volunteer monitoring
 programs. The method even allows  the option of using a
 simple macroinvertebrate index (equipment for this testing is
 already available for loan at all ten UNH CE county offices
 and our county youth education center). Thus, this project
 can complement existing  volunteer monitoring programs,
 utilize  results  from our  ongoing school programs,  and
 encourage further public participation.

 Method refinement
 A pilot program was  undertaken in 1995 as  part of the
 interagency Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Basin Outreach
 and Education Program, using volunteers from  two lake
 associations. A second program was initiated in 1996 as part
 of a watershed study of Swains Lake in Harrington, NH,
 using a team of senior college students  from the  UNH
 Natural Resources  Department. This multidisciplinary team
 was composed of  students that  specialized in  water
 resources, soils,  forestry,  wildlife, and environmental
 conservation. That same year,  a modified  version of the
 method was used by Salem (NH) High School students to
 conduct  neighborhood NPS  surveys as  part of  the
 educational efforts of a source water protection project. After
 these initial trials were evaluated, appropriate changes were
 made to the method. Slides from the pilot programs and field
 testing  were  copied and compiled  for use as a training
 workshop tool. A second slide program was developed to
 serve as a "teaser"  to generate interest in use of the method.
 Finally, a pilot training workshop was held.

 Training for the method
Training for Following the Flow involves both lectures and
field work, and can take a day  or more depending on the
number and type of sites the participants will evaluate. Skill
building required  includes interpretation  of topographic
maps, soil maps, and aerial photographs (which monitors
 will use before, during, and after their site visits). Watershed
 delineation and shoreland survey techniques are also cov-
 ered. The major educational emphasis of the lecture and field
 training is on watershed processes, land use activities that
 generate NPS pollution, visual indicators of pollution, and
 best management practices (their design and how to tell if
 they  are working). While it may require a professional to
 design the  proper BMP or conservation practice, it does not
 usually take a "rocket scientist" to be able to  tell if these
 controls are working successfully. Training also includes a
 "walk-through" of the method at selected impact sites.
    Once the site evaluation sheets are filled out, the scores
 are transferred  to the interpretive graphic (see above).
 Arrows are colored in completely for poor conditions and left
 blank for good conditions, with partially colored arrows for
 scores in between. This offers a visual  aid to the inter-
 pretation  of  the results.  Interpretation  of  the various
 outcomes is discussed in the training, and these scenarios are
 also catalogued in the training manual.  During training,
 participants are linked with the  professionals and agencies
 that can assist with confirming  or mitigating problems the
 volunteers discover, and with preventing future problems.
 Methods manual
 The training manual utilizes a  series of data  sheets with
 objective  questions  to  assess  various impact sites and
 receiving waters. (This format is loosely based on Method
for the Comparative Evaluation ofNontidal Wetlands in New
 Hampshire,  by  Alan  Ammann  and Amanda  Stone.)
 Instructions cover how to develop a monitoring strategy;
 when and where to monitor; how to fill out the appropriate
 site  evaluation,  transport route,  receiving   water, and
 summary sheets; and how  to interpret the results. The
 appendices, which are in the form of a watershed analysis
 tool kit, include sources of information  for the surveys,
 interpretation  of topographic  maps  and  watershed
 delineation, measuring  percent  slope,  evaluating best
 management practices, tables that list the erosion potential of

Concurrent Session 6: How to Assess Nonpoint Source Pollution
New Hampshire soils, and a list of cooperating agencies that
can assist in preventing or mitigating problems.

The uniqueness of this approach is that sites are evaluated
not only for evidence of pollution but also for potential
problems based on the nature of the site and whether man-
agement practices are in use. This allows potential problems
to be found and dealt with before they become actual prob-
lems. This method is also proactive since it assists the land-
owner by recommending  the appropriate  resource agency
with the expertise to correct or prevent the problem. Thus the
approach offers a "helping hand," rather than the "slapping
hand" of enforcement activities. This, in turn, creates partner-
ships instead of barriers between the  public,  landowners,
agencies, and decision makers.
    Following the Flow provides a model program with high
transfer capability. With little modification this project could
be applied throughout the country. Only the contact agency
list, the soils erodibility tables, and perhaps some of the cov-
ered BMPs would need to  be modified. The basics of the
Following the Flow methods manual have also been incor-
porated into existing New Hampshire youth curricula.

Ammann, Alan, and Amanda Lindley Stone. 1991. Method for the
    Comparative Evaluation ofNontidal Wetlands in New Hamp-
    shire. NH Department of Environmental Services, Concord,
    NH. NHDES-WRD-1991-3.
Ammann, Alan, and Jeffrey Schloss. 1997. Following the Flow, A
    Watershed NFS Site Evaluation Method. University of New
    Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH.
— End of Concurrent Session 6 —

                                                                    Concurrent Session 7: Program Roundtable A
                        Program  Roundtable  A
Facilitator: Alice Mayio, U.S. Environmental Protection

    Stacy L. Daniels & Thomas Osborn
 Crystal Lake Watershed Fund, Inc., P.O. Box 104, Beulah,
                MI 49617, 616/882-5149

 Managing and Presenting Monitoring
       Data for a Large Inland Lake

Stewardship of the Crystal Lake Watershed involves a bal-
anced  approach to meet scientific and  community needs
while interfacing with diverse groups that often have dif-
fering opinions as to what parameters should be monitored,
who should conduct the studies, and how data should best be
collected, interpreted, and utilized. Volunteer efforts of the
Crystal Lake Watershed Fund, Inc. (CLWF) have been direc-
ted by local environmental professionals,  while encouraging
active involvement by local citizen volunteers, schools, re-
gional colleges and universities, and governmental agencies.

Crystal Lake, an oligotrophic lake in Benzie County, is the
tenth largest inland lake in Michigan and contains 242 tril-
lion gallons of water. The watershed covers 21.8  square
miles, with approximately 75% (16.4 sq. mi.) being the lake
surface. Maximum depth approaches 175 feet (mean 70.7
feet). The watershed encompasses portions of four town-
ships, served by wells and septic  tanks, and two small com-
munities, with  municipal water supplies  and sewers. Lake-
shore residences are predominantly single-family with sea-
sonal usage. A landmark county ordinance ensures that septic
systems are maintained at current standards. The lake is
almost entirely surrounded by  high forested bluffs  sur-
rounding a narrow beach zone created by a dramatic draw-
down in the logging era. Crystal Lake had no natural outlet
to Lake Michigan until 1873 when its level was permanently
    The deep waters of the open lake are oligotrophic and
water quality is exceptionally high. Nearshore waters show
slightly elevated levels for some parameters, but water qual-
ity is still very good. Nutrient loading and sediment transport
are of some concern, but development and land use (if not
properly managed) have potential for much greater adverse
effects upon water quality. Nutrient input is limited by the
absence of major point sources and the small land/water ratio
of the  watershed. Sources include one major and several
minor tributaries, individual septic systems, and atmospheric
deposition. Sediments are surface runoff from the tributaries,
storm drains, and localized construction activities. Man-
ageable sources are being addressed to control inputs and
protect the environmental quality of the watershed.
Environmental science and
water quality monitoring program
CLWF sponsors a comprehensive Environmental Science
and Water Quality Monitoring Program. The CLWF is a
501(c)(3) organization, formed in 1994  upon merging the
Clean Water Committee of Crystal Lake (with a focus on
water quality monitoring)  and the Friends of Crystal Lake
(with a focus on land use and zoning). Like its predecessors,
the CLWF actively supports citizen initiatives  for water
quality monitoring, septic system control, sustainable devel-
opment, and land conservancy  through  education. The
CLWF Program is directed entirely by local environmental
professionals, which  allows  flexibility  in  experimental
design, sampling,  analysis, evaluation, and training. This is
in keeping with well-established state and national programs
that encourage proactive involvement by local citizens, local
schools, and regional universities with local, state, and fed-
eral agencies acting in advisory, consulting, and participatory
roles. The CLWF Science Review Panel and an external
reviewer provide oversight.
    Environmental studies of  the Crystal Lake Watershed
over the past 80 years  have addressed short- and long-term
impacts and future trends, and include water  quality moni-
toring; geological, hydrological, and ecological surveys;
fishery surveys; algae identifications; septic system assess-
ments; and aerial,  topographical, and land surveys. Options
for wastewater collection and treatment for two contiguous
watersheds were  considered in  a detailed facilities plan.
Crystal Lake was the first EPA case study to receive a final-
ized Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  of alternative
waste treatment systems for rural lake projects. It is the
location of an ongoing grant as part of the National Onsite
Demonstration Project. The CLWF program builds on these
studies. It involves both routine year-round monitoring of
conventional environmental parameters and original scien-
tific investigations  of the Crystal Lake Watershed.
    The CLWF also participates with the Benzie County
Section of the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy,
the Benzie/Leelanau County Public Health Department, and
the Interlochen Arts Academy, as well as with  other lakes, in
joint programs of the Michigan  Lake & Stream Associations,
the North American Lake Management Society, the Michi-
gan Sea Grant Program, the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Active dialogue among scientific and community groups is
important in building a broad committed base of support and
joint participation.
The CLWF Program is integrated into nine components:
 1. Water Quality Survey: Water quality monitoring of the
    Crystal Lake Watershed.
 2. Secchi Disk Program: An annual program specific to
    water clarity.
 3. Water Quality Testing Program: Biannual determination
    of nine water quality parameters.
 4. Advanced Self-Help Program: An annual program
    specific to total phosphorus.
 5. Citizens' Lake Monitoring Program: A pilot workbook
    program with  17 Michigan  lakes.
 6. Innovative Treatment: Support of demonstrations of
    processes for individual onsite wastewater treatment
 7. Biological Survey: Monitoring of plankton, macro-
    phytes, fish, etc., including zebra mussels and Eurasian
 8. Adjacent Watersheds: Studies in parallel with other
    watersheds in the region.
 9. Educational Programs: Hands-on experiences in water


Concurrent Session 7: Program Roundtable A
    quality monitoring; "Eco-Explorations" with students.

The CLWF Program encompasses five "sampling regimes"
within the Crystal Lake Watershed:
 1. Deep-Lake: Open waters of the lake, including bottom
 2. Near-Shore: Littoral zone about the lake perimeter.
 3. Cold Creek: Locations throughout the major tributary.
 4. Tributaries: Additional locations including minor
    tributaries and the outlet.
 5. Miscellaneous Events: Selected natural and
    anthropogenic (manmade) events.

    CLWF volunteers have conducted numerous  surveys
which have provided opportunities for students and interns to
gain field experience in water quality monitoring. Physical,
chemical, and biological parameters selected for monitoring
in the CLWF Program are based on recognized importance
and/or historic significance in past studies:
Physical: Water depth, Secchi disk depth, turbidity, air and
    water temperatures.
Chemical:  DO, conductivity, pH, redox potential; ortho,
    soluble, and total phosphorus; dissolved and suspended
    solids; hardness, alkalinity, chloride, sulfate; ammonia,
    nitrate, nitrite, and  organic  nitrogen;  and individual
    elements: aluminum, arsenic, calcium, copper,  chro-
    mium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, lead,
    silica, sodium, zinc.
Biological: Algae, plankton, macrophytes, and other aquatic
    species, including exotics, and chlorophyll a.
Other: Rain, snowmelt, shoreline deposits, stream flows,
    soils, and sediments.
    Monitoring equipment includes  a differential global
positioning system (DGPS) for sample locating, conventional
water samplers, a  sediment corer,  plankton collection
devices,  and a  multiparameter sampling probe (Hydrolab
H20™) with automatic data logger for uploading to a per-
sonal computer and an extensive database. Analyses have
been performed during sampling (vertical profiles), at local
laboratory facilities on the lake, at local schools,  and at the
Great Lakes Water Quality Laboratory, a local facility, fol-
lowing QA/QC procedures and standard methods.

Daniels, Stacy L., and Thomas Osborn. 1996. Costal Lake:  Water
    Quality Monitoring. Report for 1994 and 1995. CLWF, P.O.
    Box 104, Beulah, MI 49617. 80 pp.
Daniels, Stacy L. 1994. "An 'Experience' in Water Quality Moni-
    toring." CLWF, P.O. Box 104, Beulah, MI, 49617; 4 pp.
Crystal Lake Watershed Fund, Clean Water Committee of Crystal
    Lake, and Ad Hoc Committee.  1987. Crystal Lake—Life or
    Death. Benzie County, Michigan. 32 pp. (Also  annual  up-
                    Jay Sandal
  Superior Lakewatch, Lake Superior Center, 353 Harbor
         Drive, Duluth, MN 55806, 218/720-3033

            Superior Lakewatch:
            The First Five Years

Superior Lakewatch is an international citizen-based lake
monitoring program. The principal objective of Superior
Lakewatch is to involve citizens of the Lake Superior basin
in developing a database that can be used to document cur-
rent water quality conditions and evaluate  trends in water
quality over time.  The program, which is modeled after
successful efforts on inland lakes, is the first of its kind on
the Laurentian Great Lakes.
    Since 1991, volunteers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michi-
gan, and Ontario have been using Secchi disks to document
water transparency of Lake Superior. A report that provides a
summary  of the water transparency conditions of Lake
Superior, as well as empirical relationships between chlor-
ophyll levels and water transparency for different areas of
Lake Superior, has recently been published by Lake Superior
Center in Duluth, Minnesota.
The principal conclusions of this effort are:
 1.  Lake Superior's near-shore waters vary considerably in
    clarity, ranging from Secchi readings of 62 to 0.5 feet.
 2.  In western Lake Superior chlorophyll levels and water
    clarity are not correlated and chlorophyll levels must be
    measured directly.
 3.  Superior Lakewatch should be continued. Evidence from
    long-term data collections by volunteer monitors on
    inland lakes show that Secchi disk monitoring can
    produce statistically valid information which can be
    used to document changes in water quality.
                  Cindy Kreifels
The Ground-water Foundation, P.O. Box 22558, Lincoln, NE
   68542, 402/434-2740,

   Groundwater Guardian: A Program
for Community Watershed Protection

Clean, drinkable water is  one  thing many citizens of the
United States take for granted. An often-forgotten but critical
resource, groundwater is the source of drinking water for
over 50 percent of Americans.
    Wellhead  protection and groundwater monitoring are
essential pollution prevention measures taken by many com-
munities  to ensure the quality  of the community drinking
water. The  Groundwater Foundation strongly  believes
groundwater protection must be implemented at the com-
munity level with local citizens solving local problems. With
this  guiding philosophy, the  Groundwater Foundation
developed a program to promote community-based ground-
water protection solutions  on a nationwide basis. Through
Groundwater Guardian, the Foundation provides support and
recognition  for communities taking voluntary, proactive
steps toward protecting their groundwater source. The pro-
gram  also enables  the Foundation to address the national
need for  a vital, sustainable network of communities, citi-
zens, and successful groundwater protection strategies. The
program  was designed to be process-oriented, not product-
oriented; inclusive not exclusive; and, most importantly,
community-driven. "Community" is a broadly defined term
in Groundwater Guardian  and  can include a city, county,
watershed, corporate or college campus,  or any other geo-
graphic area which relies on a common groundwater source.
    A community  is encouraged to enter the program no
matter where it is  in the groundwater protection process.

                                                                      Concurrent Session 7: Program Roundtable A
 Whether citizens need to begin the protection process by
 building community awareness or by implementing a com-
 pleted Wellhead Protection Plan, they will use local expertise
 and resources  and have the opportunity to connect with
 others engaged in similar activities across the country.
     Community-driven involvement begins when  a com-
 munity requests and  receives  A Community Guide to
 Groundwater Guardian,  the "road map"  through the
 program. The community then forms a Groundwater Guar-
 dian team. This team must be a diverse group comprised of
 representatives from citizen groups, local government, edu-
 cational institutions, business and agriculture. For many
 communities, the team may be an existing committee or
    An annual entry form (included in the Guide) is sub-
 mitted to the Foundation in February. The brief form asks for
 information about the community, its groundwater supply
 and problems, and how the program can help the community
 address these problems. Once the entry form has been
 accepted by the Foundation,  the community team identifies
 existing groundwater-protection issues and develops a plan
 of Result Oriented Activities  (ROAs) to address these issues
 effectively.  The plan is unique to each community, but all
 plans must have measurable outcomes. Five areas for poten-
 tial ROA development include: Education and Awareness;
 Pollution Prevention; Conservation; Public Policy; and Best
 Management Practices.
    The Groundwater  Foundation sends each community
 entered in the program a "Groundwater Guardian Com-
 munity Assistance Kit," which includes information on such
 topics as water festivals, wellhead  protection, and best
 management practices,  and  an annotated bibliography of
 additional resources.
    Substantive progress toward planned goals will mean
 Groundwater Guardian designation for the community in
 both local and national ceremonies. Each fall, prospective
 and existing Groundwater Guardian communities meet at the
 national Groundwater Guardian Conference for the purpose
 of Groundwater Guardian designation, public accolades, and
 networking. At this  conference, effective and innovative
 Groundwater Guardian projects are presented, and new com-
 munities recruited.
    1994  served  as a test  year for the program. Eight
 communities were selected to  test the Groundwater Guardian
 process and were designated as Groundwater Guardian
 communities in November of 1994. Fifty-five communities,
 including the initial eight, entered for 1995. Fifty of these
 entering communities were designated as 1995 Groundwater
 Guardians. This year, 98 communities have entered Ground-
 water Guardian, including communities from  33 states, a
Canadian province, and Mexico.
    Several  communities have been involved  in wellhead
protection as one of their ROAs. Examples include:
 •  Memphis and Shelby Counties, Tennessee. A well mon-
    itoring program has been  given a major role in the
    implementation and protection of the primary source of
 •  Seward County, Nebraska. Monitoring wells have been
    used to determine high nitrate levels in the groundwater/
    drinking water supply, which led to the building of a
    treatment plant.
 •  Borough of Kutztown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. A
    wellhead protection ordinance was developed and
     enacted, establishing a Wellhead Protection Overlay
  •  Lacey, Washington. A door-to-door awareness program
     was established for citizens living within the wellhead
     protection zone.

     Protecting groundwater requires an understanding of the
 past and a commitment to doing the right thing in the present.
 And, most importantly, because of the time needed to see the
 results of stewardship, protecting groundwater  requires
 strong faith in the future.
                 Karel M. Fraser
      Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
   (ORSANCO), 5735 Kellogg Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45228-
                  1112, 513/231-7719

     Monitoring Watersheds of Large
        River Systems: A Design for
             School  Involvement

 While most volunteer monitoring activities have focused on
 streams, lakes, and estuaries, the Ohio River Valley Water
 Sanitation Commission's  (ORSANCO) RiverWatchers vol-
 unteer monitoring program has been developed for moni-
 toring on large river systems, specifically the Ohio River.
 With a  watershed that encompasses  nearly 204,000 square
 miles, or approximately 5 percent of the contiguous United
 States, and has over 20 major tributary watersheds, it's ob-
 vious that the logistics of monitoring every waterway in the
 Ohio River Watershed are impractical for one organization.
    Recognizing that tributaries and their watersheds have a
 great influence on Ohio River water quality, and that in 1992
 there were no model volunteer monitoring programs for large
 river systems, ORSANCO initiated the RiverWatchers pro-
 gram. Five groups were selected to collect samples and con-
 duct water quality testing on the Ohio River main stem and
 several tributaries. Subsequently the program has expanded
 to include sites along the 981 miles of the main stem and on
 larger and smaller tributaries in a six-state area.
    During the 1995-96  monitoring year,  21 groups  are
 conducting water quality testing at 15 sites on the Ohio River
 main stem and 6 tributaries. Of these groups, 20 are from
 elementary, middle, and high schools in counties that border
 the River. One group  is an  environmental organization.
 Several  groups also identify macroinvertebrates. Groups are
 provided one of three tests kits used in the program and
 monitor from six to nine parameters.
    One of the biggest challenges in designing the River-
 Watchers program is  how to evaluate the data from all the
 monitored waterways and find guidelines common to  all.
 Those groups monitoring the Ohio River compare their data
 to established guidelines  for the River. While ORSANCO
 conducts routine water quality monitoring on the main stem
 and  lower reaches of  several major tributaries and has
historic  data and established guidelines for comparison,
 groups monitoring on the smaller tributaries must evaluate
their streams by providing baseline data, and then comparing
subsequent results to the established baselines and other
existing general criteria for water quality. While this is  not
ideal, it provides  participants with the means to compare
their data to others monitoring in the Ohio River watershed.

Concurrent Session 7: Program Roundtable A
    Using  school  groups to develop the RiverWatchers
program has been beneficial in several ways. First, by incor-
porating water quality testing into their curricula, teachers
and students provide consistent results to ORSANCO and act
as watchdogs in  areas where ORSANCO does not conduct
routine monitoring. Next, teachers and students are intro-
duced to the importance of clean water in their watershed
and the effect of pollution on downstream watersheds. If
desired, they can become actively  involved in efforts to
improve water quality. Finally, teachers and students can
draw on the resources and experiences of ORSANCO, which
has been monitoring the Ohio River and selected watersheds
for nearly 50 years.

History of RiverWatchers
In 1992, ORSANCO decided to promote public involvement
in water quality issues in the Ohio River Valley. ORSANCO
selected five groups in three states to conduct chemical water
quality testing on the Ohio main stem and three tributaries.
This pilot project was launched in October, with partial fund-
ing from the Virginia Environmental Endowment.
    The groups represented an adult environmental organiza-
tion in Ashland, KY, a Boy Scout troop in Mt. Vernon, IN,
and three school groups: a fifth-grade  class from Marietta,
OH; a Key Club from a high school in Lawrenceburg, IN;
and a high school biology class from Rayland, OH.
    Test kits were chosen for the groups based on their skill
level, with  elementary students receiving HACH's  simple
color cube  school kits. Older students and the adults were
provided either 6- or 9-parameter HACK Aquaculture or
Fish Farming kits. All groups were given a Field  Guide,
developed by ORSANCO; the "Water, Water Everywhere"
environmental educational three-book series;  and other
materials. An ORSANCO staff member visited each group
and gave a brief demonstration on conducting the tests.
    In the beginning, groups were asked to collect samples
and test twice monthly. Results were mailed to ORSANCO
for evaluation. From the parameters  tested, most of the
groups' results were within guidelines for the Ohio River.
However, groups monitoring smaller tributaries were pro-
viding baseline  data, since most sites did not have any
background results to use for comparison. Data was pre-
sented in a very simple format in a newsletter.
    At the  conclusion of the first year, ORSANCO, with in-
put from the groups, determined that while  testing twice
monthly provided a wealth of information, results did not
change dramatically within that time period, and the rigorous
schedule was a hardship for those groups monitoring two or
three sites.  However, all groups enjoyed monitoring, learned
a lot about their local waterway's health, and wished to
continue testing for another year. The pilot project was so
successful  that the Commission adopted it as  one of its
regular programs, and provided funding to expand into all six
main stem states.

Second year
During the  second  year, five new groups were added to the
pilot project groups, and the program included participants in
five states. Groups now were asked to monitor once monthly,
and one teacher took a field trip to a nearby lock and dam
where ORSANCO  conducted lock chamber fish population
surveys. Students not only observed, but also assisted biolo-
gists in identification  and measurements.  One  problem
encountered during the first two years was that, due to budg-
etary restraints, ORSANCO staff were not able to have face-
to-face contact with each group more than once per year.
While  the  mail and telephone provided information ex-
changes, personal contact seemed to maintain enthusiasm. At
the conclusion of the second year, one pilot project group
lost interest and stopped monitoring.

Third year to present
Each year, ORSANCO has increased the number of partici-
pants and sites, with the greatest concentration of participants
monitoring within 10 miles of the main stem. In  the third
year, there were monitoring sites in all six main stem states
from Pittsburgh, PA, to Metropolis, IL, just upstream from
the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Several
groups conduct macroinvertebrate sampling in their local
waterway. They are provided Hester-Dendy samplers ("bug
condominiums" used by ORSANCO during macroinverte-
brate surveys) and kick nets. During the 1995-96 monitoring
year, 21  groups monitored on the Ohio River and seven
tributaries.  From ORSANCO's experience, the  most
consistent  monitoring  groups were from schools where
teachers  incorporated  the program  into  their  science
curricula. Selection of future groups will focus on schools.
    The biggest challenge to date  has been electronic acqui-
sition of data. Some of the groups do not have access to fax
machines or computers. For the few that have the capability
and equipment, results are loaded directly onto ORSANCO's
bulletin board each month. Within the past several months,
ORSANCO has been working on a simple program that is
compatible with most computers. Those not having  a fax
machine or modem can put their data on disk and send it via
mail. While this is not  ideal, it does allow ORSANCO  to
load this data into databases without having to manually type
in the  results.  Twenty-one groups monitoring  monthly
(approximately 3 to 9  parameters  each) generate  large
quantities of data. ORSANCO is still trying to find the best
way to  graphically represent the data. Several attempts at this
have resulted in  a  packet of graphs  that are somewhat
confusing, especially for elementary students.
    Overall, the program has lived up to  ORSANCO's
expectations. More Ohio  River  Valley  residents are in-
creasing  their awareness of water quality, and the Com-
mission has a large database of water quality information. In
several instances where  results were outside "normal" water
quality guidelines, ORSANCO provided further investigation
into the causes. Students and teachers enjoy their outings to
the waterways, and most educators believe students have a
better appreciation of clean water.
    Future plans for the program  include linking all groups
via computer so results can be shared easily. ORSANCO
hopes to hold a water quality conference at which all volun-
teer monitoring participants can meet and share ideas, prob-
lems, and solutions. Also,  the program will  add five more
groups  this year.
    Financial restraints and staff time allotment do limit
visits to each group. Ideally, groups should  have personal
contact with someone from the program at least twice yearly,
but until  additional funding and staff are available, once a
year will have to suffice.

                                                                      Concurrent Session 7: Program Roundtable B
                         Program  Roundtable   B
 Facilitator: Eleanor Ely, The Volunteer Monitor newsletter

               Mac A.  Callaham &
               Susan P.  Gannaway
   North Georgia College,  Center for Science/Technology,
           Dahlonega, GA 30597, 706/864-1876

       Multiagency Partnerships for
    Technical Support of  Volunteers

 The Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Program (AAS), managed by
 the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia De-
 partment of Natural Resources (DNR), is three years old and
 involves approximately 2,500 volunteers and 100 community
 groups. Shortly after AAS was organized, it became clear
 that the one full-time employee headquartered in Atlanta
 could not by herself effectively serve large numbers of indi-
 viduals and groups in the largest state east of the Mississippi.
 An advisory board was created, with representatives from
 such diverse groups as the Department of Community Affairs
 (state  government), North  Georgia  College (university
 system), Association of County Commissioners, Georgia
 Water Pollution Control Federation, Riverkeepers, Georgia
 Power, Coca  Cola, and community groups. This  board
 assisted DNR in setting goals for the program. Based on the
 experience  of other U.S. monitoring programs and the
 specific needs  of the Georgia program, the board established
 three levels of  involvement for volunteer groups. Initially the
 advisory board met monthly; now (with slightly different
 membership) it meets quarterly.
    Because AAS receives Clean Water Act funding (319)
 from EPA and involves monitoring, a  Quality Control/
 Quality Assurance Program was required. Thus a  statewide,
 systematic method for training, supporting, and evaluating
 volunteer data was also required. In conjunction with the
 advisory board, the college  and agency personnel proposed a
 cooperative program with the university system to develop a
 network of five Regional Training Centers (RTCs)  to accom-
 plish these objectives. (North Georgia College had a prior
 relationship with DNR, as a result of operating a  five-year-
 old statewide Teacher-Student Trend Monitoring Program.)
    These RTCs are strategically located to include prox-
 imity to all major river basins and geologic provinces of the
 state. They are all  based within the university  system to take
 advantage of existing educational and scientific facilities and
 technical personnel. The RTCs are staffed by doctoral-level
 faculty who receive 2 to 4 course reassignments during a
 calendar year, paid for by 319 funding.
    The emphasis for Georgia's Adopt-A-Stream Program is
 on the formation of partnerships between AAS groups  and
 local partners, in particular  local water pollution control
personnel and  municipal water supply  operators, as well as
state and  federal conservation agencies, and  advocacy
 groups. These local entities, especially in rural areas, have a
high capacity for local problem solving, but a low capacity
for technical training and volunteer support.
    As a result of enhanced public awareness and concern
regarding nonpoint source pollution problems, there have
been numerous requests for assistance with the coordination
 and training of volunteer monitors. This project is aimed at
 training volunteers to aid in  the  evaluation of nonpoint
 source impacts by agriculture, construction, and urban activi-
     In order to use citizen volunteers effectively, there must
 be an organized program in which:
  1.  The volunteers are trained in a consistent, systematic,
     and regionally convenient fashion;
  2.  Volunteer monitoring data can be assessed;
  3.  Volunteer monitors may receive professional technical
     support to aid in problem solving; and
  4.  Local entities are a part of the partnership building

 Structure of AAS
 AAS volunteers commit to a one-year project on a local
 water body.  They begin with  participation at "Level I,"
 which consists of finding a stream site to adopt, conducting a
 watershed walk (mapping upstream land uses and potential
 water quality impacts), making visual assessments of water
 quality and physical habitat at one site four times per year,
 conducting regular litter pickups, and engaging in one public
 outreach activity. They are asked to report to a local partner,
 local government, and AAS (through their RTC). The objec-
 tive  is to build the volunteer's  understanding of the water-
 shed concept, the relationship between land use and water
 quality, positive and  negative influences on water quality,
 and how the physical environment is important to stream life.
    Levels II and III provide opportunities for volunteers to
 evaluate water quality or improve water quality through
 habitat enhancement projects. In addition to Level I activ-
 ities, Level II and III volunteers choose one or more of the
 following: biological monitoring, physical/chemical moni-
 toring, or habitat enhancement.
    Training is required for all levels of participation.

 Training trainers
 Trainers need to be individuals with some  depth of back-
 ground in water analysis. Trainers are screened and selected
 by AAS and the appropriate RTC. Typical prospective train-
 ers include municipal employees,  agency  personnel (for
example, Forest Service), nature center employees, and
teachers. In workshops conducted by the RTCs, prospective
trainers  are introduced to AAS protocols, safety consider-
ations, training manuals, and techniques. The trainers must
pass  the same quality assurance  tests required of volunteers.
They are then  able to train and certify other volunteers.

Quality assurance/Quality control
At volunteer training sessions,  volunteers have the oppor-
tunity to be "Quality Assured." Data collected by certified
"QA volunteers" is incorporated into the volunteer data base
by the RTCs.
   For chemical certification, the volunteer must match the
trainer's results to within 10% on tests for dissolved oxygen,
alkalinity, pH, nitrate, and phosphate. The volunteers use
their own equipment and the trainer uses equipment cali-
brated at the RTC.
   For biological certification, the volunteer is observed

Attendee Address List
Kristin Siemann
National Wildlife Federation
750 West Second Ave.
Suite 200
Anchorage. AK 99501
Jo Lynn Traub
US EPA Region 5

Herbert Turner
Suzanne Wade
1450 Linden Dr.
Madison, Wl 53706
Don Winne
P.O. Box 249
Three Rivers , Ml 49093

Stan Slaughter
3517 Virginia Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64109
Denise Sloeckel
IL Natural History Survey/
Forbes Biological Station
Box 590
Havana,! 62644
Linda Storm
1200 Sixth Ave. (ECD-083)
Seattle, WA 98101
Robin Tillitl
MO Dept. of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Waynesville Schools
22665 Oak Street
Jerome, MO 65529
Janet Vail
Grand Valley State University
1 Campus Drive
Allendale, Ml 49401
Mark Van Patten
Conservation Federation of
   Missouri STREAM TEAM
728 W. Main
Jefferson City, MO 65101
James Vennie
Wl Lakes Partnership-DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Mary Wagner
Wl Lakes Partnership-DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Keith Wheeler
206 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 150
Ann Arbor, Ml 48104
Linda Wheeler
Heartland All Species Project
3517 Virginia
Kansas City, MO 64109
Christy Williams
IWLA Save Our Streams
707 Conservation Ln.
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Mary Ellen Wolfe
Montana Watercourse
201 Culbertson Hall
MT State Univ.
Bozeman, MT59717
Christopher Wright
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
1102CassSt., Suite B
Traverse City, Ml 49684
Adrienne Yang
San Francisco Estuary Institute
1325 S. 46th St.
Richmond, CA 94804
Steven Yergeau
Save the Sound, Inc.
185 Magee Ave.
Stamford, CT 06902
Barry Tonning
1540 Pine Grove Rd.
Orympla.KY 40358