Proceedings
FIFTH NATIONAL
VOLUNTEER MONITORING CONFERENCE
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.
EPA841-R-97-007
-------
Proceedings
FIFTH NATIONAL
VOLUNTEER MONITORING CONFERENCE
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
Delegate
Home
States
Map courtesy of Ken Cooke
-------
Table of Contents
Contents
OPENING PLENARY SESSION
Gaylord Nelson -Environment-Population-Sustainable Development 1
CONCURRENT SESSION 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
CONCURRENT SESSION 2
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
CONCURRENT SESSION 3
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
ill
-------
Table of Contents
CONCURRENT SESSION 4
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
CONCURRENT SESSION 5
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
CONCURRENT SESSION 6
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
CONCURRENT SESSION 7
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
iv
-------
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
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL DISCUSSION SESSIONS
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
ATTENDEE ADDRESS LIST 113
-------
-------
Opening Plenary
OPENING PLENARY SESSION
Gaylord Nelson
Founder of Earth Day, Counselor ofThe Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society, 900 Seventeenth Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20006-2596, 202/833-2300
ENVIRONMENT—POPULATION-
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
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
way:
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
way:
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
growth.
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
more.
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
century.
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-
bined.
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
borders?
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,
802/223-8082
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
bureaucrats.
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
developments.
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,
publicized.
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
country.
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
information
• 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
media.
Strategies
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-
2477.
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
coverage.
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
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.
8
-------
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
listenerships.
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
year.
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
America
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
recover.
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
values.
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
sediment.
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
10
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
factory.
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
slumping.
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.
11
-------
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
abundance.
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-
mation.
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,
12
-------
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-
quately.
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.
Summation
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
13
-------
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
Network
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
14
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
Program.
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.
15
-------
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, green@green.org, Web site
http://www.econet.apc.org/green/
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
outcomes.
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-
16
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
characteristics.
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-
perience.
• 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
environments.
• Encourage volunteers to share experiences and
expertise. Provide volunteers with additional learning
materials.
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
challenges.
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
performance.
• 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
minutes."
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
17
-------
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-
tions:
• Show: The skill should be demonstrated to the
volunteers. The demonstration should accomplish the
learning objective you have written for the
volunteers.
• 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
copy.
• 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
18
-------
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:
http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/conf/wkswater.htm
For a report on the national conference itself, visit the
main conference site at:
http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/conf/vols.htm
— End of Concurrent Session 1 —
19
-------
Concurrent Session 2: Incorporating Stewardship in Your Monitoring Program
Incorporating Stewardship in
Your Monitoring Program
Workshop Leader: Joan Kimball, Massachusetts Riverways
Program
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.
20
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
happened.
Based on this example, workshop participants made
several recommendations designed to help monitors in an
existing monitoring group incorporate stewardship in their
program.
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!
21
-------
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
America
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
Association.
2Each sample was a composite of four collections in fast and slow
current.
SiteMoBOlO Site MoBOOl
% Similarity to Reference Site (MoB017) % Similarity to Reference Site (MoB017)
1 UU /o -
Qfl%
ftfl%
7n%
Rf\°/~
cn<>/
OU/o -
/Ifto/
4U/0 -
in°/.
ono/
alU/o -
inoA
lU/o •
no/
ono/
No Data
1992
1993
80% -
70% -
60% -
KQ% .
Af\0/ .
30% -
2O% -
10% -
i no/
^ ^
j ^~
/
* *£.
, V «
v~
v»
1994 1992 1993 1994
> 79% Non-impaired
29-72% Moderately Impaired
<21% Severely Impaired
22
-------
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.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
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
system.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
23
-------
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.
Reference:
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;
423/751-8547; alyon@tva.gov
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
24
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
independent.
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
Tennessee.
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
25
-------
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
findings.
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.
26
-------
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
Board
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
evaluations.
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.
Category
Physical
Chemical
Biological
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-
phate
fecal coliform bacteria and riffle-dwelling
benthic macroinvertebrates
Physical, chemical, and biological parameters measured by students
participating in Project SEARCH.
27
-------
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-
28
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
good."
• 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.
Reference:
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
management.
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
Valley.
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,
29
-------
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
management.
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
involved.
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.
30
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
approach.
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.
Commitment
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.
Learner-centered
We encourage youth to be involved in all stages of their
project from planning to implementation.
Action-oriented
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
communities.
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
information.
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
processes.
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
Watras.
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
goal.
Conclusion
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.
31
-------
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,
606/674-6396
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
EVALUATION
DISTRIBUTION
FORMAT
MESSAGE
TARGET
AUDIENCE
OBJECTIVE
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.
32
-------
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-
33
-------
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 —
34
-------
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
Background
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
schools.
Results
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
Slough.
-------
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
plants.
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.
Conclusion
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.
36
-------
Concurrent Session 3: Monitoring Wetlands
Monitoring Wetlands
Moderator: Christy Williams, Izaak Walton League of
America
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-
able.
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
conditions.
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
37
-------
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
followed.
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
principles.
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
OBL
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
FAG
River Birch
Betula niara
FACW
Pin Oak
Ouercus palustris
FACW
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
FACW
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
FACW
Black Gum
Nvssa svlvatica
FAG
Water Tupelo
Nvssa biflora
OBL
JjuttonbustL
Ceohalanthus occidentalis
OBL
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
FACW
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).
38
-------
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
apart.
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
side.)
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
sheets.
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-
39
-------
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.
References:
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,
903/938-3545
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.
40
-------
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 Mayio.Alice@epamail.epa.gov. It is also available
on the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/qappcovr.html.
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;
303/291-7388
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
place.
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.
inferential)
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.
41
-------
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
Microscope)
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
42
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-
petition.)
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-
fied.
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
http://www.microscope.aone.net.au
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
Programs.
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
include:
• 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
43
-------
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 —
44
-------
Concurrent Session 4: Making Stewardship Measurable
Making Stewardship Measurable
Moderator: Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters
Board
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
system.
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,
302/645-4250
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
4S
-------
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-
clude:
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,
Montana-Style
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-
sheds."
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
expertise.
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?")
46
-------
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
deadlines
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
receives.
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
workshop.
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
Watercourse.
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
47
-------
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.
Summation
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.
48
-------
Concurrent Session 4: Restoring Wetland and Lake Habitats
Restoring Wetland and Lake Habitats
Moderator: Christy Williams, Izaak Walton League of
America
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
Restoration
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-
tria."
Louis N. Smith
Smith Parker, P.L.L.P., 808 Colwell Building, 123 North
Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401, 612/344-1400,
admin@smithparker.com
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.
49
-------
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-
graphic:
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-
50
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
community.
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
information
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
project.
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.
Conclusion
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,
413/545-5532
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
51
-------
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
surveys.)
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
process:
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-
52
-------
Concurrent Session 4: Dealing with Your Data, Part 2: Know Your Audience, Tailor Your Message
Visers and Uses of Data
User
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Individual Citizens
Legislators
Regulators
Resource Managers
(e.g., farmers, conservation commissions, non-
regulatory agencies, large landowners)
Municipalities and Industry
(dischargers)
Environmental Groups
Scientists
Civic Groups
Educational Institutions
Monitoring Groups
Uses
* Risk assessment
("Should I swim in that water?")
* Stewardship
* Support for policy and program expenditures and
changes
* 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
management
* Identify sites for development
* Standards and permit compliance
* Identify sites for protection
* Public health
* Economic development / tourism
* Self and government policy and program
evaluation
* Support programs (e.g., Wild and Scenic
designation)
* Stewardship, environmental awareness, education
* Advocacy support
* Improve scientific understanding of ecological
relationships
* 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-
sources.
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-
53
-------
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
54
-------
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
positive.
Llano River Water Quality
December 1996
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
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
support?
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
55
-------
Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
news, public service announcements, weekly
publications.)
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
checks?
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,
802/223-3840
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
56
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
gills.
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.
57
-------
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
influence.
• 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
steps:
1. Research existing reports, data, and standards.
2. Identify uses, values, and threats.
3. Identify issues: conflicts among uses, values, and
threats.
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
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 main categories of indicators are:
• Biological indicators (e.g., macroinvertebrates, fish,
wildlife, pathogens)
• Chemical indicators (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen,
nutrients)
• Physical habitat indicators (e.g., gradient, bottom
composition)
• 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
supported)
• 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-
dicators:
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
change?
• 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
ecosystem?
• 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.
58
-------
Concurrent Session 4: Developing a Watershed Monitoring Plan
Following are some questions to consider when selecting
methods:
Scientific considerations
• Does the method meet your data quality
requirements?
• 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
Channels
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
interest.
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
water.
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
59
-------
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
impact)
It is very important that all the sites be as similar as
possible in every respect except for the impact being
assessed.
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
stem.
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
sites:
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
conversions.
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
water.
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
done?
• 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?
References:
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.
60
-------
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: http://www.epa.gov/
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
GeoffDates
River Watch Net\vork, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602,
802/223-3840
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
62
-------
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-
ables.
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
condition)
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
assurance.
So, selecting indicators is just one of these steps.
Following are some things to think about when selecting
indicators:
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
change?
• 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
ecosystem?
• Is it explainable to your target audience?
Management
Objectives
Compliance
Jf Indicator
Early
Warning
Indicator
Diagnostic
Indicator
Action
63
-------
Concurrent Session 5: Watershed Indicators—A Closer Look
LIST OF INDICATORS
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
References:
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: http://www.epa.gov/
64
indicator/define.html
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,
505/296-7547
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-
ations.
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
66
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!
References:
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
beach?).
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
criteria:
- 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, vbrennan@umd5.umd.edu
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
67
-------
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
themselves.
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 CONTROL DEVICES
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
68
-------
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
development."
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
investigation.
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®
umd5.umd.edu; or Maryland Save Our Streams at 410/969-0084.
Restoring Stream Habitats
Moderator: Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of
America
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
erosion
*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,
including:
• flood management
• habitat protection
• passive recreation
• public safety
• education
• aesthetics
69
-------
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-
ment:
1. Know your site, in all of its seasons.
2. Never disturb a site more than is absolutely
necessary.
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
project.
10. Don't plant trees near the active bankfull flow
channel. Keep them above the seasonal high-water
mark.
Interdisciplinary Studies and Monitoring
Moderator: Molly MacGregor, Mississippi Headwaters
Board
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
70
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-
ment.
-------
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-
vention.
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
represent.
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
experience.
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
schools.
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-
WATCH.
Patty Madigan
AmeriCorps Watershed Project, P.O. Box 1697, Mendocino,
CA 95460, 707/964-0395, pmad@mcn.org
Engage Yourself in the Elements:
Service-Learning
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-
71
-------
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
environment.
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
experiences.
The Watershed Project further recommends that com-
munity/school partnerships build these components into their
program:
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
CD-ROM.
72
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.
GIS
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.
Internet
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: http://www.waterwatch.org.au
• Waterwatch Victoria: http://www.vic.waterwatch.org.au
• Waterwatch South Australia:
http://www.denr.sa.gov.au/wrg/wwatch/doc 1 www.htm
• Waterwatch New South Wales (called Streamwatch in
this state): http://www.streamwatch.org.au
CD-ROMs
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
national.
73
-------
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
institution.
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
74
-------
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
analyses.
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 —
75
-------
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-
5532
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
degradation.
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-
76
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
data.
• 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
risk.
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
DATA PRESENTATIONS THAT MEET
THE FIVE OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: Educate your audience about
watershed ecology.
Examples:
• 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.
Examples:
• 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.
Examples:
• 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.
Examples:
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.
Examples:
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
degradation.
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.
77
-------
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
GeoffDates
River Watch Network, 153 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602,
802/223-3840
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
quality.
• 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
river?
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
78
-------
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
progression.
How benthic macroinvertebrates are monitored
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring involves a number of
steps:
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"
rocks).
• 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,
forested)
• 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
sites.
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:
79
-------
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
results.
Artificial substrates are devices which are placed on the
river bottom, or suspended in the water column, and provide
a place for the macroinvertebrates to colonize over a period
of time—usually 3-5 weeks. The devices are then retrieved.
Check with your state's aquatic biologist to see what type is
recommended. Two types of artificial substrates are
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
80
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
community.
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:
Habitat
Level
of Effort
# of Samples
Sampling
Device
Processing
Identification
A
Riffle/bottom
Qualitative
1
Net
Field, all
Major group
B
Multiple
Semi-
quantitative
1
Net
Field subsample
Lab ID
Major group
C
Multiple
Semi-
quantitative
3 composite
Net
Lab
Family
D
Multiple
Quantitative
3
Artificial
substrate
Lab
Family
In selecting a method, consider the following:
• The specific question you're trying to answer about the
river
• 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
Represen-
tativeness
Precision
Sensitivity
to Change
Resource
Needs
Identification
A
Education,
Problem
screening
Low
Low
Low
Low
Major group
B
Add local
assessment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Major group
C
Add state
assessment
High
Moderate-
High
High
High
- Family
D
Add
regulatory
Low
High
Moderate-
High
High
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.
References:
Bode, Robert, et al. 1991. Methods for Rapid Biological Assessment
of Streams. Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of Monitoring
and Assessment, Division of Water, Albany, NY.
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,
DC.
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,
HCD@SKYPOINT.COM
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.
Methods
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
81
-------
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
bottom.
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
82
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
reaches.
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.
83
-------
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
protocols.
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-
209.
84
-------
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
America
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
1989.
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
85
-------
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.
Results
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
recovery.
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
spirits.
Conclusions
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.
86
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
plants.
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.
References:
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,
504/838-4230
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.
87
-------
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
today.
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
country.
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
88
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
resources.
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
powerless.
• 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
threatened.
• People favor local approaches to river stewardship—the
words "community partnership" were very positive.
• People favor action-oriented approaches to river
stewardship.
• People think that polluters ought to be held accountable.
• People favor research and monitoring as stewardship
tools.
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
ecosystem
• 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-
gories:
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
economy
• 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
residents
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
90
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
management
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
fences.
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
people.
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
Earth.
How to Assess
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Moderator: Joan Drinkwin, Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
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
91
-------
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
$300.
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
pollution
"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.
92
-------
Concurrent Session 6: How to Assess Nonpoint Source Pollution
WATERSHED EVALUATION SYSTEM
RECEIVING WATER
(LAKE, POND,
RIVER, STREAM
ESTUARY OR
WETLAND
IMPACT
EVIDENCE
CONTROL
MEASURES
(^ _ J)
C ___ ,)
C. _____ )
C. ___ _,)
/OTHER EVIDENCE
I Algae, Mats, Scums
1 Fish/Macroinvertebrates
1 Aquatic Plants
Sediment
POTENTIAL FOR
NPS PRODUCTION
EVIDENCE OF
EROSION SITE
EVALUATION
METHOD
KEY
LOW
=0.0=
=0-5=
NPS
Pollutant
Index
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
93
-------
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.
Outcomes
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.
References
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 —
94
-------
Concurrent Session 7: Program Roundtable A
Program Roundtable A
Facilitator: Alice Mayio, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
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.
Background
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
lowered.
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
systems.
7. Biological Survey: Monitoring of plankton, macro-
phytes, fish, etc., including zebra mussels and Eurasian
watermilfoil.
8. Adjacent Watersheds: Studies in parallel with other
watersheds in the region.
9. Educational Programs: Hands-on experiences in water
95
-------
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
sediments.
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.
References:
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-
dates.)
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, emailkreifels@groundwater.org
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.
96
-------
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
organization.
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
water.
• 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
District.
• 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.
97
-------
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.
98
-------
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-
ties.
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
process.
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
99
-------
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
UWEX
216AgHall-ERC
1450 Linden Dr.
Madison, Wl 53706
Don Winne
ML&SA
P.O. Box 249
Three Rivers , Ml 49093
Stan Slaughter
3517 Virginia Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64109
Denise Sloeckel
IL Natural History Survey/
ILRWN
Forbes Biological Station
Box 590
Havana,! 62644
Linda Storm
USEPA-RegtonIO
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
GREEN
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
118
------- |