IVleasuring
Progress of
Estuary Programs
A MANUAL
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 1 7 1995
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Colleagues:
Estuaries - - the coastal areas where fresh water from rivers
and streams mixes with salt water from the ocean -- are a major
national resource and economic asset in this country. The
protection of the 100 estuaries in the U.S. is a vital national
concern.
Through the National Estuary Program (NEP), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency brings together citizens,
business representatives, scientists, state and local officials,
and environmental organizations to arrive at common-sense plans
for protecting 21 of these vital coastal areas. These plans,
called Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, recommend
actions to achieve specific goals.
This manual is intended to help managers in the National
Estuary•Program to assess environmental progress and communicate
to citizens about efforts undertaken and successes achieved. An
informed and involved citizenry is essential to the success of
environmental protection.
Protecting estuaries means controlling pollution from a
great variety of sources --in the air, in the water, and on
land. For this reason, the National Estuary Program provides an
important model as our nation moves beyond piecemeal, pollutant-
by-pollutant regulation to more a comprehensive "ecosystem"
approach to environmental protection.
The procedures presented in this manual for assessing
environmental trends and communicating with the public have been
developed and field-tested by the Urban Institute of Washington,
D.C. We expect they will be useful both within the National
Estuary Program and for managers of watershed protection and
other environmental efforts outside the NEP.
Sincerely,
Carol
B
er
Printed on Recycled Paner
-------
-------
E
STUARY
An Estuary is a coastal area where fresh water from
rivers and streams mixes with salt water from
the ocean. Many bays, sounds, and lagoons
along the coasts are estuaries. Portions of rivers
and streams connected to estuaries are also con-
sidered part of the estuary. The land area from
which fresh water drains into the estuary is its
watershed and affects the health of the estuary.
o
utcome
An Outcome is an action or occurrence that hap-
pens outside the estuary protection program
but that is likely to have occurred at least in part
because of an estuary protection activity.
Indicator
An Indicator is a particular characteristic or refer-
ence marker used to measure whether an out-
come is being achieved.
-------
-------
^Acknowledgments
The procedures described in this manual were developed under Cooperative
Agreement #CX819149-02-3 with the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. We
wish to thank Harry Hatry, Blaine Liner, and Shelli Rossman of the Urban
Institute for bringing their expertise and knowledge in the field of program evalu-
ation to the National Estuary Program (NEP). The Urban Institute worked with the
Buzzards Bay and Tampa Bay National Estuary Programs to pilot test these
procedures. For their help in ensuring the procedures will be most relevant to other
estuary programs special thanks is extended to Dr. Joseph Costa, Director of the
Buzzards Bay NEP and Richard Eckenrod, Director of the Tampa Bay NEP. At each
pilot location, local advisory groups of NEP staff and advisory committee members
assisted in the development and testing of the procedures. All together, probably
well over 100 persons were involved in the preparation of this manual. While space
does not permit listing all of them, their important roles are acknowledged, with
our thanks. In addition, a national steering committee representing state and local
agencies, academia, industry, and public interest organizations, helped guide the
development of the procedures and reviewed the draft manual. Following is a list
of the members of our steering committee whom we thank for their guidance:
-------
Committee Members
Mr. Robert Bendick, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Mr. Jeff Benoit, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Hal Bickings, Aquaculture Natural Resources
Dr. Rick Burroughs, University of Rhode Island
Dr. Joseph Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program
Mr. John Costlow, Duke University
Mr. Richard Eckenrod, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
Mr. Bill Eichbaum, World Wildlife Fund
Ms. Eugenia Flatow, Coalition for the Bight, New York
Mr. Kevin P. Gildart, Bath Iron Works, Maine
Mr. Andy Manus, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control
Ms. Nancy McKay, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Mr. Steve Ritchie, California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Ms. Dixie Sansom, Former Florida State Representative
Ms. Amy Zimpfer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ex-officio
Jim Burgess, U.S. Department of Commerce
Elizabeth Jester-Fellows, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Marian Mlay, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Finally, we extend our gratitude to the Richard King Mellon Foundation of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to the Mary Flagler Gary Charitable Trust, for their
generous support of the Agency's efforts to help its estuary programs evaluate their
progress.
-------
c
ontents
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Regular Outcome Measurement
Coverage and Scope
Basis for These Procedures
Developing Estuary Protection Outcome Monitoring
Procedures
Limitations of Outcome Monitoring
The Need for Cost and Staff Effort to be Kept Low
Organization of This Manual
1
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
IDENTIFYING USEFUL OUTCOME INDICATORS AND
IMPLEMENTING AN OUTCOME MONITORING SYSTEM
Categorizing Outcome Indicators
Implementing an Outcome Monitoring System
Cost and Effort Required for Outcome Monitoring
Final Comments on Overall Procedures
13
14
18
21
22
ILLUSTRATIVE OUTCOME INDICATORS
Selecting Outcome Indicators
Examples of Outcome Indicators
Reporting Outcome Indicator Values
23
23
25
31
-------
TRACKING THE PROGRESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ESTUARY PROTECTION EFFORTS: THE GOVERNMENT
ACTION CHECKLIST
Purpose of the Government Action Checklist
Major Steps in the GAC Process
The Process for Developing a GAC
Formulating a GAC Process
Step #1: Select the Items to Be Included in the Checklist
Step #2: Determine Which Governments Will Be
Included
Step #3: Operationally Define Each GAC Item for
Assessment Purposes and Develop a Rating System
Step #4: Select the Organizations that Will Administer
the Rating Process for Subsequent Implementation of
the GAC
Step #5: Pilot Test the Assessment Procedures
Step #6: Determine the Analysis Process and Reporting
Formats
Analyzing and Reporting Government Action Checklist
Information
Effort and Cost
33
34
35
36
38
38
42
42
44
45
48
49
52
TRACKING THE OUTCOMES OF BUSINESS-RELATED
ESTUARY PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
Procedures for Tracking Outcomes
Questionnaire Content
Survey Issues that Need to Be Resolved by the Estuary Program
The Questionnaire
Analyzing and Reporting the Survey Results
Effort and Cost
53
54
55
56
58
62
63
MEASURING OUTCOMES OF HOUSEHOLD AND BOATER
ESTUARY PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
Questionnaire Design
Issues to Be Covered by the Questionnaire
Question Wording
Mode of Administration
Improving Response Rates
Selecting the Households and Boaters to Be Surveyed
Sample Source
Sample Size
65
67
67
69
71
73
73
73
75
-------
Sample Drawing Method
Analyzing and Reporting the Survey Results
Analyzing the Information
Presenting the Findings
Limitations of Household and Boater Surveys
Effect and Cost
Summary
ANALYZING AND REPORTING OUTCOME MONITORING
INFORMATION
Government Action Checklist Outcomes
Business Environmental Protection Behavior Outcomes
Household and Boater Environmental Protection Behavior
Outcomes
Bay Quality Index
Overall Summary of Estuary Protection Outcomes
Overall Constraints on Outcome Monitoring
Final Comment
76
77
77
78
81
81
82
OBTAINING INFORMATION ON BAY QUALITY:
THE BAY QUALITY INDEX 83
Major Features of a BQI 84
Developing a BQI 86
Step#l: Select BQI Components 86
Step #2: Combining Individual Parameters into art Index 91
Step #3: Identify BQI Values that Represent Various
Levels of Overall Quality 91
Step #4: Select Sub-Indices 95
Establishing a BQI 97
Analyzing and Reporting BQI Information 98
Limitations of the BQI 98
Outcome Monitoring Time and Costs 99
103
104
106
106
108
109
111
113
APPENDICES
1 Buzzards Bay Government Action Checklists
2 Tampa Bay Government Action Checklist
3 Tampa Bay Household Questionnaire
4 Buzzards Bay Boaters' Questionnaire
5 Environmental Indicators in the Office of Water
6 Environmental Indicators: Measuring Our Progress
115
153
181
189
197
207
-------
EXHIBITS
2.1 Estuary Protection Chain of Events 16
2.2 Ordering of Estuary Protection Outcomes: Effects of Hazardous
Waste Reduction 17
2.3 Ordering of Estuary Protection Outcomes: Effects of Local
Ordinances 18
3.1 Criteria for Evaluating Each Candidate Outcome Indicator 24
3.2 Outcome Indicator Specification Sheet 26
3.3 Illustrative Outcome Indicators 26
4.1 Formulating a GAC Process 38
4.2 Sample Categorizations of GAC Indicators 40
4.3 Guidance for Reviewing Draft GAC Items 41
5.1 Illustrative Industry Questionnaire (Based on one tested
in New Bedford, Mass.) 59
5.2 Sample Letter to Accompany Hazardous Waste Reduction
Questionnaire 61
6.1 Steps For Environmental Protection Household Surveys 67
6.2 Illustrative List of Potential Household Behavior
Problems to Be Covered in Surveys 68
6.3 Example of a Household Survey Cover Letter 72
6.4 Suggestions for Increasing Mail Survey Completion Rates 74
6.5 Illustrative Report Format for Household Survey Responses
(Hypothetical Data) 79
6.6 Highlights of Survey Findings: Tampa Bay Household
Environment Survey, 1992/1993 80
7.1 Examples of Components for a Bay Quality Index Focused
on Condition of Living Resources (Fourth-Order Outcomes) 87
7.2 Example of BQI Components and Their Weights 89
7.3 Example of a Transformation Scale: Chlorophyll "a" 92
7.4 Example of a Transformation Scale: "Total Coliform" 93
7.5 Example of a Transformation Scale: "Effective Light
Penetration" 94
7.6 Bay Quality Index by Section of Tampa Bay 97
8.1 Illustrative Outcome Indicators: Overall Summary Outcome
Indicators HO
-------
s
ummary
Estuaries are a major national resource and economic asset over and beyond
their importance as food sources and recreational areas. The United States
has approximately 100 estuaries. Protecting them is a vital concern to the
nation. Organizations in many of these estuaries have established programs aimed
at their protection. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National
Estuary Program (NEP) currently has 21 participating estuaries.
This manual provides a series of suggestions on how estuary programs, locali-
ties, states, and the federal government (each of which have major interests in
estuary protection) can regularly track the progress that estuary protection pro-
grams are making. The focus is on identifying the outcomes and results of estuary
protection efforts that can be useful to estuary managers and other officials. This
manual is not addressed to the technical community; it does not cover procedures
directly related to the highly technical details involved in environmental monitor-
ing.
By participating in the NEP, estuaries have agreed to organize their efforts
around the development and implementation of a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP). This agreement spells out the threats to the estuary
and the plan for improving the protection of the estuary and its waters. The
outcome monitoring procedures outlined in this manual should be useful in the
development of CCMPs as well as in their implementation.
-------
The material presented is based to a considerable extent on pilot efforts under-
taken by the NEPs in Buzzards Bay (Massachusetts) and Tampa Bay (Florida) over
an 18-month period in 1992 and 1993. The Buzzards Bay Project had completed its
CCMP and was in the implementation phase during the pilot effort. The Tampa
Bay NEP was developing its CCMP during the pilot period.
This manual first discusses the basic features of an outcome measurement
system and the outcome indicators that appear relevant for estuary programs. An
illustrative set of indicators is included. A major characteristic of many of the
suggested indicators is that they identify indicators that should be considered
"intermediate" outcomes. These intermediate indicators typically indicate some
action or behavior undertaken by persons or organizations that can affect bay
quality but do not measure the end results (such as the condition of living resources
in the bay).
Procedures are described for tracking progress from estuary protection actions
undertaken by: (a) governments; (b) businesses (such as those using hazardous
materials); (c) households; and (d) boaters. Procedures are also presented for
translating information on actual bay quality into "Bay Quality Indices" (BQI)
developed from such information as available environmental monitoring data and
data on beach closures to shellfishing and swimming.
Each of these procedures enables estuary officials not only to obtain the aggre-
gate data for each outcome indicator, but also to break out the outcome data by
various key characteristics. For example, changes in estuary protection activities of
businesses can be broken out by type of business and by the type and amount of
training and technical assistance the business received. Changes in behavior of
households can be identified by county or town and household composition.
Changes in the BQI can be broken out, for example, by segment of the bay.
The manual discusses for each procedure, and for the procedures as a whole,
their limitations and cost implications. Finally, it presents suggestions on how the
information from the various procedures might be analyzed and presented to
estuary officials and the public in the most useful way.
-------
SECTION 1
I
ntroduction
This manual identifies outcome indicators and describes procedures that
individual estuary protection programs can use to track progress in protect-
ing their estuaries. The focus of the procedures is on obtaining regular
information on the outcomes of estuary protection activities. The word "outcome"
is used throughout this manual to refer to an action or occurrence that happens
outside the estuary protection program but that is likely to have occurred at least in
part because of an estuary protection activity. Outcomes do not include measures
of the quantity of program work activity. The definition of outcome used in this
manual intentionally does not include the requirement that the outcomes measured
are the result of estuary protection activity. As discussed later, such causality is
usually difficult to determine because of the many other factors that can contribute
to outcomes.
The 1990s have become the decade of "accountability," "managing-by-results,"
and "customer satisfaction." Federal and state governments have been required by
legislation (such as the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993) and by
-------
the National Performance Review and Total Quality Management systems now in
place, to monitor and report on program outcomes or results.1
The widely disseminated publications of authors such as Thomas Peters and
Robert Waterman, W. Edwards Deming, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, and
Peter Drucker have argued for what seems to be pure common sense: publicly
supported programs should regularly, or at least annually, track the results and
outcomes of their efforts.
What does this mean for estuary protection programs? Common sense dictates
that estuary protection programs should regularly track the outcomes of their
efforts at improving and maintaining the quality of estuary waters. Estuary protec-
tion officials should use this information to help them determine where improve-
ments are needed and, later, whether improvement efforts have led to targeted or
desired results.
Monitoring the status of an estuary is a complex undertaking. Measuring water
and living resource quality at all times, in all locations, and at all depths would be
prohibitively expensive. No estuary would attempt that, even if it could afford to
do so. But estuary programs need a process that provides adequate and appropriate
information so that judgments can be made about the estuary's health.
Estuary managers and the public need meaningful information in order to judge
progress in protecting and regenerating the nation's estuaries. The objective of an
outcome monitoring system is to provide information that can help managers
measure both progress in estuary protection and significant changes to an estuary
over time. Such information can also set the stage for relating observed changes to
their possible causes. To do this, estuary officials need to track progress in actions
taken by governments, industries, and households, and to track environmental
indicators of water quality and the health of estuary living resources.
For estuaries participating in the NEP, the required Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan (CCMP) defines the purpose of the estuary protection
program and a planned monitoring process. Other estuaries likely have, or will
have, a management plan to which the outcome tracking system described in this
manual can be related.
Some estuary programs may be in the process of developing an estuary protec-
tion plan such as a CCMP. If they are already undertaking estuary protection
projects (such as providing encouragement to citizens to take steps to reduce
polluting-related behavior), they probably can use at least some of the procedures
in this manual to track the outcomes of their efforts. Even estuary programs not yet
undertaking any "action" projects can review these procedures to glean sugges-
tions for progress tracking procedures and to develop baseline data against which
to compare later progress.
2 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
The outcome monitoring procedures described here were developed with the
participation of two estuaries that are part of the NEP: the Buzzards Bay Project in
Massachusetts and the Tampa Bay NEP in Florida.2
Both programs established project advisory committees to provide guidance to
their work. These committees comprised representatives from local governments,
citizen groups, and the technical community. In addition, local NEP staff used
special advisory groups for some of the new monitoring procedures, such as the
development of a Government Action Checklist and a Bay Quality Index, both of
which are described below.
This manual also benefited from a national advisory group that provided early
guidance on the elements the project team should examine and on the draft final
report.
An important consideration for outcome monitoring procedures is that they be
affordable. We have incorporated many components where data are likely to be
already available or new low-cost procedures, such as use of volunteers to help
with surveys, are likely to be readily achievable.
This manual presents an illustrative set of outcome indicators that estuary
programs can consider for their own use. We describe in detail four data collection
procedures that can provide data on a number of these outcome indicators and that
are not commonly applied to estuary programs. Each of these procedures can
generate outcome information on a regular basis. These procedures include:
1. Use of a Government Action Checklist to track progress in local public
agency actions (a similar type of checklist is needed covering state and
federal activities);
2. Surveys of business and industry to track their behavior in environmental
protection, such as hazardous waste reduction;
3. Surveys of households and boaters to track their behavior with respect to
wastes; and
4. Development of a Bay Quality Index to track overall water quality and health
of the bay's living resources.
PURPOSE OF REGULAR OUTCOME MEASUREMENT
Regularly monitoring the outcomes of estuary protection efforts has the following
basic purposes:
Introduction 3
-------
Q To help estuary program officials and managers plan, manage, and
improve estuary protection programs. Outcome information obtained
by tracking the extent of progress being made should help them improve
program activities, identify new activities that are needed, and set pri-
orities by identifying where existing activities are achieving or not
achieving desired results, and by identifying problem areas;
Q To increase accountability of estuary protection programs to elected
officials and the public, so they can assess the extent to which desired
results were achieved after resources were applied;
Q To help develop and justify budget requests, especially when outcome
information is linked to proposed resources and activities;
D To communicate to citizens and the media the progress being made.
Other more specific estuary program uses include the following:
Q If an estuary program sets targets for itself each year, the outcome
assessments can be used to track progress in meeting these targets.
Q The information from the process can be used to provide baseline infor-
mation for estuary programs that engage in long-range/strategic plan-
ning.
Q For programs that incorporate a "total quality management" (TQM)
approach, the outcome information should provide an important part of
TQM's measurement requirements.
Q The outcome information can help identify activities that need more
in-depth evaluation, such as activities that are not generating the out-
comes expected. The availability of past outcome information should
also enable in-depth studies, such as evaluations of particular estuary
protection activities, to be conducted more efficiently and expeditiously
by providing relevant data for these studies.
Q The procedures should be useful to estuary officials during the early
years of an estuary protection program, such as during the period
leading up to final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
approval:
• During the CCMP preparation period, estuary programs undertake
numerous activities intended to help protect the estuary even though
the CCMP has not been completed. For example, estuary programs
carry out various efforts to alert their citizens to estuary protection
needs and undertake demonstration projects. Outcome monitoring
4 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
procedures such as those described here can help the estuary protec-
tion program track the achievements of those efforts.
« For estuary programs preparing strategic plans such as CCMPs, the
outcome monitoring process can also help form the basis for the
estuary program's CCMP monitoring plan, as required under CWA
Section 320(b)(6).
• The Government Action Checklist process (described in Section 4)
can be used, as in the Tampa Bay NEP, to help identify the specific
steps needed to protect the estuary over the long run—steps that
should be included in the CCMP.
• As noted earlier, the initial data collected by the procedures will
provide the baseline against which progress can be measured.
Q At any stage, whether pre- or post-CCMP, the outcome indicators can be
used to help track progress on major special projects and activities. This
can be done if the relevant outcome indicators are broken out to relate to
the project, for instance, by breaking out the outcome data by the specific
geographical areas or types of households or businesses targeted by the
project. If, for example, an estuary program has a special project to
provide on-site technical assistance to businesses in a particular industry
for hazardous waste reduction, the program can obtain separate tabula-
tions of indicators of changes in industry behavior for the particular
businesses directly assisted. The program could also compare the out-
come data for assisted businesses to those for businesses that did not
receive such assistance.
Q The "ordering" of the indicators into sequential stages (as described in
Section 2) can be used to help estuary officials and the public understand
the time and steps necessary for achieving environmental results. This
can lead to more realistic expectations and greater public support over
the long run.
The information generated by outcome monitoring is also intended to help
federal and state officials in their accountability and program improvement tasks.
For example, the federal government can use the information provided by individ-
ual estuary programs to help prepare reports to Congress on the progress and
achievements that have occurred. The federal government can also use the infor-
mation from many locations to identify what performance areas have been weakest
and need technical assistance or other help. Since each estuary program will likely
have somewhat different outcome indicators and measurement procedures, the
quantitative values will usually not be additive. Other aggregated forms of the
outcome information, however, can be used.
Introduction 5
-------
The procedures in this manual are not aimed at tracking internal activities, such
as the number of committee meetings held or other "activity" measures, though
such information may be desirable for a variety of estuary internal management
purposes.
For national purposes, to the extent that many estuary programs use similar
procedures, such information can be accumulated and reported to provide a
national perspective on progress in estuary protection. With over 100 estuaries
around the nation, estuary protection is a major resource concern to the country as
a whole.
COVERAGE AND SCOPE
This manual presents an illustrative set of basic indicators of estuary protection
outcomes and describes procedures that can be used by estuary protection pro-
grams to obtain regular (quarterly or annual) data on these indicators. The manual
also includes illustrative data collection instruments such as questionnaires that
can be adapted for use by individual estuary programs. Estimates are provided of
costs and the extent to which an estuary program is likely to need special resources
to utilize these procedures.
The manual also suggests the steps that estuary programs can take to develop
their own version of the outcome indicators and data collection procedures.
The procedures described in this manual track progress in the following cate-
gories of estuary protection activities:
Q Progress of individual governments in implementing estuary protection
actions and activities;
Q Progress in encouraging key industries to alter their practices and to
reduce their release of polluting substances;
Q Progress in encouraging households and boaters to undertake actions that
reduce potential estuary pollution and damage;
Q Finally, and ultimately the most important, progress in achieving overall
unproved water quality, unproved condition of living resources, and
increased ability of the estuary to support desired public and business uses
of the estuary waters.
This manual does not describe technical procedures for obtaining detailed
environmental monitoring data or for obtaining more commonly collected infor-
mation needed for outcome measurement, such as effluent data and extent of
6 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
shellfish closures. As indicated later, such procedures are needed for a comprehen-
sive outcome monitoring process but are likely to be already familiar to estuary
programs.
BASIS FOR THESE PROCEDURES
The Urban Institute examined numerous materials relating to performance indica-
tors and held numerous interviews with EPA and estuary protection personnel.
Two estuary programs participated as pilots and helped develop and test these
outcome monitoring procedures: the Buzzards Bay Project in Massachusetts, which
had recently completed development of its CCMP, and the Tampa Bay NEP in
Florida, which was just beginning its program and has not yet completed its CCMP.
NEP personnel from each of these two estuaries, together with the Urban Institute
team, worked over 14 months to identify appropriate indicators of estuary protec-
tion outcomes and low-cost data collection procedures.
The procedures reported here have been tested by one, and sometimes both,
estuary programs, or are in the final stages of testing as of this writing.
The principal tests conducted include the following:
Q Both estuary programs are undertaking tests or have completed pilot
tests of the "Government Action Checklist" procedures. The joint estuary
program-Urban Institute team worked with public officials, citizen
groups, and other professionals in each estuary to develop a checklist of
government actions that the officials believe are important for govern-
ments to implement. Procedures for assessing the extent to which each
item on the checklist has been achieved by each local community were
developed. (In the Buzzards Bay Project, the progress ratings are being
assessed by an existing citizen group, the Coalition for the Buzzards Bay
Project. In the Tampa Bay NEP, the assessments are being conducted by
the Regional Planning Council). Repeating this process annually will
provide officials and the public with an indication of progress over time.
The information generated is also expected to be used by the individual
communities to help them identify gaps that need to be filled.
Q The Tampa Bay NEP conducted a test of a random sample of households
throughout the area and, separately, a survey of households in two
neighborhoods whose residents were given special guidance in ways
households can protect estuary waters. In both surveys, the purpose was
to assess the level of current household estuary or environmental pro-
tection behavior and the extent to which activities being conducted by
Introduction 7
-------
Q
D
Q
the estuary program have achieved results, and to provide baselines for
measuring progress in future years when the surveys are repeated.
The Buzzards Bay Project tested a survey of boaters to identify the extent
to which boaters are properly handling wastes. Periodic surveys will
indicate progress achieved after efforts have been made to inform boaters
on recommended waste-handling procedures.
The Buzzards Bay Project undertook an initial test of a survey of indus-
tries that use or generate hazardous/toxic waste. The purpose is to
provide a baseline for future periodic surveys, to help ascertain technical
assistance needed by participating businesses, and to help identify
whether and to what extent programs to reduce hazardous waste (and
to improve waste handling) are achieving desired results.
Both sites developed and tested procedures to develop Bay Quality
Indices. The indices combine key available indicators of water quality,
condition of living resources such as fish and shellfish, and the ability of
the waters to support public and business uses such as shellfishing and
swimming. These indices can also be broken out by major sections of the
estuary. Such indices are based on available data and do not necessarily
represent the ideal composition of such indices, but do reflect the prac-
tical cost limitations on data collection. A key feature is that the indices
are understandable to public officials and the public.
DEVELOPING ESTUARY PROTECTION
OUTCOME MONITORING PROCEDURES
The outcome indicators and data collection procedures presented in this manual
are intended to illustrate what individual estuary programs can do in their own
outcome monitoring efforts. The indicators and procedures are not intended to be
copied verbatim. Each estuary program will want to develop its own version of
such procedures, though some basic elements are likely to be common to most, if
not all, estuaries. The outcome indicators and data collection procedures identified
here can also be used as starting points for estuaries that are not already monitoring
the outcomes of their estuary protection programs. Estuaries with existing outcome
monitoring procedures may find some suggestions contained here useful for
improving their efforts.
We recommend that estuary programs use these outcome indicators and data
collection procedures as a starting point to identify which indicators and proce-
dures are appropriate for their own estuary. For example, what items should be
8 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
included in your own Government Action Checklist? Which topics should be
covered by your own household and industry survey instruments? Which elements
are practical for inclusion in your own Bay Quality Index?
The process for developing outcome monitoring procedures should involve
existing local policy, management, and citizen advisory committees to help identify
the overall set of outcome indicators and the various data collection procedures.
The sections of this manual that describe each procedure also describe a process
that a local estuary program can use to develop its own version of those procedures.
LIMITATIONS OF OUTCOME MONITORING
Outcome information tells public officials the status of each outcome indicator, but
does not tell what caused the outcomes. This limitation should be recognized by
all those using outcome information. We also emphasize, however, that having
regular information on outcomes is a basic first step toward directing attention to
aspects of environmental protection that need attention—and later indicating
whether past activities have led to desired outcomes. In some instances, the estuary
program will be able to identify likely linkages between actions taken and outcomes,
such as when special effort has been applied to particularly problems at particular
locations and improvements in those problems subsequently occur at those locations.
A useful analogy is that of sports activities. A baseball or football score is needed
to tell whether the team is winning or losing but does not tell why. Outcome
information provides a scorecard for estuary protection program information
vitally important for managing and overseeing activities, but does not tell the
reasons for good or bad outcomes. More information is needed, perhaps a special
study, to indicate why.
External factors can, and often do, play a major role in determining outcomes. For
example, unusual amounts of rain, or start up of new businesses, can have consid-
erable effect on water quality. Sometimes we simply don't know on a scientific basis
whether action "A" led to outcome "A." A new waste treatment plant coming on
line just prior to observed improvements in the nitrate levels in an estuary may
have had little or no causal relationship to the improved nitrate levels. Declining
nitrate levels might be the result of improved farm management practices or a
reduction in the size of farms, rather than the result of a new treatment plant.
Nor will outcome information by itself identify what should be done to correct
problems indicated by the outcome information. Nor will these procedures by
themselves provide estimates of the efficiency with which program resources are
being used. However, when combined with other information such as program
Introduction 9
-------
costs these procedures will support estimates of the cost-effectiveness of program
activities. Lag times between cause and effect often can obscure the linkage or may
lead observers to the wrong conclusions. Linkages, attribution, lag times, and many
other considerations may be involved in judging performance of any one set of
actors or actions in the improvement or decline in the state of an estuary. (These
problems apply less to the "intermediate" outcome indicators suggested through-
out this manual; the activities of estuary programs can much more directly affect
intermediate outcomes—see discussion in the next section.)
Thus, users of outcome information such as that described in this manual should
not rely solely on the outcome data for drawing conclusions about the reasons and
causes for the observed outcomes. Expectations must be tempered with a realistic
understanding of the complexities of cause and effect.
THE NEED FOR COST AND STAFF EFFORT
_ TO BE KEPT LOW
Some of the data needed for outcome monitoring should already be readily
available in many, if not most estuaries (such as estimates of effluents, beach
closures to shellfishing, and some environmental monitoring data). In such cases,
little or no added cost is likely to be required to use that data for tracking outcomes.
The new procedures described in this manual, however, each require additional
staff time and cost. Formal estuary protection programs such as the NEP are
seldom, if ever, the sole data collection organization for an estuary. The outcome
measurement work should be coordinated with, and use relevant data from, other
federal, state, local, and private organizations.
To reduce costs, surveys of households or organizations can use mail survey
procedures if ample follow-ups of non-respondents are used to obtain reasonably
credible response rates. Random samples can also be used to reduce collection
costs, rather than attempting to survey all households or all organizations. Mailing
costs are likely to be small, but the administration of surveys requires staff time to
process the mailings, do the tabulations, and prepare the reports. Clerical staff and,
perhaps, volunteers can be used on these activities, making such surveys feasible,
even for small estuary protection programs.
The cost of regular Bay Quality Index preparation depends on how much data
collection is done regularly on the various components of the Bay Quality Index.
An ideal Bay Quality Index would likely require major resources for regular
collection of a large number of often complex water quality and living resource
condition measurements. The use of volunteers to collect and compile some data
10
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
elements (as is done by the Buzzards Bay Project and other estuary programs) will
increase the feasibility of obtaining data on some index components for those
estuary programs with limited resources. Because estuary programs need to collect
data on environmental indicators, most of the cost of the collection will need to be
incurred whether or not the estuary implements an outcome monitoring process.
Thus, the principal added costs of calculating Bay Quality Indices should be small.
Cost issues are discussed in more detail in each of the chapters that describe the
data collection procedures.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS MANUAL
This manual has eight sections. In Section 2 we suggest how to identify useful
outcome indicators, grouping estuary indicators into four "orders" that fit well
with the monitoring format used in the Comprehensive Conservation and Man-
agement Plans for NEPs. In Section 3 we identify an illustrative set of performance
indicators based on those generated by the Buzzards Bay Project, the Tampa Bay
NEP, and Urban Institute personnel after extensive discussions with local experts
and officials. Hundreds of indicators were suggested in first-round discussions.
The resulting list was whittled down from that initial master list.
In Section 4 we present the process for tracking the actions of governments—the
local Government Action Checklists used by both pilot estuaries. We include
recommendations on how to present this information to the public and to local
officials.
Section 5 contains recommendations on obtaining information on protection
practices of the business sector, including use of surveys of businesses on hazardous
and toxic waste reduction based on work conducted by the Buzzards Bay Project.
We present the rationale for these surveys, the procedures used, and the question-
naire.
In Section 6 we describe procedures for obtaining information about protection
practices of households and boaters. Using the household surveys conducted in the
Tampa Bay NEP and the boaters survey conducted in the Buzzards Bay Project, we
present the rationales, procedures, and simple data collection instruments.
In Section 7 we present recommendations for Bay Quality Indices based on those
being used in both pilot estuaries. We highlight the use of citizen volunteers and
the existence of measurement problems.
Introduction 11
-------
In Section 8 we suggest ways to analyze and report the outcome information gathered
from the various data collection procedures in order to provide useful and useable
information for estuary program officials.
Notes, Section 1
1. The Office of Water is in the process of identifying environmental indicators, in order to track
progress and report results to the public in meeting Agency goals. See appendix 5 for recommended
indicators.
2. The CBP has developed a similar approach to measuring progress. Appendix 6 provides a brief
description of their efforts.
12
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
SECTION 2
Identifying Useful
Outcome Indicators
and Implementing an
Outcome Monitoring
System
I
n this section we examine how to categorize outcome indicators and outline
the basic steps in implementing an outcome monitoring system.
-------
CATEGORIZING OUTCOME INDICATORS
The first step in categorizing outcome indicators is to distinguish indicators of
outcomes from those that measure the quantity of work activity done. Counting the
number of meetings held by estuary program staff or the number of water quality
readings taken are indicators of work activity. These numbers are important to
estuary managers, but say nothing about the results of those activities.
Here we define an outcome indicator as an indicator that measures responses
that have occurred outside the program, such as changes in the estuary protection
behavior of the public or businesses, reduction in the amount of pollutants released
into the bay, changes in the condition of life in the bay, and so on.
The next step is to distinguish "end outcome" indicators from "intermediate out-
come" indicators. Estuary protection programs generally aim to affect the behavior
of governments, businesses, households, and boaters. Improved environmental
behavior actions by these groups are important outcomes, but are not the ultimate
ends being sought. Instead, they represent "intermediate outcomes." Examples of
"end outcome" indicators are improved bay quality and health of living resources
in titxe estuary.
Intermediate outcomes can be expected to occur relatively early, in contrast to
some end outcomes, which may take years to show up. Monitoring progress on
these earlier outcomes are thus important for managing estuary protection efforts.
In fact, estuary protection activities often set in motion a series of sequential
outcomes, indicating that a multiple categorization of outcomes is helpful.
Four categories of outcome indicators appear especially relevant to estuary
protection activities.1 Each is described below. The first three categories are inter-
mediate outcomes.
Q First-Order Outcomes (Behavioral Change): These indicators assess the
extent to which desirable estuary protection actions have been ade-
quately implemented by governments, businesses, or households. These
indicators do not provide information or whether water quality or the
condition of living resources has changed, which are third- and fourth-
order outcomes). The Government Action Checklist and the business,
household, and boater survey procedures focus primarily on first-order
outcomes. For example, the Government Action Checklist procedure
(see Section 4) measures and tracks the extent to which local governments
have implemented actions aimed at estuary protection. However, having
implemented such actions does not tell whether there are improvements
in the amount or quality of effluent, in water quality, or in the condition
of living resources in the estuary. Similarly, the outcome indicators used
14
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
to track protection actions taken by households and boaters (see Section
6) and by businesses (see Section 5) also represent first-order effects.
These actions are important first steps but do not indicate how successful
the actions were in reducing pollutants, improving water quality, or
improving the condition of the estuary's living resources. Other indica-
tors are needed to track progress on these latter elements.
Many if not all first-order outcomes will likely be closely associated with
implementation actions proposed by an estuary program's long-range
plan such as its CCMP. Thus, measuring these outcomes will be a major
way to track progress in implementing these plans.
Q Second-Order Outcomes (Pollution Reduction): These indicators pro-^
vide information on the extent to which actions have led to reductions
in pollutant discharges. Amounts of various pollutants or other hazard-
ous substances discharged into the water or air from various businesses
are examples of this category of outcome indicator. Because considerable
effort to monitor discharges is already underway across the country, this
manual does not describe data collection procedures for measuring amounts
of pollutant discharges. The business, household, and boater survey
procedures, however, provide information on whether businesses, house-
holds, and boaters report having reduced their discharges. But these
surveys are not likely to be a reliable source for learning the actual
amount of such reduction.
Q Third-Order Outcomes (Water Quality): Such indicators provide infor-
mation on the extent to which water or sediment quality has changed.
These include such frequently used indicators as BOD, amounts of
potentially hazardous chemicals in the water, and amounts of pathogens
and fecal concentrations. This manual does not describe the detailed data
collection procedures for obtaining values of each potential component
of these indices. That information is highly technical, and well beyond
the scope of the effort reported here.2 However, in Section 7 we discuss
how technical data on water quality can be combined with indicators of
fourth-order effects to produce a comprehensive Bay Quality Index.
Q Fourth-Order Outcomes (Living Resources): Indicators of fourth-order
outcomes provide information on the extent to which the health of fin
fish, shellfish, other wildlife, habitat and vegetation, and the region's
economy has changed. This category also includes indicators of the extent
to which an estuary can support individual uses such as swimming and
shellfishing.
In Exhibit 2.1 we summarize these four categories of outcomes in a "chain-of-
events" diagram. In Exhibit 2.2 we illustrate this progression of outcomes for a
Identifying Useful Outcome Indicators
15
-------
EXHIBIT 2.1 Estuary Protection Chain of Events
FIRST ORDER
Implementation of
Estuary Protection
Actions (by Gov-
ernments, House-
holds, Boaters,
and Businesses)
Organizational and
Individual Outcomes
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOMES
SECOND ORDER
Reduction of
Discharges (into
Water, Air, and
Soil)
Pollution Reduction
Outcomes
THIRD ORDER
Improvements
in Water and
Sediment
Quality
Bay Quality
Outcomes
« END 1
OUTCOMES
FOURTH ORDER
Improved Health
of Living Re-
sources and of
Quality of Life
Living Resource
and Environmental
Use Outcomes
*
specific estuary protection activity: an effort to encourage industrial firms to reduce
the amount of hazardous waste generated. Getting firms to seek training and
technical assistance in hazardous waste reduction is a first positive step and is
shown as outcome indicator #1 in Exhibit 2.2. (Note that measurements such as the
number of events held by the estuary program are not outcomes but rather measure
the amount of program work activity.) It is even more useful to measure the number
of businesses that made constructive changes in their use and handling of hazard-
ous materials/waste (outcome indicator #2). Both of these indicators measure
first-order outcomes. Reductions in the amount of hazardous waste generated and
amount of individual pollutants discharged by these businesses (outcome indicator
#3) are second-order outcomes. Even better outcomes are improvements in the
quality of receiving waters (outcome indicator #4), a third-order outcome. Ulti-
mately, me results desired are improvements in the condition of the estuary's fish,
other wildlife, vegetation, and in the ability of citizens and businesses to use the
estuary's waters (outcome indicator #5), which are fourth-order outcomes.
In Exhibit 2.3 we present another example of this outcome progression using
local ordinances as a starting point.
Categorizing outcome indicators is important in providing a clear perspective to officials
and the public on the ultimate importance of individual indicators. It should also enable
users of the outcome information to keep in perspective which results are relevant
to the ends ultimately sought by estuary protection activities.
Note that although these four orders form a cause-effect chain, estuary actions
do not necessarily have to start at the beginning of the chain. For example, some
16
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
EXHIBIT 2.2 Ordering of Estuary Protection Outcomes: Effects of
Hazardous Waste Reduction
Program
Recomends
Improved Industry
Procedures
FOURTH-ORDER
OUTCOMES
Health and Well-
being of Living
Resources
Improved
#5: Extent of improve-
ment in condition of fish
and habitat.
FIRST-ORDER
OUTCOMES
Target Group
Reached
#1: Number of firms that
participate in program.
THIRD-ORDER
OUTCOMES
Water Quality
Reached
#4: Amount of improve-
ment in water quality.
Industry
Practices
Changed
#2: Number of firms that
improved their practices.
SECOND-ORDER
OUTCOMES
Pollutant
Discharges
Reduced
#3: Amount of reduction
in pollutant discharges.
water clean-up activities (e.g., of PCBs) might not affect first- or second-order
indicators but would directly impact water quality and subsequently the health of
living resources, which are third- and fourth-order impacts.
Monitoring outcome indicators that measure first- and second-order outcomes
has the advantage of enabling users to track estuary protection progress in a more
timely fashion. First- and second-order outcomes generally occur relatively soon
after program activities, while third- and fourth-order outcomes often occur later.
Fourth-order outcomes—changes to living resources—sometimes may not occur
until many years after corrective actions have been taken. The purpose of outcome
monitoring information is to provide timely information that public and private
officials can use to help them make program decisions. Decisions often cannot wait;
officials need information to help them make decisions even if the information
available is far from ideal and represents only intermediate outcomes. Thus, first-
and second-order outcomes provide early indications and can be considered proxy
indicators of end outcomes.
Identifying Useful Outcome Indicators
17
-------
EXHIBIT 2.3 Ordering of Estuary Protection Outcomes: Effects of
Local Ordinances
FIRST-ORDER
OUTCOMES
The National Estuary
Program recommends
that local ordinances
restrict a polluting
activity.
Local governments
establish and imple-
ment ordinances.
FOURTH-ORDER
OUTCOMES
#1: Number of governments
passing ordinances.
#2: Number and percentage
of facilities that have
implemented best
management practices.
THIRD-ORDER
OUTCOMES
There is a reduced
Incidence of diseased
fish and human
disease from eating
contaminated fish.
The estuary shows a
significant improve-
ment in water quality.
#6: Incidence of diseased fish.
#7: Incidence of illness due
to eating diseased fish.
SECOND-ORDER
OUTCOMES
The targeted pollu-
tant discharges are
reduced.
#3: Estimated amount of
pollutants discharged
into estuaries.
#4: Percentage of dis-
charges meeting permit
requirements.
#5: Indicators of water
quality (e.g., dissolved
oxygen, total suspended
solids).
IMPLEMENTING AN OUTCOME MONITORING
SYSTEM
Below are recommendations for estuary programs to consider in implementing
their own outcome monitoring systems.
1. Derive the outcome indicators from mission statements after considering the per-
spectives of the various "customer" groups. Use such sources as:
• Legislation;
• A strategic plan such as a CCMP if it already exists;
• Interviews with federal, state, and local government officials, key
area businesses, local environmental protection organizations, boat-
ing groups, and households (this approach was heavily used for the
outcome indicators presented in this manual);
18
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
• Focus groups with representatives from the above groups;
• Data elements already available in the community; and
• Work done in other estuary programs (including the indicators
illustrated throughout this manual).
2. Seek information on multiple outcome indicators of estuary protection performance.
Estuary protection involves multiple aspects. For example, estuary pro-
grams are likely to want to track progress in encouraging local governments,
businesses, and citizens to implement problem-reduction activities, as well
as to track the "end" outcomes such as improvements in the health of living
estuary resources. Each of these requires separate outcome indicators. In
Section 3 we present an illustrative set of outcome indicators.
3. Break out selected outcome indicators by key characteristics that are expected to be
of importance to program officials and managers. This will make the outcome
information much more useful to program officials. Desirable breakouts are
likely to include geographical characteristics (such as breakouts of the Bay
Quality Indices by political boundaries or segments of the estuary waters);
type of industry (such as breakouts of the extent to which businesses in
particular industries have improved their hazardous material handling);
source of impairment; type of recreational activity; and type of household
(such as indicators of household estuary protection behavior by size of
household, income, and whether the homes are owner-occupied or rentals).
4. Provide outcome information to officials on a regularly scheduled and timely basis.
Outcome reports should be provided at least quarterly to reflect seasonal
considerations. However, data on some outcome indicators will need to be
collected more frequently, while it will not be feasible to obtain data on other
indicators as often. For some indicators, annual data collection or less
frequent collection will be appropriate. However, the reports should include
all outcome measurements, noting that some have not been remeasured
during the previous quarter.
5. Compose outcome reports that are understandable and useful to nontechnical audi-
ences such as policy officials and the public. The outcome reports described in
this volume are not intended as technical reports for the scientific commu-
nity. These outcome reports should be clear, concise, and readable by a
nonscientific, nontechnical audience. This does not mean that the indicators
should not be technically sound, but they should be presented in a way
comprehensible to most readers. Outcome reports should show relevant
comparisons by presenting data from previous reports and showing pro-
gress against outcome indicator targets established for the period. Though
data for many of the outcome indicators may only be "roughly right," that
Identifying Useful Outcome Indicators
19
-------
is, not precise in a technical sense, such information should be much more
useful to officials who need to make program and policy choices than no
outcome information at all.
6. Avoid frequent changes to the outcome indicators. The set of indicators should
be reasonably stable over time so that progress and trends can be identified.
A relatively fixed set of outcome indicators should be used. Of course,
improvements in measurement will occur, and the appearance of new
estuary problems or the emergence of improved measurement techniques
may require revisions to the set of indicators. When modifications are made
to existing indicators, provide estimates of the effects.
7. Limit the number of performance indicators to avoid overwhelming users, but have
back-up detail available. Some outcome indicators will need to be composite
measures, that is, indicators representing aggregations of two or more
component indicators. For example, the Government Action Checklist pro-
cedure (see Section 4) involves identifying the progress made by each local
government in implementing individual estuary protection actions. Out-
come reports for public officials should contain summary indicators, with
the information on each specific action available as back-up information
when needed. Similarly, the Bay Quality Index (see Section 7) is a composite
of a number of individual measurements. Information on each component
indicator should be readily available to those who want more detail.
8. Provide relevant explanatory information in each outcome report along with the
outcome data. Many external and internal factors can affect outcomes. Such
information should be included, particularly when the outcome values
deviate substantially from expected values. For example, natural elements
such as major rainfalls or hurricanes can have major effects on some outcome
values. If these events affect the outcome data significantly, their occurrence
should be flagged in the outcome reports. Explanatory information might
include quantitative data such as major population changes, amount of
precipitation, and temperature data or qualitative information such as re-
ports on the number of major businesses that entered or left the area, or that
a fish disease not believed to have been caused by human activity appeared.
Explanatory information should, when possible, indicate the likely effects
on the outcome indicators and identify when any planned corrective actions
are likely to show up in the outcome indicator values. Explanatory informa-
tion provides program managers with the opportunity to give their views
publicly on why progress was not as great as expected and to identify
planned actions to correct observed problems, thereby reducing the likeli-
hood that elected officials and media will unfairly place blame on program
officials for not achieving desired results.
20
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
9. Consider setting annual and long-range targets for the values for each outcome
indicator. The program can subsequently track progress relative to the tar-
gets. Such targets should be set only after considering the resources (dollars
and personnel) that the estuary program expects to be available and any
external factors likely to aid or hinder progress. This target setting probably
should be part of the development of the estuary program's annual action
plan and CCMP or other goal-setting mechanism.
COST AND EFFORT REQUIRED
FOR OUTCOME MONITORING
What will these procedures cost? The outcome monitoring process should, of
course, be one that the estuary can feasibly implement with as low a cost in dollars
and staff time as possible. Environmental monitoring data will be the basis for most
third- and fourth-order performance indicators (such as for the Bay Quality Indices
described in Section 7). Data collection for environmental monitoring will usually
be the most expensive data to obtain. Estuary programs need to make tough
decisions about which items to measure, how frequently to measure them, how
large a sample to use, and which geographical segments of the estuary to cover.
Estuary programs already make similar choices as they collect environmental
monitoring data for scientific purposes. For outcome monitoring systems, which
involve frequent (quarterly) reporting, estuary programs need to give considera-
tion to:
Q Frequency of environmental data collection;
Q Timing of collection;
Q Which geographical segments need separate measurements; and
Q How much data precision is needed.
Each of these factors has substantial influence on data costs.
Estimates of approximate cost and personnel time needed for the other data
collection procedures are discussed in the relevant sections of this manual. Each
procedure requires time, effort, and some added dollar costs for personnel time,
mailings, and so on. The added dollar costs of each of these procedures appear
likely to be small, but finding staff time for administration will be an added burden,
especially for already busy program staff. To the extent that volunteers can be used
to help with these activities, both dollar costs and staff burden can be reduced. In
many cases, the monitoring data may already be available from other sources at
little or no cost.3 The start-up effort required to develop the procedures and to pilot
Identifying Useful Outcome Indicators
21
-------
them will be the most burdensome problem. However, once the procedures have
been established, data collection in subsequent years should be considerably less
burdensome.
FINAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL PROCEDURES
Each estuary program will need outcome indicators that measure progress in
addressing the particular environmental problems and priorities of that estuary.
Each locality will need to choose data collection procedures based on local needs
and available measurement resources. The basic principle is to use measurement
and reporting procedures that provide reasonably valid and useful information for
assessing estuary protection outcomes. The estuary program should regularly
report on each indicator until the indicator becomes obsolete or until it clearly is
no longer worth collecting and reporting.
Perfect measurement is not possible. Many measurement problems exist and
will continue to exist. The measurement procedures should be the best ones
currently available to the program within its resources. The procedures should
make as much use as possible of the latest scientific and technical knowledge and
should be sufficiently precise to help program officials make decisions that help
them improve estuary protection. Standardized data collection protocols should be
used throughout the estuary to the extent feasible. However, a desire for perfection
and scientific precision should not deter the use of outcome indicators and data
collection procedures that do not meet rigorous standards. It is better to be roughly
right than to have no information at all.
Notes, Section 2
1. In effect, this is a four-level version of the six-level categorization currently being used by the
Chesapeake Bay Program and EPA's Office of Water. Their levels 1 and 2 ("Actions by EPA/State
Regulatory Agencies" and "Response of the Regulated Communities") are both included as "first-
order effects." Level 3 corresponds with our "second-order effects." Levels 4 and 5 ("Changes in
Ambient Conditions" and "Changes in Uptake and/or Assimilation" correspond with our "third-
order effects." Level 6 corresponds with our "fourth-order effects."
2. See, for example, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993, "Compilation of Scopes of
ASTM Standards Relating to Environmental Monitoring." Philadelphia, Pa.
3. An excellent discussion of volunteer monitoring relating to environmental condition indicators
is contained in: Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual, EPA 842-8-93-004, December 1993;
and Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers, EPA 440/4-90-010, August 1990; both
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
22MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
SECTIONS
I
llustrative
Outcome Indicators
In this section we present an illustrative set of outcome indicators that estuary
protection programs can use as a starting point for their selection of outcome
indicators. We also briefly address the process of indicator selection and the
characteristics that individual and sets of indicators should have.
SELECTING OUTCOME INDICATORS
Outcome indicators are the backbone of any outcome monitoring process. The
values that are regularly obtained for each indicator provide the basis on which
estuary program officials determine progress in bay protection. These values also
help officials allocate scarce resources based on where outcomes seem to be
achieving desired results and where they are not.
-------
It is vital that outcome indicators be selected to:
Q Cover the major measurable outcomes for the estuary;
Q Represent a reasonable consensus among key estuary program officials;
Q Provide reasonably valid data that can be obtained for each indicator; and
Q Supply data that can be obtained within available budget and personnel
resources (including voluntary assistance).
We suggest the following basic steps for selecting outcome indicators:
1. The estuary program leadership forms a special working group to draft the
set of indicators. For estuary programs with formal policy, management,
technical, and/or citizen committees, representatives from each of these
should be represented in the working group.
2. The working group examines available mission statements and identifies
currently available data related to outcomes, identifying what is being
collected, when, how often, and by whom.
3. Working group members meet individually with represen tatives from
interest groups, including environmental groups, industry, citizen groups,
local and state governmental officials and staff, boaters, commercial fisher-
men, the scientific community, and so on. These representatives are asked
what outcomes they believe to
be important and what results
they would like from estuary
protection activities.
4. The working group synthesizes
the many outcome indicators
identified from the previous
steps, examines them for over-
lap and relevance, and combines
the remaining "candidate"
outcome indicators into a cen-
tral list. The list may still be too
large for practical coverage.
The working group members
should discuss the individual
candidate outcome indicators,
rate each on criteria such as
those shown in Exhibit 3.1, and
rate importance of each indica-
tor. For example, to reduce the
EXHIBIT 3.1 Criteria for Evaluat-
ing Each Candidate
Outcome Indicator
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Does it measure something of impor-
tance?
Are the effects it measures significant
to the geographical area that impacts
the estuary?
Does it measure something not ade-
quately covered by another outcome
indicator?
Can the indicator be measured in a
reasonably valid way? Even if meas-
urements are not currently available,
can a reasonably practical and valid
data collection procedure be
developed?
What is the likely cost of regular data
collection?
24
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
list to a more manageable size, each working group member might give each
indicator a low, medium, or high importance rating. This procedure was
used effectively in both the Buzzards Bay Project and the Tampa Bay NEP.
5. The working group prepares the specifications for each selected outcome
indicator including its rationale, data source, and limitations. Exhibit 3.2 is
a sample outcome indicator specifications sheet that might be used for this
purpose.
EXHIBIT 3.2 Outcome Indicator Specification Sheet
Program:
Date:
1. Outcome Indicator.
2. Rationale (what does it measure and why?).
3. Data Collection Procedure/Source.
4. Frequency and Timing of (a) Collection, (b) Reporting.
5. Definitions of any Unclear Terms.
6. What Disaggregations of the Outcome Indicator Are Needed?
7. Who Is Responsible for Data Collection and Quality?
8. Limitations of the Indicator (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limi-
tations, etc.).
EXAMPLES OF OUTCOME INDICATORS
Exhibit 3.3 presents an illustrative set of outcome indicators that might result from
a process such as that described above. This set is based on indicators prepared by
the Buzzards Bay Project office. Both the Buzzards Bay Project and the Tampa Bay
NEP believe that the indicators should be grouped by subject. The Buzzards Bay
Project grouped its indicators into the following categories, based on those it had
used in its completed CCMP:
• Reducing toxic pollution,
• Preventing and managing oil spills,
• Managing sewage and septage,
Illustrative Outcome Indicators
25
-------
ca
0
H-i
U
•**
^Ci
C
K>f
W
S
1
a
O
to
1
01
a
»»•»
CO
CO
f
r—
OQ
"*T*"
X
UJ
UJ
o
DC
I
DC
UJ
Q
DC
O
INIT OF
EASURE
-'S
DC
g
5
= | .|to
«^CD ^ ^ CO ™ ^j
< ° ^ > tr *S -2 **~ n*
il S 1 « s- J1^ 11
EQ-OC/J to ^ to .5* to 3
| a § | | 11=18
CD i co m < o o
•«- *- •>- CM CM CO •*
£ co to
c -^ ti
g CD CD
c *o *u x
C C C CD
5 o o -a x
9* Q. Q. C 0)
S to to — T3
CD g £ | S f,
"5 "5 "5 ID 3 ==
CD tz "E CD CO O ^
J3 Q) Q) .Q --5 1— f"X
E o o £ ."S °>
I o! 1 z. SI 1"
f-
CD
E
F a>
k> •»— •
CD tO
> aJ
CD -2 5
« « - =
CD x: o o
£ CD •=; ~a
we -1-1 co Jo
£ ° * E 1
§ S 1 E ^ -a
**^ O ti ns — CD
tt O Q. -g C 0>
2 3 ... -Q 0 b:
1-5 CO g O -H g
I w ° S" •§ «
O t^- {§ c CD -a
•£» g5 .2 2 C3) -S2 .
O o.w ™ g "•£ -2 ^ ^
>^CJ-=JC— O 33 —
i » S 'I 2 s-g §. 2" g.
ScDO2:£a)O)'ota «•
s !M ! P 1 1 1
5Sc3oo3^3E> >
JjCD imm . >> >, | S £ ro
CD 1" 1" CO ^ CO a
S ^ • 2 to tj1 to Q
3 33 CO r^ CO
CO CO CO CD g CD CO
O O O -- 5> — w
< < CD S
r- (0 £ CD
° E Q. ,_ CO
'-Q CO c CD LU
CD O) C2 -^ ^— '
! Iff-
52 c a. ^ c
to CD c. -a =6
W CO E — CD CD
t -"> CD O> DC CD
** CO P CO '"5 C3) x
•a •§ 2 CO °- C 175 E •— ° CO .9
« H °- 8 §. 1" 5 S
'g S -E -§• cS cS o |
t~o OCD "^ eoH*
"-c >-.-a w wnto
boCD OfO CD CDKj =
S m 2 c5> .E .E to ^o
'« CD =S 3 ^-I-'3
^ x OS m m o
JJ
«
26
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
co co co
^— i -H_I .+— i
co co co
Q Q Q
CD 03 CD
co co co
55 CO W
CM ^ -
CO 0 Q.
.E x E
E 2 «
o 2 c
0 3 «
•a "o g
2 co '°
13 fD CO
•£ 3 ~
to to 5
-a o CD
3 -Q "
05 0
to i5 8
Us
I— LL CL
3T E 15
£ o >-
£: i- CD
in to T3
CO -a o) CD
O ^ c5 c U_ ^
(/) f— fr* CD c >^^ /i\
**^ ^k_ XL *— V-x *^. " e-r~ ^~ Q)
?n* m* ffl* CD ^ - Q) ® ^^ ^^ ^5 £
^r ^ ^ ^ C/5 ^ > *fS "«5 ^^ 5 r"
-— — . —j ^ ^J _ ^13 *>N J— — 3 -j
C/3 CO COCOcO-cCT) "§ "C "^ >
^ 3 3 2 P 2 !•£ |sS
O C5 CDCDCQ O _i UJ
co co
— - - e3 51 •
•a
CD
CD
CD CD CD £2 CD
C3) D) D) C_) D)
CO CO CO c/j CO
'c. c c c c
CD CD CD S CD
O O P O P CD CD
W_ 1— fc— | *— .. 1 «vj
CD CD Q) 1 CD .L2 .—
Q_ Q_ CL *g Q_ CO CO
CD CD CDCDCD CD CD CD
EE "*= "*=!!! i
z z zzz z z z
•g
£2 CO
"5 - J2 c co en = "to"
T3 "s q>2 §•— ® ~&E
C ^ij — ' CO c5 *" CD 2 ^ D)
CD'JjOO "OCH- 1^^*~
-c CT "5-^ "° to" D) -a" > "co
— CD (Z 5 """^ CO ® C >^ CD o
^-awffl I caJ® §°"Z
!^5o-D fc tD>2 ^"Po
42 ^ * g 1 t | 'o aj g § QJ-
~c"2-S°- a- .£ ffl eo ^E-S
S-^SEE m coc'c cDto^
W S -2 Q. o 0 c^g- o^03
t-*i 2 Q- ~o ^coo^^cco '*~'toi-r
•^g'^o'g .to c o .t: a. c TJCOCD
'III If 1 1 11 sl |l|
S">i= ""T-I— <" CO f5 *- •— g <-Q.Q
^Cs CD o CD ,~j Q^ CD Q t C tn ^ CO Q5 •*— •
5i *~ 'Tri -*-^ rt -^ "*^ "^w CD c ^~ (ft CO
J si 1 g. 1 1 a i 1 1 1 1 ^ i 1 1
•S ;« g- o -5 -5, .g § >. g. -5 •§ 'g- g- w g
g 5 1 Jim (TO O
CD
£
>. 3
CD CO
^ to
^ to
CO CD
s i
O m
to
CD
to
CO
to CD
c c:
5 to
£ 3
**— **—
o o
CD CD
o Lp^
E E
3 3
^- ^~
C.
0
CD
CD
Q.
to c
-t± O
a. i
Q- Q.
eptage
added to NPDES
re-treatment and
«5 to Q-
*S ~ C3)
1 I 'I
£> c* o"
gp .E -D
S TD CO
S 5 to »
S 5 CD E
en i to co
bo S S D)
•S c? -S 2
§>i± 3^
§ z m
^
5t
"•G
^
§
Illustrative Outcome Indicators
27
-------
1
xhJbit3.3fco«ftnM
HI
UJ
U
DC
V.
CC
UJ
Q
DC
O
UJ
o§
|m
INDICATOR
>> 2
2 t3 co
co "ro Q
Q 03 03
< "S S
CD u. co
T- OJ CVJ
03
j3
5
to
c to to
5 s? S
o co co
H Q S
o o *~
u. « CO
E E "•— °
3 3 ° «
22 CD
_c
CD
W 5
1 1
1301 5?
s s s
CD E °
D3 :^ r-
for licensing septa
not meet NPDES
mpliance
scharged directly ir
Towns with program
Days businesses did
substantial non-co
Untreated sewage dh
to
8
"O IT*
>* >. ™ >, E?
J> > m CD C
33 O) 3 D>
CO CO -S CO <
O O i O co
< < JO < o
CD CD 0. CD °
T- T- ,- T- S!
••-
CO
03
ECO CO tO
3 C C C C
O 0 O O J3
"o "6 "o "5 -*
03 CD CD 03 03
"E E E "E E
^3 3 33
e
O C
H^ ^ C3
O* o 'to
§ 5 ^
B5 o -Q
"B "S -12-
a CD cS £
1-8 e § 8
.8 Q- 03 0 -T
S,-E § -i" •£
rji CO CO ^ 0
« 1 5 * t
« m to 5 M
i 1 1* s s
« S 5 ° c3 «
S 1 ra § ° -—to
*•* r- Q) rz */% *•— ^
|1 fi 1? 2 1
-S jf g a i o -s 5
^.55 oB-cra to >
bo-a'-go "'B'D P
i| i'lls5 i 1
Ipffl-a™ >. CD S
K QC LU m DC co
,
SK >, C? §>,>,>.
Q) Q) CZ C 0) CD 03
=i 1 J> will
CO CO < ^- CO CO CO
O O co 75 O O O
< < 0 0 < < <
CD CD _i m 0 CD CD
OJ
T- *~ '""
O)
c
'to
— J
to to to to to
c: c w c c c
o o o o o o
1- 1- OQ |_ H H
•<-•<- H- CD H- >^ .*_
O O O f3> O O O
0303035:^030303
JD^JJD® 0)J3_Q_Q
c fc c 1 £^ fcz c c
222 CL 2 2 2
CO 2
03 CD
•c E° «
•3 '•§ •§
D) to ^
i- f/3 T3 "p
s i I a 1
QJ o 0 =5 03 0)
a & j | s r i.
•** ^ — 3 ^ £ (-
§ E 0 Q. g c 0
11 1 1 nil
1 1 1 1 li||
f| 1 a ll|l
bo =; CO Co CO O) 4— o
S-S>CO OCDCc
e2<^D CQDCLU11
«
28
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
>< >r H c c !=?
2 2 03 •§ 03 ~ CO
i i 1.2 |2 |
co co 5 c § <= Q
O O •- -i •- -5 S
< < c 5 c 2
CO CD LU LU CO
•i— T- co co ^
CO
O3
si
m «
0) Q
(A ,_ ^^
C P CO CB
§ - £'^
o co E $
1- LL LU Q)
M— M— X- U
O 0 Ox
v. ._ .- i_ LU 03
03 03 03 Q3 ._ O3
JD JD J3 -D :J= CO
E E E E 3 2
333 3 O
Z Z Z Z <
CO
^
CO
TJ
" 1
t i
.Q ^
__ CO
03 -°-
g- s s
13 0 C?
« £ £
Nitrogen-loading standard
Use of BMPs by farmers
Embayments exceeding n
Excessive amounts of ni
Amount of seagrass
CO CO CO
"E "S "E
888
03 03 03
DC DC DC
>, >, ET Jj" S1
03 03 C C C
> > 03 03 03
3 3 ^ 03 01
CO CO < < <
f ^ C ^ CO CO CO
^f ff 0 O 0
*C «t o o o
O CD -J _J -J .
T- ,- T- 1- CM
C/3
E £
03 ""si
•** ^
CO
>, CO CO
w w CO E E
C C ^ 03 03
3 3 " "co w
O O 3 >» >>
1- H CO CO CO fo
"o "o "o "o "o o
1— 1— U. 1— I— «*-
03 OS 03 03 03 J5
O f-i no n :"
E E E E EQ
3 3333^
Z Z Z Z Z
03
•a
co
a
3
C T5
CO 03
c ^5
.2 S
t3 i
03 E
Q. 03 __ _
co &— T3 CO
C T3 -2 2
' E CO CO
O) CO •*-•
•£» cr •§ p o o
Cft Q) C ^" O SSS
>> *- § 5J p *•
03 ^ 5^1®
•SO CO co £z °
|11 I I f 1
01 en c w ro >< '-p
llfllii
c! t! 1 1 1 1
TL co -r E -5 co "
s .2 ° 8 > •— ®
*KU Q. ri c: o Q. !9
g5 §" °- o c Q, o
a co z ^ co £
«
<
CO
"D
"S ^
03 -c """ ^. CO
| S c g tS-
O H 03
J_ O 03 C33 03
LU CO CO
CO
- 03
CO j—
0 i-
•8.3
o
0> O H-
co *" °
03 'c P
CO £| 03-3
2 E o =
0 ^ 03
< Z QL
CO CO
1 1
O JZ
CO CO
B3 . ^
ssessing Shellfish/Fittfish
Shellfishing areas closed
Shellfish/finfish kills
Incidence of Diseased Sh
•<
n
co
1
1
1
1
^|
S a
sn §,
f~j ^K
fS *"
V) H
<§ O
td
|is
a "8 o
„ .6 °
•d n S
ij tvj bp
N • ^ ^
9 S '?
pa '§ 7?
K 45 ffl
^*"4H O
•^ O j-
&!•§'§
^ S A
II *±5 S
CU T— < 1-4 Cl
1111
"o O ^ .=
.9 S ii <
This exhibit is a modified versi
"Order" refers to the four orde
dicator of bay water quality; 4 ;
Item included in Government .
-------
Managing storm water and agricultural run-off,
Protecting wetland and coastal habitat,
Managing boat-related waste,
Managing nitrogen,
Managing on-site septic systems,
Managing shellfish/finfish resources.
The Tampa Bay NEP sorted its indicators into the following categories:
Septic systems,
Municipal waste,
Hazardous waste and materials,
Storm water,
Dredge and fill,
Oil pollution and emergency response,
Boat use and boater discharges,
Agriculture and industry,
Shellfish closures,
Land use,
Public information and technical assistance,
Miscellaneous.
The estuary program's outcome monitoring working group should select cate-
gories that best represent the long-term concerns of its particular estuary program.
To these categories, we have added the category "Overall Summary Outcome
Indicators," shown on the first page of Exhibit 3.3. This group of indicators is
intended to contain a small number of indicators that provide a more comprehen-
sive picture of overall bay quality and of the outcomes of the major activities
undertaken by the local estuary program. The summary indicators in Exhibit 3.3
include an overall Bay Quality Index (see Section 7) and indicators that summarize
the outcomes of activities aimed at affecting environmental protection behavior by
local governments, households, boaters, and businesses. Estuary program officials
should select those summary indicators that they believe can best provide a
comprehensive picture of overall estuary protection progress.
Once the outcome indicators have been chosen by estuary program officials,
estuary program staff can prepare a "specification sheet" on each individual
outcome indicator, such as that shown in Exhibit 3.2. These specifications identify
the rationale for the indicator, the data collection procedure or source, frequency
of collections and reporting, and who (what organization) is responsible for data
collection and data quality. As discussed in Section 2, the specifications also should
identify what, if any, breakouts should be made of the indicator data, such as
geographical breakouts for bay quality indicators, or breakouts showing environ-
mental behavior of particular types of households.
30
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
REPORTING OUTCOME iNDICATOR VALUES
The set of outcome indicators forms the basis for an estuary program's regular
outcome monitoring efforts. An estuary program should obtain and report data on
a regular (e.g., annual) basis for each indicator. Some examples of report formats
are presented in Sections 6,7, and 8 of this manual.
The estuary program should also examine the data on each outcome indicator,
including subsets of data, in order to, help estuary program officials determine
where progress is occurring, where it is not, and where additional effort and
resources are likely to be needed. For example, data on the indicator "Governments
That Have Met at Least 75 Percent of the Items on the Government Action Check-
list" (see Exhibit 3.3) should be examined to identify which checklist items and
which governments have not yet achieved the targeted results. This information
will indicate where estuary program personnel might provide technical assistance.
Illustrative Outcome Indicators
31
-------
-------
SECTION 4
T
racking the Progress of
Local Government Estuary
Protection Efforts: The
Government Action
Checklist
-------
PURPOSE OF THE
GOVERNMENT ACTION CHECKLIST
At all levels of government—federal, state, and local—regulatory actions, resource
allocation such as for public health agents to monitor shellfish bed openings and
closures, and other activities such as technical assistance or public information
campaigns have major implications for estuary protection. We suggest identifying
major activities of relevant governments that have ramifications for the estuarine
environment and placing them on a "Government Action Checklist" (GAC). Each
year, the extent of achievement of the items on the checklist can then be assessed
to track progress.
In this section we present a framework for tracking the progress of estuary
protection activities undertaken by local governments in the estuary area. In the
future, it is likely to be useful for estuaries to develop parallel GACs that relate to
state and federal activities.
The GAC procedure provides a vehicle for annually monitoring the overall
progress that local governments are making in their efforts to protect an estuary.
The assessments of progress made by each government in implementing bay
protection activities should also provide each area government with a "scorecard"
for its own actions, as well as permitting each local entity to compare its progress
to that being made by other governments in the area. The GAC assessments also
will enable private organizations and the public to keep track of this progress.
The Tampa Bay NEP, in its pre-CCMP period, is using the GAC process as a
step in developing an action schedule for its CCMP. The Buzzards Bay Project,
having completed its CCMP, which provided a major portion of its checklist items,
is using the GAC process to help it measure progress in meeting the goals of the
CCMP.
In general, the GAC procedure should increase awareness of the relationship
between governmental activities and environmental consequences. This should
encourage environmental planning by each community and focus attention on
issues that the community needs to address. The procedures described here do not
attempt to assess the effectiveness of these government actions, only to document that the
actions have taken place. Other outcome monitoring and evaluation procedures are
needed to assess the effects of these actions.
The material in this chapter is based largely on the efforts of the Buzzards Bay
Project and the Tampa Bay NEP. In the Buzzards Bay Project, a citizens' group
called The Coalition for the Buzzards Bay Project had already been using an
"Environmental Report Card" for a few years to assess the efforts of 12 watershed
34
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
communities surrounding the bay in protecting groundwater and coastal water.
Their approach served as a catalyst for developing the GAC model presented here.
Below we describe the major characteristics of the GAC approach, the process
for developing a GAC, the steps in formulating a checklist, analysis and reporting
of GAC information, and the effort and costs involved.
MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GAC APPROACH
1. A checklist should cover key government activities affecting the estuarine
environment, including:
• Ordinances,
• Planning activities and documents (e.g., soil conservation plans),
• Compliance and enforcement activities,
• Best Management Practices (BMPs) programs promulgated in spe-
cific areas of concern or for selected audiences (e.g., sectors of agri-
culture or industry),
• Public information and technical assistance efforts.
2. The GAC should be administered on a regular schedule, probably annually,
to permit estuary managers, local governments, and the public to monitor
progress on a relatively frequent and timely basis.
3. The GAC process should cover all government entities that have a signifi-
cant role in protecting the estuary. The checklist items used in this manual
are limited to local governments. It also is desirable to monitor items that
relate to state (or even federal) government activities, although separate
checklists are needed for such purposes.
4. The number of items in the checklist should be limited to between 50 and 75
items. The focus of the GAC should cover primary issues and actions
identified by the CCMP, if a CCMP has been prepared.
5. Individual checklist items should apply to most, if not all, of the govern-
ments included in the monitoring activity. If an item does not apply to a
specific community, this should be clearly delineated (e.g., items that apply
to septic systems might be designated "inapplicable" for a town that does
not have such systems).
6. The checklist coverage should be determined with the participation of the
local governments. The involved governments, as well as other interested
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
35
-------
organizations, should be given ample opportunity to express their views on
which items should be included in the GAC.
7. The items on the GAC should be carefully defined and specified so that those
undertaking the status assessments in future years will be able to reliably
determine whether or not the government has fully undertaken the actions
specified by the items. Prepare a "rating scale" for each item on the GAC to
enable those conducting the assessments each year to make reliable, useful
ratings.
8. An objective, respected organization should implement the annual GAC
assessments.
9. A summary assessment of each government's progress should be prepared
and disseminated to estuary protection organizations and the public. Al-
though an overall grade could be assigned to each government based on the
ratings (as is currently being done in the Buzzards Bay Project by the
Coalition), there are less controversial ways to summarize the findings for
each government and for the area as a whole.
10. The method for reporting the information should be carefully considered
and structured so that it is as helpful and constructive as possible. Govern-
ments should be given the opportunity to review the ratings and provide
explanatory information prior to any public dissemination of the findings.
THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A GAC
The estuary program should establish a GAC working group comprising repre-
sentatives of each of the estuary program's primary committees (e.g., technical
advisory committee, citizens' advisory committee, policy committee, management
committee), local scientific experts, representatives of each local government likely
to be assessed using the GAC process, and pragmatists with a sense of what is
needed by management, policy-making officials, and the public. Including a broad
segment of the community will both improve the quality of the procedure and help
gain support for subsequent effective implementation.
The group should expect to complete its work within 12 months, during which
time members will shape the GAC process, select the checklist items, oversee the
conduct of the pilot test, and formulate reporting requirements and formats.
Although the development process could be speeded up, it is not advisable to do
so because a shorter timetable decreases the likelihood of obtaining the input
desired from many groups in the affected area.
36
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
The working group should:
Q Identify users for the information that the process is intended to generate,
define the desired system characteristics and the advantages and disad-
vantages of such outcome assessments, and discuss the steps needed to
obtain baywide support for the checklist process;
Q Identify and discuss the desired performance characteristics to be
tracked, including how the items would be assessed;
Q Determine data collection procedures, including identification of organi-
zations or groups that are candidates to undertake the annual data
collection;
Q Determine how the information will be scored and presented to the local
government and the public.
The working group will need to spend several months examining the relevance,
likely validity, and usefulness of individual indicators, and revising the checklist
and procedures accordingly. Once the group has achieved consensus that the GAC
is nearing completion, it should solicit input from a wider range of local govern-
ment representatives.
One way to accomplish this is by having working group members circulate the
draft to members of the affected agencies in their respective governments. These
other agencies can be asked to make additions, recommend items that should be
deleted, and prioritize those items that should be considered for inclusion (in the
event that the listing needs to be streamlined). Reviewers should be provided with
criteria they can use in making their recommendations. For example:
Q Does the item describe an action/activity that is of significant importance
to bay protection?
Q Is the wording of the item specific and accurate?
Q Does the item cover an important activity not otherwise captured?
After the review cycle has been completed and a reasonably complete version
of the GAC generated, the working group should define the selected items, finalize
an appropriate rating scheme, and conduct pilot testing of the draft instrument.
Once the pilot test has been completed, the working group should reconvene to:
Q Review the pilot test results,
Q Consider difficulties that arose and identify what steps need to be taken
to eliminate such problems in the future,
Q Use the pilot test results to test the utility of the planned reporting
formats,
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
37
-------
Q Estimate the costs of the ongoing process, and
Q Formulate recommendations on the future implementation of the GAC.
FORMULATING A GAC PROCESS
The basic steps in formulating a GAC process are listed in Exhibit 4.1. Each of these
steps is discussed in the following sections.
STEP #2: Select the Items to
Be Included in the Checklist
The first step is to identify the rele-
vant activities that governments
should undertake to protect the
estuarine environment. This entails
identifying a comprehensive list of
potential items, then reviewing the
list to ensure that key issues have
been adequately covered and that
redundant items and those of mar-
ginal importance have been re-
moved. The group formulating the
checklist and other reviewers of
draft GAC materials should seek
to limit the length to a reasonable
number of high-priority items,
probably 75 or less.
Several sources can yield pos-
sible items. These include:
Q Local government staffs and
other experts,
Q CCMPs or other official
estuary goal/action state-
ments,
Q Local ordinances that detail
actions that governments
have taken,
EXHIBIT 4.1 Formulating a GAC
Process
1. Select the items to be assessed, i.e., the
set of activities that governments should
undertake to maintain and improve the
estuarine environment. Group the items
by useful categories of protection (such
as toxic waste reduction, managing
stormwater and agricultural runoff, and
so on).
2. Determine which communities will be
included in the regular GAC assess-
ments, that is, which local governments
and at what level (e.g., city, county).
3. Operationally define checklist items for
assessment purposes, and develop a rat-
ing scale for each item that captures
whether local governments have
achieved the intended activity/action
(e.g., achieved fully, partially, or not at
all).
4. Select the organization that will admin-
ister the ratings and develop the sum-
mary reports.
5. Pilot test the assessment procedures.
6. Determine the data analysis process and
reporting formats.
38
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
Q Model ordinances that identify future activities that might be desirable
to undertake,
Q State comprehensive plans,
Q Regional policy plans,
Q City and county comprehensive plans,
Q Land development regulations (LDRs), and
Q Emergency response plans such as those pertaining to oil spills.
The set of potential items should be grouped into categories that highlight key
topic areas of concern to estuary managers. Exhibit 4.2 presents the categories used
in developing the GACs for the Buzzard Bay Project and the Tampa Bay NEP. Since
the Buzzards Bay Project had completed its CCMP development process, it drew
heavily from the CCMP in deriving both the categorization scheme and the selec-
tion of specific items. The Tampa Bay NEP, on the other hand, had not yet
completed its CCMP. Therefore, in formulating its GAC structure, the Tampa Bay
NEP chose topics that were central issues guiding its CCMP development process,
including only those items on which there was a clear sense of agreement among
participants.
Several criteria should be considered in evaluating candidate indicators, as well
as during the final selection of checklist items:
Q Their usefulness in encouraging government action. Items should be useful
for local government planning purposes.
Q The extent to which there is evidence that the item is important to estuary
protection. Some items may be controversial or the "jury may still be out"
on them from a technical perspective. Such items probably should be
excluded from the GAC.
Q The extent to which the indicators can be affected by local government. For
example, activities and actions regulated by state or federal govern-
ments, over which local governments have little authority, should gen-
erally be excluded. However, where actions are covered by federal or
state laws, GAC items can be included, if expressed in terms of whether
the local government is in compliance with the existing federal or state
law. Actions beyond the statutory authority of the area governments
should not be retained in the final GAC. (Note: Some governments may
not be responsible for some items in the checklist. For example, counties,
as opposed to towns or cities, may be responsible for some items. If so,
the items would be rated for counties, but not for cities or towns.)
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
39
-------
EXHIBIT 4.2 Sample Categorizations of GAC Indicators
Buzzards Bay Categories
• Nitrogen Action Plan,
• Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources,
• Controlling Stormwater Runoff,
• Managing Sewage From Boats,
• Managing On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems,
• Preventing Oil Pollution,
• Protecting Wetlands and Coastal Habitat,
• Planning for a Shifting Shoreline,
• Managing Sewage Treatment Facilities,
• Reducing Toxic Pollution,
• Conducting Pollution Remediation Projects in New Bedford.
Tampa Bay Categories
• Water Quality,
• Land Use,
• Septic Systems,
• Municipal Waste,
• Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes,
• Stormwater,
• Conservation Measures,
• Boater Use and Boater Discharges,
• Oil Pollution and Emergency Response,
• Agricultural Industry,
• Other Industry,
• Shellfishing,
• Public Information/Technical Assistance,
• Intergovernmental Coordination,
• Miscellaneous.
D Overlap with other items. Items that overlap in a substantial way with other
items should be revised or deleted.
Q Measurability. For some items under consideration, it could be quite
difficult to make a reasonably reliable assessment of progress by juris-
40 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
dictions. If ability to make a reliable assessment is questionable, the item
probably should not be included in the checklist.
After the initial draft list has been prepared, the GAC working group and the
local government experts in each area should review the GAC section by section
to determine which items should be retained and what additional items should be
considered for inclusion. This may involve several review cycles to achieve con-
sensus on the set of final checklist items. In the Buzzards Bay Project and the Tampa
Bay NEP, four cycles were needed to finalize the indicators. Both estuary programs
had the working group members rate each candidate item as to its importance, e.g.,
high, medium, or low, to help determine the final set. Exhibit 4.3 presents the
EXHIBIT 4.3 Guidance for Reviewing Draft GAC Items
TO: Reviewers of the Draft Tampa Bay "Government Action Checklist"
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP) as one of its primary objectives
will be preparing a set of action recommendations to help protect Tampa Bay. One set
of actions TBNEP expects to recommend relates to actions that the various local units of
government in the Tampa Bay area can take.
Also as part of our obligations, the TBNEP needs to develop a procedure for regularly
(e.g., annually) tracking progress toward these actions. As a first step, we are preparing
what we are tentatively calling a "Government Action Checklist" (GAC). The GAC is
intended to identify the major actions that are desirable for local governments to under-
take. We expect that in its final form, each of the items on the Checklist would be rated
for each government as "Fully Accomplished," "Partially Accomplished," or "Not At
All Accomplished."
The attached draft GAC has been prepared as an initial list for your review. It has
been based on items included in the various county, city, and regional comprehensive
plans (as noted at the back of the GAC). We request that you and/or your staff (who are
expert in the various environmental areas) review the list carefully and provide your
suggestions as to: (1) desirable rewording for any of the items; and (2) items that you
believe should be added.
After indicating any rewording you believe is desirable for any of the items, rate each
item as to whether it should be considered:
• High priority for inclusion on the Checklist (H);
• Medium priority (M);
• Low priority (L);
• Dropped (D); or
• You have no opinion on the item and leave it to others to rate its priority.
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts 41
-------
instructions provided to individuals who served as reviewers for the Tampa Bav
GAG. F y
Once a final set of items has been determined, these should be sequenced within
categories for substantive clarity and temporal and logical consistency.
STEP #2: Determine Which Governments Will Be Included
The GAG working group needs to consider whether the GAG monitoring should
apply to all communities that feed into the watershed, only the local governments
participating in the estuary program, only the larger entities such as cities and
counties but not the smaller municipalities, or some other configuration.
For example: The Tampa Bay NEP decided to start with three major counties
and three large cities. Some counties included as many as 22 municipalities—a
number thought to be unwieldy for individual assessment in the GAG process.
Moreover, many of the municipalities were thought to have small impacts on bay
quality. A number of the items on the Tampa Bay GAG refer to county-level
activities that are not applicable to the towns.
In contrast, the Buzzards Bay Project has targeted GAG monitoring for each of
the communities that were signatories to the CCMP. The procedure currently
covers 12 local governments. The Buzzards Bay Project developed three versions
of the GAG: one for coastal towns, one for inland towns, and a separate checklist
for New Bedford—the only large city in the local area and the area's industrial
manufacturing hub.
In estuaries with local government units numbering in the hundreds, the
working group will likely want to focus on governments believed to have the
greatest influence on bay quality or, alternatively, to rotate the GAG coverage,
monitoring the smaller, less influential communities, say, every three years.
STEP #3: Operationally Define Each GAC Item for Assessment Purposes
and Develop a Rating System
This step raises two primary measurement issues:
Q How to locate the source of the information for each item and how the
information is to be collected, and
Q How to rate achievement of each item.
The measurement scheme should define items as clearly and specifically as
possible so that they can be objectively rated.
The more specific the item wording, the easier it will be to obtain relevant
information and conduct the rating. The item definitions should enable those doing
42 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
the assessments to reliably determine whether or not the government has fully
undertaken the action intended by the item. Thus, an early effort should be to ask
the local experts to be as precise as possible in defining each item on the checklist.
For example: In the Tampa Bay NEP, the item, "The local government promotes
the use of innovative and alternative wastewater systems (such as batch treatment
processes) at appropriate commercial, industrial, and large residential land use
sites" was operationally defined as:
Q Identifies appropriate potential users and disseminates information to
them,
Q Provides incentives for use,
Q Mandates the use of innovative and alternative wastewater systems by
appropriate users.
Similarly, in the Buzzards Bay Project, the item, "Has the town developed
.. . embayment or harbor management... for their entire coastline to
guide the use and protection of sensitive areas?" was defined as:
Q Conducts townwide assessment of coastal natural resources (i.e., eel-
grass beds, shellfish beds, fringing marshes, and so on),
Q Designates dock- and mooring-free zones based on sensitive natural
resources,
Q Establishes boat exclusion zones and boat speed limits to minimize
adverse effects on natural resources,
Q Defines where dredging is permitted and where it is not,
Q Specifies times of the year when construction or dredging are permitted
in order to minimize ecosystem impacts.
In defining each item, rely on user-friendly terminology. The phrase "home
septic system/' for example, is more easily understood by both potential govern-
ment respondents and GAC raters than "on-site disposal system/'
A rating scale needs to be prepared for each item on the checklist to enable those
doing the assessments each year to make reliable, useful ratings. If the rating scale
gets too long or involved, those doing the ratings may be unable to make such fine
distinctions, and the process may become excessively complicated and time-con-
suming.
A two-level scale ("yes" or "no," has or has not been achieved) is probably too
simplistic for most items. A three-level scale such as "fully accomplished," "par-
tially accomplished," or "not accomplished at all" will probably be adequate for
most items. If an item does not apply to a specific jurisdiction, it should be marked
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
43
-------
"not applicable." For example, using the Tampa Bay NEP wastewater item refer-
enced above, a local government would receive a rating of:
Q "Fully accomplished" if it has identified appropriate potential users and
disseminated information about innovative and alternative wastewater
systems to them; provided incentives for use; and mandated the use of
innovative and alternative wastewater systems by appropriate users.
(Note that this particular item does not cover having an active monitor-
ing and enforcement program relating to the mandate. The checklist also
should contain such an item.)
Q "Partially accomplished" if it has implemented some, but not all, of the
three identified sub-issues.
D "Not accomplished" if none of the sub-issues had been achieved.
The quality and effectiveness of the government's activity is not relevant in this
process and should not be considered when making ratings. The rating is based on
whether the activity/action identified in the wording of the checklist item has been
undertaken. Therefore, the rating should focus on actions governments have
already taken, not on those intended in the future. For example, the existence of a
plan to carry out some action should not be viewed as the equivalent of having
accomplished the action. However, as noted in the Tampa Bay NEP, some plans
(e.gv city and county comprehensive plans) implicitly carry a binding obligation to
act, and therefore estuary managers may decide that local governments should be
given credit for partial accomplishment if they have a specific schedule for carrying
out a recommended action.
The rating categories and their definitions should be detailed in an annotated
version of the GAC.
Appendix 1 presents sample checklists developed by the Buzzards Bay Project-
Appendix 2 contains the Tampa Bay NEP checklist.
STEP #4: Select the Organizations that Will Administer the Rating
Process for Subsequent Implementation of the GAC
The organization that ultimately conducts the assessment should be one that is
perceived as being reasonably objective by the governments being rated and by the
public. It is probably preferable to accomplish this by relying on a regional organi-
zation such as a Council of Governments, a regional planning association, or a
university.
Selecting another organization to administer the ratings has an additional
benefit to the estuary program. The program is thereby removed from having to
judge organizations with which it must retain an ongoing working relationship.
44 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
The program is thus better able to support those organizations as they address any
deficiencies noted by the rating entity.
Training sessions should be held for those persons who will do the ratings and
should be held each time the assessments are made. This is important to facilitate
inter-rater reliability and consistency across raters within the same timeframe or
from one year to the next.
The organizations should preferably have:
Q In-house staff expertise on pertinent environmental issues and local
government procedures,
Q On-line capacity to access relevant data, and
Q A reputation for credibility and objectivity.
Another option is to use a citizens' group such as a bay watch group or the
League of Women Voters. If it becomes necessary to use citizen volunteers to
conduct GAC assessments, estuary managers should exercise considerable care in
their selection and training. These efforts may have to be supplemented by local
experts on GAC items that require some technical knowledge. When this is the case,
it may be advisable to split the instrument into sections and have the more technical
items handled by individuals with expertise on those items. If volunteers are used,
it is particularly important to provide substantive rater training sessions to ensure
the quality of the work.
The Tampa Bay NEP has contracted with its the Tampa Bay NEP Regional
Planning Council to undertake the first GAC effort. The Buzzards Bay Project has
chosen to contract with a local citizens' group—the Coalition for the Buzzards Bay
Project. The Coalition uses some paid staff and some volunteers.
STEP #5: Pilot Test the Assessment Procedures
Once the working group has settled on a final draft version of the checklist and has
completed definitional guidelines for the ratings, the GAC should be field-tested
to identify difficulties with the items, their wording, or the assessment procedures.
The location selected for the pilot test should resemble the local government areas
that will receive the final version of the GAC in order to be a fair test of potential
usefulness. Rarely will the first version of the GAC survive unmodified as it
undergoes a pilot test among selected local communities.
For example: For the pilot test of the Buzzards Bay Checklist, one town
(Fairhaven, Mass.) was selected for a trial run of in-person interviews with agency
personnel. Coalition staff arranged meetings in Fairhaven with appropriate town
officials to complete the checklist. Several improvements were suggested, and the
checklist is undergoing appropriate revision.
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
45
-------
The distribution of any materials being circulated externally should be handled
carefully and with sufficient information to allay participants' concerns. Even
though representatives of local government agencies will have been involved in
developing the checklist, some individuals who receive the materials during the
pilot test (or during subsequent administrations of the annual GAC) may not have
first hand familiarity with the GAC or with their agency's prior participation.
Unless adequate information is expressly communicated to them at the time they
receive the checklist, such persons may be hostile or suspicious and may not
cooperate with the information-gathering effort needed to make the ratings.
To facilitate each local government's understanding of the GAC and encourage
it to cooperate, representatives from relevant local agencies should be briefed prior
to distribution of the checklist. Such briefings should include in-person meetings
as well as clearly written instructions. Discussions between estuary staff and local
agency personnel should minimally cover the following points:
Q Background concerning the Government Action Checklist and its role in
estuary management, with appropriate reference to the CCMP or other
goals/objectives adopted for the estuary;
Q How the checklist was generated, including explanations of why items
have been grouped or categorized as shown in the draft version of the
checklist;
Q Acknowledgment of all local participants in the GAC development
process;
Q Timetables for the pilot test and the sequence of events and anticipated
timing for reporting results, including announcement of any decisions
made concerning frequency of the exercise;
Q Schedule and method for revising the GAC based on pilot test results,
and local agency participation in this process if desired;
Q Illustrations of sample reporting formats;
Q Steps to alleviate local agency fears of unfair ratings, including giving
agencies the opportunity to provide explanations for their actions or
failure to act, as well as permitting agency review of ratings prior to
dissemination of GAC findings.
Limitations of the checklist or the ratings procedures also should be identified
and discussed. These include items such as:
Q Reminders that the quality of the activities is not measured by the GAC
process;
46
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
Q Recognition of the difficulties inherent in dealing with an unweighted
set of checklist items, that is, the fact that various actions are unequal in
terms of their contribution to estuarine protection. For example, a local
law requiring owners to clean up animal wastes, while desirable, is not
likely to have the same potential effects as implementing advanced water
treatment.
Q Acknowledgment of the fact that lag times, cause-and-effect linkages,
and externalities prevent generalized assumptions about the relation-
ship between checklist items and bay quality.
The discussion also should focus on the specific activities that must be under-
taken to ensure satisfactory and timely completion of the GAC assessments. These
include considerations such as:
Q How the rating process will be implemented, including who will compile the
information used to make the rating, what local government agencies should be
involved in providing relevant information to the raters, what informa-
tion they will need, suggested sources of relevant information, and the
appropriate level of detail required.
Q How the ratings will be reported and how local government personnel can
indicate the context or reasons for failure to achieve the highest GAC ratings.
The GAC working group should be particularly sensitive to local gov-
ernments' concerns about ratings that could lead to public criticism of
their performance.
For example: The Coalition for the Buzzards Bay Project for several years used
a "report card" format with grades (A through F) assigned to town performance.
Because local governments were graded so specifically, they developed a higher
level of anxiety than would have arisen had they been simply rated as falling along
the continuum from full to non-accomplishment of selected items. The compari-
sons, however, had the benefit of creating competition among the towns and
generating interest by the press that translated into citizen interest.
Q Even where report card-type grading is not part of the assessment
process, comparisons will be made of government performance across
locales and over time within each local area. Therefore, GAC procedures
should allow for governments to provide explanatory narratives ad-
dressing special circumstances or conditions that might have mitigated
against accomplishment of specific GAC goals.
Q The need to designate a single individual to represent each participating govern-
ment. The raters will need to obtain information from many agencies in
a government in order to complete the ratings.
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
47
-------
For both the pilot test and subsequent use of the GAC, it is important to identify
how to collect the information needed for the ratings. Several options exist. One
possibility is to mail the checklist to local governments, asking them to indicate by
mail what they have done with respect to each item on the GAC. Another option
is to mail the checklist to each local government in advance, then hold in-person
discussions between the raters and designated local government representatives
to document current status. A third option is for the raters to track the information
themselves with a minimum of input from the government staff. This last method
is a good option if the raters are technical experts who are familiar with each
government's status on the subject matter.
In the Buzzards Bay Project, for example, a Coalition staff member distributes
the GAC to a single point of contact in each local government. The latter individual
is then responsible for distributing the GAC to the appropriate local boards for
completion. The evaluator then follows-up in a face-to-face format with repre-
sentatives of the boards to clarify and expand the information needed to make a
rating.
The Tampa Bay NEP, on the other hand, is mailing out the checklist to desig-
nated government representatives after an initial kick-off meeting that addresses
procedural and information requirements. Local government representatives will
mail their responses, together with supporting documentation, to the Regional
Planning Council responsible for completing the ratings.
Regardless of which approach is used, the GAC project staff should designate
a GAC contact to respond to local government questions or concerns about GAC
items or procedures.
For the pilot test and subsequent ratings, schedule about a four-week period for
the rates to obtain the information needed for their ratings, including distribution
and return of completed checklists from the local governments. Remind local
governments of the due dates midway through the scheduled period, by phone or
mail. Avoid allocating too little time for completion (resulting in respondent
frustration and inability to complete the task within the desired time) or too much
time (causing respondents to view the exercise as low priority, since there is no
immediate need to respond).
STEP #6; Determine the Analysis Process and Reporting Formats
Analyzing and reporting the findings is a critical step in the process. Central to the
design of reporting formats is that the data be meaningfully aggregated, clear and
accessible to a range of users, and of practical use for estuary management pur-
poses.
48 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
ANALYZING AND REPORTING GOVERNMENT
ACTION CHECKLIST INFORMATION
The following are likely to be the key analytic and reporting elements for tracking
government agency estuary protection progress:
1. Calculate and report for each category of government action (such as toxins
reduction, storm water and agricultural runoff management) the number
and percentage of GAC items that all communities together have achieved.
Also calculate these figures for each community. This will provide informa-
tion on which categories of environmental protection appear to be doing
well and which are not—so that encouragement and technical assistance can
be provided to those communities needing assistance.
2. Calculate and report the number and percentage of assessed communities that
showed improvement on one or more checklist items from the previous assess-
ment. Some estuary protection programs may want to use a more stringent
criterion such as the number and percentage of communities that improved
on, say, three or more of the checklist items. This information indicates
where progress has been made. Together the outcome information here and
in #1 identify the latest level of achievement and progress made over the
past year — giving a more complete and fairer picture of each community's
estuary protection status.
3. Calculate and report the number and percentage of checklist items that each
community, or the estuary program itself, had previously identified as priority and
for which the assessment showed an improved level of achievement since
the previous checklist assessment. This type of reporting is probably attrac-
tive to local governments. Local governments would be asked, during each
GAC reporting cycle, to specify their own priorities for the coming year.
For example: The Buzzards Bay Project local government representatives re-
quested the opportunity to identify at the beginning of each year those checklist
items that were of priority for their towns. Each town would subsequently be
assessed on achievement of its priority items. The government representatives felt
that these steps would be useful for their own planning effort. This procedure
complemented, rather than replaced, an analysis of all checklist items.
Special attention could be paid to reporting the extent to which each gov-
ernment had achieved its stated objectives. This information should be
particularly useful to individual communities on the progress that each had
hoped to make, providing a comparison of actual versus targeted achieve-
ment.
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts
49
-------
Similarly, estuary programs may elect to set targets or prioritize GAC items
into high, medium, and low objectives. The Tampa Bay NEP, for example,
is considering setting targets two years in advance so that local governments
would know what short-term standards of accountability they will be
measured against. Once targets are set, the number and percentage of local
governments that have achieved stated priorities can be reported.
4. Calculate and report the number and percentage of all checklist items that each
assessed community has achieved. (This is the grand total of #1 for each com-
munity, across all categories of government action.) This information pro-
vides a summary indicator of accomplishment for each community. Estuary
program officials may choose to use such a report to compare achievement
among its communities (as has been done in the Buzzards Bay Project). This
is a useful strategy if done constructively and can provide encouragement
to move forward on estuary protection. However, if, because of adverse
media or inter-community relations, an antagonistic atmosphere exists, the
comparative checklist information may aggravate those problems. In such
cases, estuary program officials may want to play down the "report card"
aspects of the presentation.
5. Tabulate and report (but probably to a more limited audience) the number
and percentage of communities that have achieved each item on the checklist. This
information is more detailed than will be wanted by most outside organiza-
tions and the public. However, such tabulations permit estuary program
officials to focus on specific protection activities that warrant special atten-
tion, helping identify needed encouragement and technical assistance ef-
forts.
A "Summary of Survey Findings," as illustrated farther below in Exhibit 6.6 (on
the findings of household surveys), should be prepared. The analysts should
identify selected key findings from the latest survey findings. Significant progress
made over previous checklist assessments should be highlighted—progress made
both by individual communities and by the estuary program as a whole.
In addition to these analyses, outcome information should be accompanied by
selective explanatory inf ormation. This information should focus on checklist items
that the assessments indicate have significant problems or have been significantly
improved. The personnel in each local government responsible for the items should
be encouraged to provide explanatory information on significant findings, and
should be given the opportunity to do so before the report is disseminated externally.
This will allow government personnel to present their reasons and identify any
actions they are taking to correct problems or, if they choose, to dispute the
assessments. The opportunity to provide explanatory information is needed for the
sake of fairness, to help interpret major findings, and to make the outcome moni-
50
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
toring process less threatening—since the public and officials know they will have
the opportunity to provide their side of the story.
Clarity of format is of special importance. The art of presenting complex data is
often overlooked by agency personnel. Estuary program staff should carefully
consider design alternatives before finalizing their reporting format. Draft report-
ing formats should be examined not only by estuary management staff, but also by
local government representatives to ascertain that the data are meaningfully dis-
played. Information sorted by unclear or inaccurate headings may cast doubt on
the validity of the data and the process.
Technical jargon and extensive use of acronyms should be avoided. Formats
should be designed so that past measurements (from previous years) appear
alongside current data for ease in identifying progress. Trends are often very useful,
sometimes even more useful than current measurements. The use of grading
systems is effective for many purposes and acceptable in many locales, but nor-
mally detracts from the main purpose of performance measurement—to provide
managers with indications of where modifications might improve outcomes.
The GAC should be useful for local government planning purposes and for
estuary management. For this reason, we recommend:
Q Highlighting in each community's report progress on the items that the
community had identified as priorities for the past year;
Q Giving assessed governments the opportunity to provide explanatory
information on their ratings. These explanations should be included in
the annual monitoring report prior to its official release. Inclusion of this
feature will reduce the threatening aspects of the GAC and provide users
with relevant supplementary information.
Q Asking the administering organization to estimate whether the cost of
meeting each shortfall is negligible, small, or high (e.g., requires con-
struction).
The purpose of these added steps is to assist individual communities in better
planning and to provide information that enables the communities, together with
regional organizations, to undertake joint planning.
Each estuary program needs to ensure constancy over time once it establishes
a format for its GAC. Revisions to the format in the early years should be avoided
if possible, since one purpose of the GAC is to identify both positive and negative
changes over time. Although there has to be some flexibility to modify items so that
the GAC continues to be relevant in future periods, it is important to design a stable
core set of checklist items that will permit assessment of trends.
Tracking the Progress of Local Government Estuary Protection Efforts 51
-------
Finally, schedule a public event to announce the annual GAC results. For
example, the Tampa Bay NEP plans to design an event during which results of the
pilot can be disclosed and discussed. Feedback from this meeting will provide
information about changes needed or important additions. Such a meeting can
bring together representatives of several local governments, thereby enhancing
communication, networking, and technology transfer within and across various
agencies and areas.
EFFORT AND COST
The GAC working group members require roughly 12 months to develop and pilot
test the process. Once the process has been developed, the ratings constitute the
major ongoing activity. For example, the Buzzards Bay Project estimates that the
annual rating process takes approximately three calendar months.
The time and cost required to do the ratings will depend on the number of items
in the checklist, their complexity, and the number of local governments covered.
The Buzzards Bay Project and the Tampa Bay NEP each allocated approximately
$13,000 for the process to be conducted by an outside organization. Each process
involved less than 15 local governments.
52
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
SECTIONS
1 racking the
Outcomes of
Business-Related
Estuary Protection
Activities
Businesses and industries, including agriculture, are often major contributors
of pollutants to an estuary. Thus, they provide major opportunities for
pollutant reduction. Progress in encouraging business and industry to adjust
their operations in order to produce less hazardous polluting materials should be
tracked, as should the actual magnitude of pollutants emitted. Obtaining such
-------
information can be used to identify where estuary protection activity is needed and
the extent to which past activity has been successful.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits can be
examined for direct dischargers, and the permitting and monitoring programs
accompanying these permits can provide significant information. However, the
accumulation of discharges from the hundreds of businesses and industries around
an estuary into a publicly owned water treatment system is often an even greater
problem. By-products of businesses ranging from small paint and body shops to
mortuaries and electroplating industries often discharge hazardous wastes, many
of which are difficult to eliminate by standard public treatment systems before
discharge into the estuary or stream. The public treatment system itself is occasion-
ally, and sometimes chronically, hampered or damaged by these discharges.
Public and private agencies can have a variety of waste reduction and pollution
elimination programs for businesses and industries. Educational and technical
assistance programs can be provided to businesses and industries to disseminate
or attract attention to best management practices for specific sectors of commercial
operations. Regular inspections can be conducted to develop information as part
of the permitting program.
PROCEDURES FOR TRACKING OUTCOMES
Three primary data collection procedures are discussed here for tracking the
outcomes of business-related estuary protection activities:
1. The primary way to track progress in reducing hazardous waste is to
monitor the data on pollutant loadings, such as the data obtained from the
tests required by permitted businesses from tests performed by the Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW, which also operate under an NPDES
permit). These data include discharges to the air as well as to the water. Thus,
indicators of loadings should normally be included as part of an outcome
monitoring system and measure "second-order" effects.
Some effluent data are collected at the end of pipes that accumulate pollut-
ants from many sources. Such data provide an aggregate outcome indicator,
but do not necessarily show the outcomes for efforts directed at specific
businesses or industries, especially the many small businesses that can
discharge pollutants. The next procedure can help here.
2. The second procedure involves tracking the extent of actions taken by
businesses to reduce their hazardous waste. The primary method for doing
54 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
this is to administer periodic (annual) surveys of businesses to ask them
about their activities relating to hazardous waste reduction. This is an
excellent way to track the effects of training and technical assistance efforts
provided to businesses, and is the central subject of the remaining parts of
this section.
3. Finally, as the list of outcome indicators presented in Section 3 (Exhibit 3.3)
suggests, progress by individual local governments can be tracked by look-
ing at the extent to which they, for instance, urge use of alternatives to
hazardous materials used by businesses, sponsor industrial pre-treatment
programs, and implement agriculture pesticide/fertilizer best management
practice programs.
Progress by local governments can be measured using the Government
Action Checklist procedure described in Section 4.
For example, the Buzzards Bay Project focused on reduction of toxic mate-
rials discharged by local businesses in the New Bedford, Massachusetts
area.1 New Bedford is the largest city adjacent to the estuary and historically
has been a center for the manufacture of textiles, advanced electronics,
seafood, jewelry, and other products whose manufacture produces high
volumes of hazardous or toxic materials. The Acushnet River, forming a
spine of industrial development and draining into the estuary through the
central city, has been contaminated with PCBs to the degree that the river
has been designated as one of the nation's two underwater Superfund sites.
The Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
included a pollution prevention program for toxic waste generators as one
of its eleven action plans.2 The goal was to help reduce hazardous waste
generation by half by 1997 (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1990
Toxins Use Reduction Act has a goal of reducing 1987 levels by half by 1997).
The program included components such as technical assistance, audits, and
workshops.
QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT
The survey of businesses should cover both reduction of hazardous materials use
and reduction of hazardous wastes in discharges (into the air, the solid waste
stream, or water). When asking about reductions in the amount of hazardous
materials and wastes, the questionnaire needs to focus primarily on changes due
Tracking the Outcomes of Business-Related Estuary Protection Activities 55
-------
to preventive actions as distinct from those due to reduced (or increased) product
sales. That is, the focus should be on the amount of hazardous wastes per unit of
product.
The questionnaire is probably not the place to ask direct questions about the
amounts of hazardous materials used and wastes generated. It is better to rely on
data from other sources for that information. The questionnaire will also probably
need to avoid sensitive questions such as those relating to whether the business is
conforming to a legal requirement. (Note that the responses should be confidential
but not anonymous. In order to follow up on businesses that have not returned
questionnaires, the survey process will need to identify which questionnaires have
been returned.)
SURVEY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE
RESOLVED BY THE ESTUARY PROGRAM
56
1. Which businesses should be included? Both direct and indirect dischargers?
Only those covered under permits or also smaller non-permitted businesses
such as car washes, photo finishers, auto body shops, and funeral parlors
that collectively may present a significant hazardous materials/waste prob-
lem? The Buzzards Bay Project included only indirect dischargers in its pilot
test. Lists of targeted businesses are likely to be readily available. The yellow
pages of local telephone books can also be used, if necessary, to draw
samples and obtain addresses (though without zip codes) to which ques-
tionnaires should be sent.
2. Which geographic areas should be covered? The Buzzards Bay Project had to
decide whether to cover only the New Bedford area or to include the three
nearby towns of Acushnet, Fairhaven, and Dartmouth, all of which had
numerous at-risk industries and small businesses.
3. What topics should the periodic surveys cover? How should the questions be
worded? These issues and examples are addressed farther below.
4. Should the businesses themselves or local business groups be asked to help shape the
questionnaire? This would likely help gain businesses' future cooperation in
responding to the survey but can be time-consuming. A local Chamber of
Commerce and relevant trade associations might be used as the focal point
for such participation. Their support for the survey should help the survey
team get a respectable response rate. The survey team might even ask the
local trade association(s) to cosponsor the survey. The experience in Buz-
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
zards Bay indicates that this step is likely to be highly desirable for gaining
business cooperation in responding to the survey.
5. Should the survey use one questionnaire applicable to all types of businesses or
different questionnaires for different types of businesses? The latter would permit
asking firms about specific hazardous waste prevention practices relevant
to specific industries. One questionnaire would be much simpler to develop,
administer, and analyze. Here again, the advice of the business community
could be quite helpful. Clearly, agricultural businesses that present hazard-
ous waste risks for the estuary should be monitored by issuing them a
separate questionnaire on use of pesticides and fertilizers.
6. How should the survey questionnaire be administered—in person, by telephone, by
mail, or a combination of these? Who should administer it? In-person surveys
require the most time and effort because of the travel time involved. Mailing
is the least expensive. However, mailing produces the lowest rate of returns.
Using a mailed questionnaire, the Buzzards Bay Project achieved only an 11
percent response rate (14 of 125 recipients completed questionnaires), even
after a postcard follow up and telephone reminder. However, later conver-
sations with businesses revealed that company officers had three reasons for
not responding: a) they did not know how to answer the questions; b) they
were confused by the questions or their possible responses; c) they did not
know what the Buzzards Bay Project was or anything about this survey.
Some of these problems are correctable. Much higher response rates should
be expected if the participation of business associations is obtained, if the
questionnaire is first pilot tested with a small number of businesses (maybe
six), and if the questionnaire is cosponsored by one or more business
associations. The use of reminder cards, second mailings, and telephone
reminders should produce response rates of 50 percent or higher.
7. How many businesses should be surveyed? Estuary protection programs in areas
with small numbers of targeted businesses (100 to 200) should be able to
survey all of them, especially if the questionnaire is mailed. Much above that
number may require taking random samples of subsets of businesses, for
instance, 50 of each major type of business. Note that the many agricultural
establishments and farmers in a rural area should be covered, perhaps by
sampling if the number is very large.
8. What other steps should be taken to help ensure a high survey response rate from
businesses? Responding to the survey will be voluntary. The questionnaire
should be pre-tested with a small sample of businesses (5 to 10) to assure
that the wording is clear and appropriate and the questionnaire is not overly
long. A short, friendly cover letter should accompany the questionnaire. It
Tracking the Outcomes of Business-Related Estuary Protection Activities 57
-------
is preferable that the person signing the letter be someone known and
respected by the community. The letter might be signed by both an estuary
program official and the president of a local business organization. Offering
to send a copy of the survey report to those responding will also help to
increase mail survey response rates. Exhibit 6.4 in Section 6 provides further
suggestions.
9. Should only assisted businesses be surveyed or all potentially polluting businesses?
All businesses or at least representative samples of all businesses should be
surveyed. This provides a much more complete picture of what is happening
in an area and also provides a comparison group of non-assisted businesses
(so that actions of assisted businesses can be compared to those of non-as-
sisted businesses).
For initial surveys conducted before an assistance program begins, the estu-
ary program will need to survey all businesses (or a sample thereof) in order
to obtain baseline information from which changes can be measured. If the
estuary program chooses to survey only assisted businesses, it should do so
before assistance is given and every one or two years thereafter. Higher
response rates can be expected from businesses that have been assisted. The
number of assisted businesses is likely to be small enough to undertake a
100 percent sample without being overly costly.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
A sample ques tionnaire is presented in Exhibit 5.1. A different questionnaire would
need to be developed for some types of businesses such as agriculture. The
questionnaire in the exhibit is adapted from one prepared by the Buzzards Bay
Project/Urban Institute team after extensive field interviews with EPA national
staff, reviews of EPA documents, and interviews with town and environmental
officials and with selected representatives of larger industries. The questionnaire
probably should cover such topics as:
(a) Particular hazardous waste-reduction activities that a potential polluting
business has underway such as a waste reduction plan and reduction
targets, training sessions, and in-plant waste reduction assessments;
(b) The extent of use by the business of local hazardous waste-reduction training
and technical assistance programs;
(c) Evaluations by respondents of any assistance received;
58
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
EXHIBIT 5.1 Illustrative Industry Questionnaire
(Based on one tested in New Bedford, Mass.)
1. Does your firm have a current toxic material/
waste reduction plan? ;
2. Does your firm have specific toxic material/
waste reduction targets?
3. Do you believe that you and your firm have suffi-
cient and clear information about the following:
a. Toxic waste requirements?
b. Technical information on the toxic materials
that your firm uses?
If yes to either (a) or (b), what information do
you need?
4. In the past 12 months have you done any of the
following:
a. Sent personnel to workshops or training
sessions that contained a significant toxins
reduction component?
If yes, approximately how many employee-
days were spent?
b. Organized employee teams to work on toxins/
hazardous waste reduction?
c. Conducted an in-plant audit or assessment that
contained a significant toxins reduction
component?
If yes, who did the audit/assessment (check
all that apply):
Q Your own staff
Q A consultant paid by your company
Q State personnel
Q Others Cplease specifv)
d. Initiated a recovery and reuse program for any
item containing toxic/hazardous material?
Q Yes
Q Yes
Q Yes
Q Yes
Q Yes
a Yes
Q Yes
Q Yes
a NO
a NO
a NO
a NO
a NO
a NO
a NO
a NO
(continued
Tracking the Outcomes of Business-Related Estuary Protection Activities
59
-------
EXHIBIT 5.1 (continued)
If yes, what toxic/hazardous material?
e. Eliminated or replaced the use of any item
that contained toxic/hazardous material?
f. Changed the way you handle toxic hazardous
wastes (such as by a pre-treatment or disposal
method) so as to reduce the amount of waste
discharged into the water and air?
5. Overall, have any of the above activities, or similar
ones that you have used, actually enabled you
over the past 12 months to actively reduce your
company's:
a. Use of toxic/hazardous materials?
b. Amount of toxic/hazardous materials dis-
charged into the water and air?
6. How have these toxic/hazardous waste reduction
strategies over the past 12 months affected your
company's overall costs per unit of product
(considering both operating and capital cost)?
Please check one:
Q Increased overall cost per unit of product
produced
Q Decreased overall cost per unit of product
produced
Q Neither
Q Don't know
7. What training and technical assistance, if any,
would you like for your firm?
a Yes
Q Yes
Q Yes
a Yes
•
a NO
a NO
a NO
a NO
(d) Whether the business has modified any of its materials or processes to reduce
hazardous wastes (but these surveys are not likely to be an appropriate
source for data on the actual magnitude of effluent volume changes);
(e) Whether the magnitude or type of hazardous waste has actually been
reduced; and
(f) Information or technical assistance the business believes it needs and would
like to have.
60
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
The questions for potential polluters were prepared based on discussions with
or materials provided by the U.S. EPA Pretreatment and Multi-Media Branch and
the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs' Office of Technical
Assistance (based on the latter's prior work with the electroplating, metal working,
and auto body shop industries). In Buzzards Bay, the Project staff developed a list
of 125 firms in New Bedford to be surveyed. A questionnaire and cover letter were
developed, and the first mailing was sent in July 1993. The completed questionnaire
was intended to provide baseline data for toxic reduction activity as well as data
on what assistance the businesses would like.
The questionnaire should be short, preferably no more than two sides of one
sheet of paper, A short letter introducing the purpose of the survey should be
included. An illustrative cover letter is shown in Exhibit 5.2. Naturally, each estuary
protection program will need to tailor the cover letter to its own circumstances.
EXHIBIT 5.2 Sample Letter to Accompany Hazardous Waste
Reduction Questionnaire
Date
Dear:
The [Name of Community] Estuary Protection Program needs help to improve the
program's services to reduce hazardous wastes. We ask for a few minutes of your
time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. This questionnaire is being sent to a
large number of businesses in [Name of Community].
We have provided a stamped self-addressed envelope for your convenience in
returning the completed questionnaire. Your responses will be treated as confiden-
tial; they will be used only to prepare summary findings from all respondents.
Please return the completed questionnaire to us by [Date].
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Questions such as those in Exhibit 5.1 should not be unduly complex or
intrusive. The low response rates that initially occurred in Buzzards Bay indicate
the need for the survey to be preceded by a substantial educational effort. As noted
earlier, this might include having industry representatives assist in preparing the
Tracking the Outcomes of Business-Related Estuary Protection Activities
61
-------
questions, having local business associations cosponsor the survey, holding work-
shops, attracting media attention, and having businesses determine who from the
companies would be responsible for completing the questionnaire. It would be
appropriate to provide a hotline telephone number to assist in clarifying questions.
The information obtained from the survey can be used to judge progress in
future years when the survey is repeated. In the short term it can be used to help
structure technical assistance.
ANALYZING AND REPORTING
THE SURVEY RESULTS
Below we suggest how to report the results of business surveys in ways that will
be most useful to estuary program officials.
1. Tabulate and report for each question the percentage of respondents that
provided a response. Then calculate and report the number and percentage
for each category of business. Businesses might be categorized by such
characteristics as size (perhaps using two to five size categories), type of
business (farms, food service, small paint and body shops, mortuaries,
electroplating industries, or groupings of businesses), and location (city,
county, or town). These data (along with other information such as estimates
of the amounts of hazardous or toxic wastes disposed of by various catego-
ries of businesses) will provide information to estuary program officials to
help determine where future estuary protection efforts should be targeted.
The format used in Exhibit 6.5 for household surveys can also be used for
tabulating data on the questions included in the survey of businesses.
2. After repeat surveys have been conducted, identify time trends and where
improvements have occurred. This information will be particularly useful
for identifying the results of estuary program efforts to encourage or assist
certain categories of businesses. It will provide estuary program officials
with evidence on whether their efforts have led to desired outcomes. The
evidence will be stronger if changes in outcomes for assisted businesses are
compared to those of unassisted businesses.
3. Provide explanatory information along with numerical data where relevant.
For example, if business activity had significantly increased or decreased
during the year, or if the estuary protection program had assisted a particu-
lar industry (perhaps in a specific section of the estuary) to improve handling
of toxic or hazardous materials and waste, this might explain findings of
62
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
such improvement. Such information will provide estuary program officials
with a better perspective on why the outcomes occurred.
4. Prepare a "Summary of Survey Findings" like that shown in Exhibit 6.6. This
information will help public and private officials understand the major
findings from each business survey without having to wade through exten-
sive tables.
EFFORT AND COST
Because data on actual effluent pollutant levels presumably will be obtained from
already existing sources, the cost of collecting them is likely to be negligible for the
estuary protection program.
The survey of businesses, however, will require extra effort and a small amount
of cost, especially the first time the survey is done. Initial development of the
process to be used for obtaining feedback from businesses, including development
of the questionnaire, will likely require considerable time on the part of estuary
program staff and business representatives. However, once the process has been
developed and tested, regular surveys of samples of businesses are likely to be
inexpensive. Administration would normally be by mail, with perhaps two mail-
ings and a reminder card. Some telephone follow up and interviews will likely be
needed to encourage non-respondents to complete the questionnaire. Drawing the
sample of businesses, preparing addresses, doing the mailing, and keeping track
of returns all require clerical time. Entering the data and getting tabulations will
also require clerical and a small amount of analysts' time.
Notes, Section 5
1. Toxic wastes are normally those wastes that are found to contain high concentrations of heavy
metals or specific pesticides. Hazardous wastes include toxins but are more broadly defined to include
any wastes that could cause injury, death, or may damage or pollute natural resources. Many
hazardous wastes are listed in the RCRA regulations. Other hazardous wastes are identified by
characteristics such as ignitability (solvents), corrosiveness (acid), or reactivity (bleach). In 1986, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management estimated that 194,163 tons of hazard-
ous and toxic wastes were generated and handled in that state.
2. See A Toxic Waste Source Reduction Program for Buzzards Bay, prepared by the Buzzards Bay Project,
June 1992.
Tracking the Outcomes of Business-Related Estuary Protection Activities 63
-------
-------
SECTION 6
M
.easurmg
Outcomes of
Household and
Boater Estuary
Protection Activities
Households and boaters play major roles in estuary protection. Their actions
can hurt or help the estuary's condition. Households affect estuary quality
by their use of fertilizers and pesticides, disposal of contaminants (such as
paint and cleaning materials), and upkeep of private septic systems. Boaters affect
-------
estuary quality by dumping waste, mishandling fuel, and damaging submerged
aquatic vegetation with their propellers.
Most if not all estuary programs provide information and assistance to house-
holds and boaters aimed at encouraging them to act in ways beneficial to estuary
protection. A key issue is the extent to which the behavior of households and
boaters is changing as a result of protection programs designed especially for them.
Tracking such outcomes is likely to be an important element of an estuary pro-
gram's outcome monitoring effort.
An estuary program may also want to assess periodically the outcomes of
specific outreach activities. Information on current behaviors provides estuary
officials with "needs assessment" information to help them allocate their limited
resources. For example, surveys can measure the extent to which estuary publica-
tions have reached targeted groups and whether the public is familiar with estuary
protection resources available in the local area.
The major way to assess the status of, and changes in, household and boater
estuary protection behavior is to survey them periodically about their environ-
mental protection-related activities. Theoretically, another option is to observe this
behavior. However, observation procedures would likely require an expensive,
labor intensive effort and are unlikely to reveal a complete picture of a household's
or boater's behavior.
Estuary programs have the option of tracking the extent of illegal boater
behavior by examining the number of boater violations reported. This measure-
ment source, however, has severe drawbacks. Unreported violations will probably
be much larger than the number of reported incidents, and many adverse behaviors
are not illegal. Therefore, boater surveys would likely be needed to provide more
complete information.
The outcomes obtained through such surveys of household and boater behavior
are first-order outcomes. Improvements in behavior can be expected to lead to
reduced amounts of contaminants discharged into the waters of the estuary, and
subsequently to improved water quality and life conditions for animals and vege-
tation.
Below we discuss: questionnaire design, how the questionnaire should be
administered, how to select the survey sample, and how to report the findings.
Exhibit 6.1 summarizes the major steps needed to undertake household surveys.
This material draws heavily from the experiences of the Tampa Bay NEP in its
survey of households across the Tampa Bay area and its specialized survey of
households located in Tampa Bay's "Florida Neighborhood Program." It also
draws on the Buzzards Bay experience with its boaters' survey.
66
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
EXHIBIT 6.1 Steps for Environmental Protection Household
Surveys
1. Prepare questionnaire to be administered to households.
2. Identify appropriate listings of the household population and draw a random
sample of households (or if the whole population to be covered by the survey is
small, obtain the full list of that population).
3. Administer questionnaire by mail or telephone. Preferably, precede this by a
letter or postcard to those in the sample notifying them that they will be contacted
shortly and asking for their help.
4. Track returns; undertake a second mailing (or additional telephone calls) to
non-respondents approximately three weeks after the first mailing.
5. Carry out telephone reminders or telephone interviews to non-respondents in
order to achieve the targeted response rate (at least 50 percent).
6. Tabulate responses.
7. Prepare report on the findings. Include both the numerical results and a sum-
mary of the main findings, including a narrative explanation. For both the
numerical findings and narratives include comparisons with previous admini-
strations of the survey, focusing on changes that have occurred over time.
When examining changes in household and boater behavior from year to year,
small observed differences are not likely to be as important as large differences to
estuary program officials. This means that large household and boater samples
yielding a high degree of precision are not likely to be needed.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Issues to Be Covered by the Questionnaire
The topics chosen for the questionnaire and the specific wording of individual
questions have a major effect on the survey's ultimate usefulness.
The first step is to identify potential problem areas relating to household estuary
protection behavior. These problem areas can become the subjects for the individ-
ual questions.
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 67
-------
EXHIBIT 6.2 Illustrative List of
Potential Household
Behavior Problems to
Be Covered in Surveys
Handling of fertilizers;
Handling of pesticides and herbi-
cides;
Handling of used oil, paint, and
household chemicals;
Lawn-watering;
Handling of waste while boating;
Handling of pet wastes;
Type of mulch used;
Cleaning of on-site septic systems;
Storm water runoff control;
Water use.
Exhibit 6.2 is an illustrative list of
potential household behavior areas
likely to be of concern to estuary pro-
grams. An estuary program can
start with this list as a way to begin
its own identification of which po-
tential problem areas are important
to include in its own household and
boater questionnaires.
The selection of the questions to
be covered by the questionnaire can
be made through a process involv-
ing a working group of both technical
personnel familiar with potentially
"dangerous" household and boater
activities and household and boater
representatives. Recruiting house-
hold representatives should not be a
problem because at least some of the
technical representatives are also
likely to be residents of the estuary
region, thus acting as both technical and household representatives. The working
group should identify potential problems relating to the estuary's quality (such as
those listed in Exhibit 6.2) and break them into specific behavioral issues, about
which specific questions should be framed for the questionnaire.
In Tampa Bay, the team developing the household questionnaire had the
advantage of a recently prepared publication that identified the types of actions
that households could take to help improve the quality of the bay (Tampa Bay Repair
Kit: Rx for a Healthy Bay, Tampa Bay NEP, St. Petersburg, Fla., 1993.) The team
preparing the questionnaire used problem areas identified in the pamphlet. It also
used the household actions suggested in the pamphlet for selecting some of the
response categories for questions included in the survey. Other estuary programs
can draw from this and similar types of publications in developing their own
questionnaires.
The working group should identify both problem areas and household charac-
teristics that are likely to affect or be related to household and boater behavior. This
background information should be collected from each responding household.
When cross-tabulated to household (or boater) behavior findings, such information
enables the estuary program to relate the findings on behavior to household
characteristics. For example, in its household questionnaire Tampa Bay sought
descriptive information such as:
68
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
Q Household composition (size and presence of children);
Q Whether respondents owned or rented their homes;
Q County of residence (the Tampa Bay Estuary affects three major counties;
the questionnaire asked for county of residence as a way to identify
whether the programs appear to be more effective in some counties than
others and which ones might need more intense assistance);
Q Whether the respondent lived in an apartment, condominium, or mobile
home as distinct from a house (in order to exclude that group for
questions relating to methods of lawn fertilization, pesticides, materials
used for walk areas, and so on).
Obtaining such information enables estuary program officials to break out the
outcome program indicator values for each category. This will help identify
whether a problem primarily occurs with households of one particular type or in
one particular county. Estuary program officials can subsequently direct resources
to those particular households.
Question Wording
A major step in developing the questionnaire is to develop the specific wording of
each question, including the appropriate response categories for each question. For
an environmental protection survey, this task requires special attention.
The specific wording and order of the questions should be prepared with
extensive input from people knowledgeable in questionnaire design. Assistance
can be obtained from local universities. It is easy to frame questions in a biased
manner that does not appear biased to persons inexperienced in questionnaire
design. The wording, of course, has to be put into terms that will be readily
understood by respondents. This is particularly so if the questionnaire is to be
administered by mail, where the respondent has little or no opportunity to clarify
the meaning of a word or phrase. For example, in Tampa Bay, a question originally
contained the word "xeriscape." This was changed to "drought tolerant plants" to
be clearer to respondents. In fact, even the phrase "drought tolerant plants" may
not be sufficiently clear and should be simplified further, perhaps to something like
"plants that need little, if any, water."
Response categories should cover all possible responses and be worded in
specific terms so that desirable environmental protection responses can be distin-
guished from those that are undesirable. For example, some types of mulch may be
undesirable. For the questionnaire findings to be useful, the estuary program will
want to obtain tabulations of the number and percentage of households that report
positive as distinct from negative activities. The information can then be used to
help the estuary program direct its attention to those areas where there appears to
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 69
-------
be a significant amount of negative environmental behavior. The estuary program
can plan or expand activities aimed at assisting households to improve those
estuary protection behaviors.
The working group should carefully review the initial versions of the question-
naire, even if prepared with the assistance of a survey expert, to assure that the
questions and their wording capture the information wanted.
The questionnaire should then be pre-tested. That is, it should be tried on a small
number of households or boaters representing a cross-section of households to
whom the questionnaire will be administered. A pre-test does not mean merely
giving the questionnaire to respondents to see if they answer all the questions. It
also means that pre-test respondents should be asked whether they had any
problems in understanding questions. On question wording that the working
group itself found to be problematic, respondents should be asked to give their
understanding of what those words or terms meant to them. Based on the findings
from the initial pre-test, the questionnaire should be revised. If the problems are
substantial and require significant questionnaire modifications, the questionnaire
should be again pre-tested.
To our knowledge, there is no scientific way to determine how many persons
should be included in a pre-test. The estuary program should probably include
about a dozen households in its pre-test. If these households have problems with
the questionnaire, the working group should add additional households to the
pre-test until it feels confident the questionnaire is reasonable.
Because of the likely variety of households in any estuary, the questionnaire
will need to include some skip patterns so that households with certain charac-
teristics skip over some questions. For example, households that live in apartments
should not be asked questions about lawn fertilizers because they are unlikely to
be sufficiently informed about the maintenance of grass areas outside their apart-
ment units. Similarly, boaters without marine sanitation devices do not need to be
asked about their use of pump-out facilities.
Appendix 3 presents a modified version of the household questionnaire used
by the Tampa Bay NEP. Some of its questions are unique to that region of the
country and will not likely be applicable to other estuaries. Appendix 4 presents a
modified version of the boaters' questionnaire used by the Buzzards Bay Project,
which focused on waste disposition given the local area's recent enactment of a
"No Discharge Zone." In contrast, a boaters' survey for the Tampa Bay NEP would
likely reflect that area's concern for protection of seagrass.
Finally, in areas with significant numbers of non-English-speaking residents,
the estuary program may need to provide different language versions of the
questionnaire.
70
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
MODE OF ADMINISTRATION
The survey questionnaire can be administered to households and boaters by mail,
by phone, in person at their home or dock, or by a combination of the above.
Mailing the questionnaire is likely to be the most feasible method for most estuary
programs. It is usually the least expensive approach. Its major drawback is that
unless the process is handled properly/response rates may be so low that the results
will not have sufficient validity and credibility.
Administration by telephone is the survey technique most favored by survey
organizations. However, it is a more labor-intensive effort since it requires time to
train interviewers, locate and reach potential respondents, and complete and
document the interview. Completion rates, however, are likely to be substantially
higher than for mail surveys if the phone interviewers repeatedly call back numbers
until contacting the respondent.
In-person household interviews are not likely to be feasible for most estuary
programs given the considerable amount of interviewer time required for travel to
respondents' homes. These days, interviewers are also reluctant to go into certain
areas of their communities, particularly in the evenings when people are most often
available for interviews.
Some exceptions exist. For example, Tampa Bay's Florida Neighborhood Pro-
gram had personnel that provided direct assistance and information about envi-
ronmental protection to a small number of households within pre-selected
neighborhood areas. In such situations, program staff are in a position to deliver
the questionnaires to homes and then return to pick them up or to offer to complete
an interview at the person's home or elsewhere in the neighborhood. This proce-
dure should be able to produce a high completion rate at very low cost, but adds
extra work for program personnel.
One option for administering boaters' surveys is to access a sample of boaters
at their docks when they return from trips. This approach is likely to become
feasible if the estuary program can assign volunteers or staff to primary docking
locations around the estuary at various times of the day, days of the week, and
seasons. In Buzzards Bay, the boating season lasts from April until mid-September.
The most satisfactory approach for estuaries is likely to be a combination of mail
and telephone administration in order to bring the response rate up to reasonable
levels at a reasonable cost. We suggest that estuary programs seek a 50 percent rate
of return, excluding questionnaires that were returned because the family had
moved or otherwise were ineligible for the survey. The estuary program will need
to undertake a second and perhaps third mailing to non-respondents to increase
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 71
-------
the response rate. After the second mailing the program should follow up non-re-
spondents by phone to remind them to complete and return the questionnaire, or
if preferred, to complete the interview by phone.
The first mailing should request the completion and return of the questionnaire
by approximately the third week after the date the questionnaire is mailed. An
example of a mail questionnaire cover letter is shown in Exhibit 6.3. In addition to
the information shown here, the cover letter should also indicate that the informa-
tion provided will be confidential and it should identify who can be contacted for
more information on the survey. The second mailing, with a new updated cover
letter and another copy of the questionnaire, should be sent shortly after the first
is due. This requires the survey team to identify households that have already
returned the questionnaire. The second mailing should give a new date for return-
ing the questionnaire, about two weeks after the follow up is mailed.
EXHIBIT 6.3 Example of a Household Survey Cover Letter
Dear Neighbor:
Tampa Bay needs your help!
To help develop a pollution prevention strategy, the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program is randomly surveying households in the Tampa Bay region to learn more
about residents' level of awareness of environmental issues and practices in and
around the home to minimize pollution. You can help by taking a few minutes to fill
out the enclosed survey and returning it to us in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped
envelope by January 15,1993.
To thank you for your assistance, we will send you a Tampa Bay Repair Kit—an
easy to use handbook on actions homeowners can take to reduce pollution, conserve
water, and protect the natural resources of the bay.
Your assistance is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Eckenrod
Usually it will be desirable to code each questionnaire to identify which house-
holds have returned the questionnaires and which have not. It is quite appropriate
to guarantee in the cover letter that the responses will be confidential and that only
aggregate data will be reported. However, it is not necessary to guarantee complete
anonymity, at least not from the program personnel administering the survey.
72MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
The cover letter can give households the option of contacting the survey team
to be interviewed by telephone rather than completing the questionnaire in writing.
This option is not likely to be used by many households, but some might have
literacy problems, feel uncomfortable with a written questionnaire, or otherwise
feel more comfortable talking to someone at the survey office.
Improving Response Rates
Exhibit 6.4 presents suggestions to increase the likelihood that households will
complete and return mail questionnaires.
The questionnaire and the cover letter should indicate the date by which the
questionnaire should be returned. Judgments differ on how much time should be
allowed. Allowing a period of about two to three weeks from the date that the
questionnaire is expected to be mailed is probably appropriate. The due date should
not be so far out in the future that people will put if off and lose the questionnaire.
On the other hand, the time allotted should be long enough to allow for mail
delivery and for respondent's possible absence or other commitments.
For boater surveys, endorsement and even cosponsorship of the survey by local
boater associations would likely be very helpful. In such cases, it is preferable that
the cover letter be signed by the association president as well as an estuary
protection program official, to encourage boaters to respond to the survey.
SELECTING THE HOUSEHOLDS
AND BOATERS TO BE SURVEYED
The survey team will need to determine the listing of households and boaters to be
used to draw the sample, the sample size, and the procedure used to select the
sample from the list.
Sample Source
If the survey is by telephone, the survey team could draw from recent telephone
directories to obtain its sample, assuming that the number of households without
telephones and with unlisted numbers is not expected to be large enough to
significantly affect the findings. A more sophisticated approach that takes care of
the unlisted phone problem is to use "random digit dialing," a procedure that
should probably be used with the help of an expert in random digit dialing (again,
contact a local university). An easier option is to draw a sample from the phone
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 73
-------
EXHIBIT 6.4 Suggestions for Increasing Mail Survey Completion
Rates
1. Keep the questionnaire as short as possible. A mail questionnaire should be no
longer than four pages and preferably shorter. Telephone questionnaires can be
longer. Interviews of 15 to 20 minutes are not likely to be overly troublesome for
most respondents.
2. Print the questionnaire on attractive paper and in an attractive format so that it
does not look oppressive and is easy to complete, say, within 15 minutes. A
questionnaire development expert would be very helpful in designing the
questionnaire format (the questionnaire also needs to be easy to tabulate).
3. Send a postcard or letter in advance to each household in the sample telling them
that the questionnaire will be forthcoming and asking them for their cooperation
and help.
4. Include a short, simple cover letter with the questionnaire asking for the respon-
dent's help. Have it signed, preferably by someone likely to be known by
households and with favorable name recognition. Assure confidentiality and
provide a phone number for households with questions about the survev (see
Exhibit 6.3). y
5. Personalize the cover letter if at all possible; this is most feasible if reasonably
current word processing hardware and software are available.
6. Use second and perhaps third mailings (including another copy of the question-
naire) to non-respondents.
7. When feasible, offer an incentive for completing and returning the questionnaire.
The estuary program might offer to send a particularly attractive publication to
persons responding. In Tampa Bay returners were offered a copy of the Tampa
Bay Repair Kit, an attractive document that provided suggestions to households
about environmental bay protection. Some government tourist offices put the
names of households that return completed questionnaires into a lottery, for say,
a $100 savings bond.
8. Use telephone reminders to households that have not returned their question-
naires. Offer to complete the questionnaire over the phone if the respondent
prefers.
directory and then increase each drawn phone number by one. This makes the
telephone numbers random and will, thus, cover listed as well as unlisted numbers.
If the questionnaire is to be administered by mail, addresses can be obtained
from telephone directories. But in addition to the problems mentioned above,
74 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
telephone directories used for mailing purposes do not provide ZIP codes. There-
fore, someone will probably need to identify the ZIP codes for each address.
Telephone directories are usually reasonably up-to-date (persons who have resided
in the community for less than a year probably should not be surveyed).
However, use of phone directories can present problems if the directory boundaries
do not match those of the target area for the estuary. The Tampa Bay NEP survey
initially used the telephone directories for each of three counties. This procedure
yielded problems because a number of households were found to reside in com-
munities outside the survey region to be surveyed (phones listed as being in one
town were sometimes found later to be located in another, out-of-the-area location).
The Tampa Bay NEP found a more efficient device—the use of "reverse direc-
tories," directories arranged by street address that provided addresses, zip codes,
and in most cases phone numbers (that can be used for telephone reminders or
phone interviews). These directories, prepared by business firms, may also contain
additional useful information such as apartment numbers. (If the estuary program
wants to exclude households that are in apartments, the reverse directory will
enable this to be readily done.) Unfortunately, reverse directories are usually
prepared only for high-population areas. Reverse directories can be used for both
mail and telephone surveys.
In some small communities it might be feasible to use real estate rolls, utility
billing addresses, or other government lists. In doing so, the survey team needs to
carefully determine whether some types of households they want to include have
been excluded, or that some they would like to exclude are included. For example,
real estate rolls would exclude renters. Utility bills would include some renters
including apartment dwellers.
No list is likely to be perfect. But as long as the survey team uses comparable
lists each time it conducts the survey and is able to obtain reasonable response rates,
comparisons across time should be reasonably valid.
For boater surveys not administered at the dock, the survey team might use
available listings of registered boaters or of local boating dubs. This would not cover
visiting boaters, but their behavior is less likely to be influenced by estuary protection
activities. However, questionnaire administration at the dock can cover visitors if
they are felt to be a major offender group and if the estuary program believes it can
take actions that would have a tangible effect on visiting boaters' behavior.
Sample Size
For surveys where the total target population is small (under 500), the questionnaire
can normally be administered to 100 percent of households. Tampa Bay's Florida
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 75
-------
Neighborhood Program administered questionnaires covering all of the few hun-
dred households included in the program.
For area-wide household surveys such as the Tampa Bay household survey,
administering questionnaires to all households clearly is infeasible. Even the larger
estuary programs are unlikely to be able to survey more than 1,000 households.
Smaller estuary programs should be able to handle mail surveys of about 300 to
500 households without much trouble. Note that statistically it is better to get a
higher completion rate from a smaller sample than a much lower response rate
from a larger number of households. For example, it is usually much better to
receive 100 completed questionnaires from 150 households (a 67 percent response
rate) than to receive 1,000 completed questionnaires from 150,000 households (a 10
percent response rate). The 10 percent response rate raises a significant possibility
of non-response bias (i.e., that non-respondents differ from respondents in signifi-
cant ways in their responses).
A complicating factor is that the estuary program is likely to want information
on various sub-groups of the full sample. This increases the sample size needed.
For example, if an estuary program wants to obtain reasonably statistically valid
information for each of three counties, it is likely to want to seek a sample return
of at least300 questionnaires—about 100 from each county. If it expects a 50 percent
response rate, a mailing of 600 will be needed.
When compiling addresses (or telephone numbers if the survey is by phone) for
Hie sample, the survey team also needs to consider the number of households on
the Hst that are likely to be ineligible for the survey. Some households may be found
to have moved or to live outside of the eligible area. For example, if about 20 percent
of households in the listing are expected to be ineligible, the number of households
that should be drawn initially—assuming a 50 percent response rate is sought—is
375 if the number of completed questionnaires sought is 150,750 if 300 completions
are sought, and 1,250 if 500 completions are sought.
Sample Drawing Method
After determining the size of the sample and the sources from which it will be
drawn, the next step is to draw the sample from the list.
The survey team needs to estimate the total number of households in the list
from which the sample is to be drawn. That number should be divided by the
sample size to give the approximate sampling interval. For example, if the listing
contains 100,000 households (a community of between 250,000 and 300,000 popu-
lation) and the survey team wants a sample of 750, the team needs to choose one
out of every 133 listings. Such a selection can be done in a number of ways. One
76 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS ~
-------
relatively simple procedure is to randomly select a starting point in the directory
and then choose every 133rd listing.
Counting the number of listings in each directory and selecting every 133rd
listing need not be done exactly, but should be "roughly right." The principle here
is to draw the sample in a way that reduces potential biases. The persons drawing
the sample should look out for listings that are not relevant or not eligible to be sent
a questionnaire such as a business or government office or, if the survey is not
intended to include them, households living in apartments, trailers, and condo-
miniums. If the questionnaire is not intended to target certain groups of households
such as renters, the questionnaire itself should include a question to screen out
renters.
ANALYZING AND REPORTING THE SURVEY
RESULTS
Typically, agencies put too little time into considering how the information should
be reported. Below we discuss both the analysis of findings and their presentation.
Analyzing the Information
When questionnaires are returned, each should be reviewed to ensure that the
responses given are clear and fit into the appropriate response categories. This is
particularly important in mail surveys because respondents sometimes make errors
such as missing skip patterns. For example, in Tampa Bay respondents living in an
apartment, mobile home, or condominium were instructed to skip over questions
about maintenance of lawns and septic systems. On occasion, some respondents
provided responses to questions they were asked to skip. The questionnaire editor
should correct those entries by marking and tabulating those answers as "non-ap-
plicables."
If a respondent provides an ambiguous response by, say, putting a check mark
half-way between response categories, the editor will have to treat the responses
as if the respondent had not answered them. However, if these questions are felt
to be of major importance to the study, the survey team might go back by phone to
that respondent to clarify the responses. But this is seldom likely to be needed or
appropriate.
The numerical tabulations should be done by computer. Many software pack-
ages are available that permit the ready entry and tabulation of questionnaire data.
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 77
-------
Standard software programs such as SPSS and SAS do have such tabulation
capability, but their use requires individuals knowledgeable of the software.
Though we do not recommend it, if necessary the tabulation work can be done
by hand using a spreadsheet approach by listing each respondent in a row and
using each column to enter the responses to a different question. Manual tabula-
tions are feasible if the number of households in the sample is relatively small, say
up to about 300, and if the survey team does not need to make many cross-tabula-
tions.
Manual tabulations can readily provide one or two sets of cross-tabulations such
as findings broken down by county or by whether respondents own or rent their
homes. Different spreadsheet pages would be used for each category. The findings
can then be tabulated for each page and totaled. If, however, the survey team wants
to tabulate a number of such cross-tabulations, the manual work quickly becomes
difficult to handle—and is subject to substantial potential tabulation errors.
Presenting the Findings
Findings should generally be presented in at least two different types of formats.
The first format presents the numerical results. These can be presented in tables and
charts by reporting the percentage of respondents that gave each response for each
question, perhaps entered on a copy of the questionnaire. Another way to present
numerical results is by providing tables for each question (see Exhibit 6.5 for
example). Note that the principal numbers used in the presentation are percent-
ages—the percentage of the total sample that responded in each way to each
question. The number of households that responded to the question is also included
to give users a perspective on sample size. The format shown in Exhibit 6.5 also
allows users to see readily whether substantial differences in responses occurred
for different categories of households.
The data should be analyzed for each environmental problem behavior. These
data should also be examined to determine whether specific categories of house-
holds (e.g., those living in particular jurisdictions, those with a certain household
composition, or renters or owners) presented problems. For example, the hypo-
thetical data shown in Exhibit 6.5 indicate that proper disposal of oil, paint, and
other chemicals is particularly a problem in County C and with renters, a large
proportion of whom dispose of these items into sewer or storm drains.
Estuary programs are also likely to find it useful to calculate an overall outcome
indicator such as the "percentage of households with one or more environmental
problems/7 This overall outcome indicator should also be broken out by household
category.
78
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
EXHIBIT 6.5 Illustrative Report Format for Household Survey
Responses (Hypothetical Data)
Pei
pai
se\
rcentage of respondents that reported disposal, in the past 12 months, of motor oil,
mts, or chemicals at (a) county collection sites; (b) local service stations; (c) into
ver or storm drains.
Total Number of
Respondents
Percentage of Respondents
County A
County B
County C
One-Person Household
Two-Person Household
Three-Person Household
Owners
Renters
Number of
Respondents
200
—
60
75
65
35
65
100
120
80
DISPOSITION
County
Collection
Sites
90
45%
67%
27%
31%
43%
38%
50%
67%
13%
Local
Service
Stations
70
35%
25%
53%
38%
43%
39%
30%
25%
50%
Sewer or
Storm
Drains
40
20%
8%
20%
31%
14%
23%
20%
8%
37%
When tracked over time, these measures provide an overall snapshot of pro-
gress in improving household environmental protection behavior. They indicate
the extent to which efforts to provide information to households can help improve
bay quality. For example, if a large percentage of households or only certain
categories of households report problem behavior, estuary program officials may
want to allocate significant resources to targeting those types of households with
education or technical assistance.
The summary report should also provide users with a brief description of key
features of the survey: whether it was administered by mail, phone, or a combina-
tion of the two, the response rates obtained, and the dates when the survey was
conducted. This information enables readers to be better able to interpret the
precision and timing of the survey.
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities
79
-------
Findings should also be summarized in a short, clear narrative form that high-
lights the findings. This "Summary of Survey Findings" should identify major
problems needing attention. After the survey has been undertaken more than once,
the summary should identify where significant improvements or backsliding have
occurred relative to previous survey findings.
Exhibit 6.6 presents an excerpt from a summary of the Tampa Bay 1993 house-
hold survey. Because this was the first time the survey was conducted, the findings
do notpresent information on time trends. The Tampa Bay survey findings indicate
how survey information might be used by estuary protection programs. For
example, a substantial percentage of households (25 percent) that disposed of oil,
paint, or chemicals in the past 12 months reported that they had disposed of them
into their sewers or outside storm drains. This indicates a problem that the envi-
ronmental protection program should address in its future activities.
EXHIBIT 6.6 Highlights of Survey Findings: Tampa Bay
Household Environment Survey, 1992/1993
Forty-two percent either do not have or do not know if they have water flow
saving devices.
Forty-five percent do not have a displacement device in their toilet; another
11 percent do not know if they do or not.
Twenty-five percent of those surveyed who had disposed of oil, paint, or
chemicals in the past 12 months reported disposing of them in their sewer or
outside storm drain.
Seventy-two percent are separating their trash for recycling; 25 percent are not.
Twenty-four percent of dog owners never pick up their animal wastes; 14
percent do it "sometimes."
While only 9 percent do not use slow-release fertilizers, 30 percent do not know
if they do or not.
Forty-eight percent use pesticides to control yard pests; 50 percent use prun-
ing.
Seventy-three percent have mostly, or some, native or drought resistant plants
and trees; 17 percent are not sure if they do or not.
Regarding new foliage planted, 21 percent said they are not drought resistant
varieties; another 29 percent said they didn't know if they were or not.
Twenty-six percent said they do not group plants according to fertilizer/wa-
tering needs; another 31 percent did not know if they did or not.
Although only 7 percent have septic systems, of these, 67 percent pump out
residues later than the recommended 3 to 5 years. Additionally, 67 percent use
cleaning compounds and 34 percent use a garbage disposal.
80
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
Such information is the major purpose of household and boater surveys. It is
used to identify whether past activities have had targeted outcomes and to help
identify future actions that should be taken to improve household and boater
estuary protection activities.
LIMITATIONS OF HOUSEHOLD AND BOATER
SURVEYS
The information collected in these surveys should be considered "roughly right."
Because of major resource limitations that most estuary programs will have in
undertaking such surveys, a great deal of precision is unlikely to be feasible. But it
is not likely that questions in these surveys will need more precision than within
five to seven percentage points.
In addition, the accuracy of household and boater responses will always be
subject to some question. Respondents' possible reluctance to indicate negative
environmental protection behaviors and their incomplete understanding of some
environmental issues (such as the impact of boater discharges on estuary water)
may affect the accuracy of their responses. Non-responses from some individuals
in the sample also negatively affect the accuracy of the survey findings.
Finally, as noted earlier, household and boater surveys provide information
only on first-order effects. Whether improvements in these behaviors will lead to
major, significant changes in the water quality and the condition of estuary living
resources is subject to some uncertainty.
EFFECT AND COST
The cost of estuary program activities that encourage households and boaters to
improve environmental protection behavior and the cost of the household surveys
that assess the outcomes of these activities are usually relatively small, at least
compared to other types of activities.
Probably a major barrier to undertaking household and boater surveys is that
estuary program personnel are not experts in survey work and do not have staff
with sufficient time to do the work themselves. The major time and cost require-
ment for household and boater surveys is likely to be spent on initial development
of the questionnaire. Once this has been developed, the administration of future
surveys should require much less cost and time.
Measuring Outcomes of Household and Boater Estuary Protection Activities 81
-------
Nevertheless, estuary protection programs should consider hiring a local sur-
vey organization to administer the questionnaire. The estuary program should still
use a working group to help develop the questionnaire and to address basic issues
such as which categories of households should be included and excluded. How-
ever, estuary program officials will find it less troublesome if they have an experi-
enced survey organization to take care of the details including sampling,
administering the survey, conducting the tabulations, and preparing the initial
summary reports. Estuary program officials should, however, remain responsible
for reviewing the survey findings and preparing their own summary of findings,
perhaps with recommendations for future estuary program activities based on
those findings.
If the survey is conducted by mail, it should generally cost no more than $5.00
per completed questionnaire, once the questionnaire has been developed. If the
survey is conducted by telephone (the preferred mode of most survey organiza-
tions), the estuary program will find the cost higher, perhaps $15.00 to $20.00 per
completed interview. Thus, for 500 completed interviews, the contract cost should
range from $2,500 for mail surveys to $10,000 for telephone surveys.
Because of the numerous details and problems involved with undertaking a
survey, we recommend that, if feasible, an estuary program contract out the survey.
SUMMARY
A random sample of households in the estuary protection area is the primary way
to obtain periodic information on the estuary protection behavior of households.
Conducting such surveys periodically enables the estuary protection program to
track the extent to which activities aimed at improving estuary protection behavior
are achieving desired results. The surveys also provide important needs assessment
information by indicating what types of behaviors (by which categories of house-
holds) are present that seem likely to cause bay protection problems. The informa-
tion obtained can then be used to help estuary program officials identify where
they need to apply their future effort and resources.
82
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
SECTION?
A^ybtaining
Information on Bay
Quality: The Bay
Quality Index
The end result sought by estuary protection programs is an estuary that is
healthy and fully supports use by fish, wildlife, vegetation, and humans. The
only practical way to assure that progress is being made toward this end is
by defining a comprehensive set of measures, or environmental indicators, that can
reveal progress over time. However, as Robertson and Davis point out:
Water quality is an abstract concept used to denote an
overall evaluation of the condition or environmental health
-------
of a water body or resource.... A complete assessment would
entail measurement of all the environmental properties of
an area. This is obviously not possible as the number of
physical, chemical, geological, and biological properties that
can be measured in an area are immense. Instead, a rela-
tively few properties that can provide general indications of
environmental condition must be selected for measurement.1
How can outcome monitoring provide data useful to officials and the public
without burdening them with an excess of esoteric information? We recommend
summarizing environmental monitoring data into a "Bay Quality Index" (BQI).
The intent of a BQI is to provide a sound, reliable composite indicator of an
estuary's overall quality and major components. The index is intended to capture
the major bay quality features of the estuary in a straightforward and simple way.
The index should be clear, understandable, and useful to public and private officials
and to the public at large. It should permit the monitoring of trends in estuary
quality over time and help identify key aspects of bay quality that need extra
attention. It should also enhance the ability of estuary protection officials to
communicate needs and progress to citizens and the media.
The index should be scientifically sound, while recognizing that it is impossible
to capture all relevant estuary characteristics in one index; resources for environ-
mental monitoring are limited; and the index is not likely to be fully satisfying to
the scientific community (or any segment of the community). However, the index
should provide a reasonable and comprehensive picture of the status of the estuary
at particular points in time. The index should use already available environmental
monitoring data to the extent possible.2
Federal and state governments are already using a variety of environmental
indices. For example, the State of Ohio has developed an "Index of Biotic Integrity."
This uses data on the number of different types of species and the total number of
species to produce an overall biological assessment of the quality of streams.
The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission in Tampa,
Florida, has been annually updating a "Water Quality Index" generated in 1984.
This index serves as a model for some of the procedures discussed here.
MAJOR FEATURES OF A BQI
1. The index should indicate:
Q The condition of living resources including fish, vegetation (e.g., sea-
grasses), and other wildlife—and incidence of human illnesses due to
poor estuary quality;
84 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
Q The extent of support for desired uses of the bay, including swimming
and commercial seafood collection;
Q Water quality; and
Q Other key aspects of habitat quality.
The BQI might also include perceptions of bay attractiveness, perhaps based
on feedback from representative samples of citizens. It might also include
economic indicators closely related to bay conditions. Those who prepare
the index should identify major gaps in the index attributable to currently
unavailable data.
2. The overall index can be an aggregation of a number of sub-indices, such as
indices for each of the categories listed in #1 above. We recommend that
estuary programs maintain separate indices of water quality, which is basi-
cally a third-order indicator, and of condition of living resources, a fourth-order
indicator. Some estuary programs might want to combine both as is done
by the Buzzards Bay Project and the Tampa Bay NEP.
3. The procedure should provide sub-indices for key geographical segments
of the estuary, for instance, for particular embayments within the estuary
and for key tributary and tidal streams and creeks.
4. The index should be calculated on a regular schedule so that estuary
protection officials can have timely information on which to allocate their
scarce resources. The information should be made available on a timely
basis, at least annually and preferably seasonally. This does not require that
all index components be updated frequently; some components will likely
be collected less often, both because of resource constraints and because they
are not expected to change frequently.
5. The values of individual index components should be readily available in
back-up materials so that users can, if they wish, examine them for them-
selves. Data on individual index components can, of course, be quite valu-
able for helping to pinpoint problems.
6. Index values should be divided into ranges (e.g., excellent, good, fair, or
poor) so that users will know which values fall into each of a small number
of important and understandable categories of bay quality.
7. Staff and consultants should probably prepare the first version of the index,
but it should be subject to full discussion, review, and debate by interested
persons in the estuary area, including the technical community and govern-
ment, environmental, and user groups. The intent is to achieve a reasonable
degree of consensus on the index's coverage.
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
85
-------
Below we discuss principal issues in the development and use of Bay Quality
Indices, drawing on the experiences of the Tampa Bay NEP and the Buzzards Bay
Project.
DEVELOPING A BQI
The following four steps are needed to develop a BQI:
D Select the components to include in the index;
Q Determine the way in which these components are to be combined into
the index;
Q Identify those values of the index that represent the various levels of bay
quality such as excellent, good, fair, or poor;
Q Select the sub-indices likely to be useful.
The BQI is likely to receive special attention from the media because of its
apparent simplicity, just as overall air pollution indices in cities have achieved
considerable acceptance by the media, the public, and even the technical commu-
nity.
As suggested farther below, each report containing updated BQI data should
also provide explanatory information that assists readers to understand why the
values of the index have improved, worsened, or remained the same. Such expla-
nations might also include actions being undertaken or planned to improve the
values. The explanations should also estimate the likely effects and timetable of
such actions; some index components may require many years of effort before
improvement is seen. Such information should be included with the index data in
reports made to public officials, the media, and the public in order to reduce
misunderstandings about the implications of the BQI data.
STEP #1: Select BQI Components
This is the first step needed in developing a BQI. Inevitably, any estuary program
will be faced with limited resources for data collection. This limits the ability to
collect all the information needed, as frequently as it is needed, from samples as
large as needed, and in as many locations as needed. The objective is to provide
data on a regular seasonal or, at least, annual basis.
This means that for outcome monitoring, estuaries will need to be content with
an index that covers a smaller number of environmental components and uses
86 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
smaller samples collected at fewer locations and less frequently than they would
like.
Examples of components for a BQI focusing on condition of living resources—a
fourth-order outcome—are presented in Exhibit 7.1. Each estuary needs to identify
those components most relevant to its own situation. Index components should be
selected by using the following criteria :
EXHIBIT 7.1 Examples of Components for a Bay Quality Index
Focused on Condition of Living Resources
(Fourth-Order Outcomes)
Extent of shellfish bed closures or restricted use/consumption advisories;
Extent of beaches closed to bathing or having other restrictions due to unnatural
causes;
Acreage of seagrasses;
Number of fish kills;
Fish populations;
Populations of selected mammals and birds;
Extent of algae blooms;
Extent of offensive noxious odors;
Prevalence of fish abnormalities due to unnatural causes, based on tissue
samples;
Number of cases of human illness due to consumption of contaminated
seafood;
Citizen ratings of estuary attractiveness.
Q The component gives important, reasonably valid information about bay quality,
particularly the elements listed earlier under "Major Features of a BQI":
condition of living resources and the extent to which the bay supports
designated uses.
Q The information provided does not overlap substantially with the information
provided by one of the other candidate components.
Q The component is related in a substantial way to protection of the estuary. For
example, a component that primarily affects land or water areas outside
the bay would not likely warrant inclusion in the BQI. An air pollution
problem that did not have a significant impact on the waters should not
be represented in the index. A fish species that spent most of its time
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
87
-------
outside the estuary and was not significantly affected by it, even though
considered of prime importance throughout the state, should not be
included.
Q Collectively, the components selected provide a sufficiently comprehensive pic-
ture of the estuary's "health."
Q Relevant data are available for the component or, if they are not, reasonably
valid data are likely to be obtainable in a practical way in the future.
Q The cost of regular or periodic collection of any additional data is reasonably
manageable.
One sticky issue is what to do about components that are not currently an estuary
problem but could at some point flair up and become a major concern. Should these be
included in the index? For example, certain toxins may not currently be a concern.
Should such components be included in the index? Inclusion would give the
estuary credit for controlling an important potential pollutant. In general, it is
probably desirable to include such components. The major hurdle here is the added
cost to collecting that information. However, the estuary program could collect data
on such components less frequently, reducing data collection costs significantly. It
is likely to be good practice for an estuary to check such components at least every
few years.
In many cases, estuary programs rely on the federal government for some
measurements. Unfortunately, federal collection efforts often do not provide the
geographical coverage and frequency that most estuary programs need. Until the
estuary program finds the funds to make such regular measurements, it will likely
need to rely on the limited federal data available.3
Inevitably, the various components of the index will be collected at different
times, with different frequencies, from different sample sizes, and possibly from
different locations, depending on the nature of the component and the resources
available for data collection. Thus, different component values will have different
degrees of precision and validity.
It will sometimes be necessary to use proxies for the ideal measurements.
Differences of opinion will exist among technical personnel on the accuracy and
validity of various measurements. For example, one controversial area has been
measurement of fecal coliform as an indicator of the extent to which pathogens are
present in water. Another example is the use of Secchi Disk Depth readings rather
than more accurate PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) procedures; the
former is less costly and can readily be collected by volunteers but is not likely to
be as accurate as the latter.
As indicated earlier, this manual takes the position that it is better to be roughly
right than completely ignorant. Thus, we recommend that the estuary use the best,
88
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
most recently available data, even though some may be old or less than ideal. When
the technical community believes that the data for a component have become
obsolete or otherwise invalid, the component should be dropped from the index
until new information is obtained.
Some real-life examples of indices are the following:
Q Since 1984 the Hillsbor-
ough County Environ-
mental Protection Com-
mission (HCEPC) has
calculated a Water Qual-
ity Index for Tampa Bay
and its major sections.
This index has been used
as a starting point for both
the Buzzards Bay Project
and the Tampa Bay NEP
to develop their BQIs.
The Hillsborough index
includes the parameters
shown in Exhibit 7.2.
Q The Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program is
building on the HCEPC
Water Quality Index. It
is adding fourth-order in-
dicators such as the condi-
tion of living resources
and the extent to which
the bay supports desired
uses (the Hillsborough
Index, as the HCEPC has pointed out, focuses solely on water quality
parameters). The Tampa Bay NEP, as of this writing, is selecting the
components for the index. It is considering inclusion of: (a) acreage of
"functionally healthy" vegetative habitat such as seagrasses, salt
marshes, and mangroves (these would be obtained from periodic assess-
ments by the Southwest Florida Water Management District); (b) fish
population data, including specified juvenile fish, recreational fish, and
selected mammals (collected by the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection); and (c) measurements of "impaired" uses such as
extent of shellfish bed closures, red tide counts, number of fish kills, and
extent of blue-green algae blooms.4 Commercial shellfishing has been
EXHIBIT 7.2 Example of BQI Com-
ponents and Their Weights
PARAMETER
Percentage of Saturation
Dissolved Oxygen
Chlorophyll "a"
Total Colif orm
Effective Light Penetration
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Sum of Parameter Weights
WEIGHT
.212
.167
.167
.111
.111
.111
.111
1.000
Source: Richard Boler, ed. 1992. "Surface Water
Quality, Hillsborough County Florida, 1990-1991.
Tampa, Fla.: Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission (September), p. A-2.
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
89
-------
dosed in most of Tampa Bay for many years. This has not been a visible
issue there because no commercial shellfishing industry has been present
to act as an advocacy group for opening the beds.
D The Buzzards Bay Project has adapted the HCEPC index. The Buzzards
Bay Project index uses five components: early summer morning dis-
solved oxygen concentrations (as a percentage of saturation); Secchi disk
depth; chlorophyll; total organic nitrogen; and dissolved inorganic nitro-
gen—to evaluate water quality degradation caused by nitrogen loading
(coastal eutrophication). The index also will include the extent of shell-
fish resource closures—a major issue in the Buzzards Bay estuary. The
Buzzards Bay Project would also like to evaluate PCB concentrations in
edible tissues of flounder and lobster as a way to evaluate Superfund
Cleanup success. However, the Buzzards Bay Project does not yet have
adequate resources for implementing such monitoring. Similarly, while
the program would like to include an indicator of living resources such
as habitat, bay officials feel that the high cost of such monitoring is
prohibitive. They are considering monitoring the extent of eelgrass beds,
but only every five years or so. These latter items are not included in the
current version of the BQI.
Each estuary program needs to identify the components of its index that can
best reflect bay quality. For example, neither the Buzzards Bay Project nor the
Tampa Bay NEP has felt it necessary to include an indicator of salinity in their
indices. However, an estuary program in which saltwater intrusion has become a
major threat to wildlife would likely want to include a salinity measure in its index.
The above indices combine third- and fourth-order outcomes in the same index.
Though this is certainly an option, we recommend that these be kept as separate
indices.
A discussion of technical data collection methods for the various environmental
monitoring parameters is beyond the scope of this report. Estuary programs,
however, should recognize that alternative data collection methods often exist for
individual parameters. Different sample collection methods can result in different
findings. Estuary programs will, of course, need quality control steps, particularly
when using volunteer monitoring procedures.
The federal government has been sponsoring substantial research into environ-
mental parameters and data collection methods, with the long-range intent of
obtaining some degree of standardization of procedures.5 However, in the foresee-
able future estuary programs will likely face major uncertainties and various
options in determining what to collect and how.
90 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
STEP #2: Combining Individual Parameters into an Index
Once an estuary program has identified the components for the index, the next
problem, a difficult one, is to combine the values of the components into an overall
index.
This requires two important steps. The first is to transform the values for each
component—each of which is expressed in different measurement units—into a
common unit of measurement. That is, each value needs to be "normalized/' The
second step is to combine those normalized values into an overall index value.
A basic procedure for transforming each parameter into a common metric is to
map possible values for each parameter onto a 0 to 100 scale with 100 representing
"highest" quality. Develop a relationship line, perhaps on a logarithmic scale, that
relates the potential values for the parameter to the associated value on the 0 to 100
scale. This line, based on technical judgment, establishes the relationship among
all possible component values and environmental quality. Examples of such trans-
formation scales are shown (for chlorophyll, coliform, and light penetration) in
Exhibits 7.3,7.4, and 7.5.6
The next step is to apply "weighting factors" that reflect each parameter's
importance as an indicator of the health of the bay. Most commonly, analysts apply
weights to each parameter that add up to "one." For example, the weights used in
the Hillsborough County Index are shown in Exhibit 7.2.
The respective weights can then be multiplied by each of the "normalized"
values of the individual BQIromponents and added together to produce the latest
value of the BQI.
STEP #3: Identify BQI Values That Represent Various Levels of Overall
Quality
Bay Quality Indices based on the above types of procedures will generate an index
typically varying from 0 to 100, perhaps with 100 meaning very good and 0 being
terrible.
These numbers will be very helpful in tracking the extent of progress from one
year to the next. However, many users of the information will also need data that
permit them to interpret which of these values are "good" and which are "not
good." Thus, an estuary will also need a procedure that translates values of the BQI
(0-100) into categories such as excellent, good, fair, or poor. The estuary will need
to select a range of BQI values for each such category.7
This process is not as easy as it may sound. The determination of which values
for the BQI should be categorized as excellent, good, fair, or poor will be based to
a large extent on judgment. The "judges" that determine the category ranges will
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
91
-------
EXHIBIT 7.3 Example of a Transformation Scale: Chlorophyll "a"
Parameter Transformation Scale
Chlorophyll 'a'
80
• 0
70
60
BO
40
30
20
Ug/L
10
•
•
7
1
6
4
3
2.
1
\
A
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
In (Chi *a') - 4.540316
FTP =
-.02928074
PTP Chi *••
0 »3.7
2° 62.2
40 29.0
60 16.2
80 8.0
100 6.0
30 40 «0 tO 100
Polnli
92
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
EXHIBIT 7.4 Example of a Transformation Scale: "Total
Coliform"
10,000
8000
1000
soo
Colon!**
P«f
1OO ml
100
to
10
Parameter Transformation Scale
Total Coliform
T
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
In (E.Coll) - 8.046062
-.07676613
PTP E. Coll
0 20,860
2° 4401
40 see
60 206
80 46
TOO 10
20 40 «0 80 100
Point*
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
93
-------
EXHIBIT 7.5 Example of a Transformation Scale: "Effective Light
Penetration"
Parameter Transformation Scale
Effective Light Penetration
Incha*
too
80
00
70
GO
50
40
30
2
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
In (Secchl) - 2.329764
PTP _
.02680789
PTP Secchl
0 10
20 18
40 30
80 60
80 BO
100 150
20 *0 80 BO 100
Points
94
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
need to examine numerous sample index values and their components to facilitate
their determinations.
The HCEPC separated the 0 to 100 range of possible values for its Water Quality
Index into five categories: excellent, good, fair, poor, and undesirable (i.e., very
poor). HCEPC derived ranges by having experts review various BQI values and by
observing the relation to various negative occurrences such as fish kills, excessive
algae, low (anoxic) levels of dissolved oxygen, and significant numbers of com-
plaints (e.g., offensive odors).8
Caution: Traditional weighting systems such as those de-
scribed in Step 2 can sometimes overstate the quality of the
estuary. Certain values for some important index compo-
nents may be so bad that, regardless of the readings for
other components, the overall BQI should fall into the "poor"
category. To counteract this, consider attaching an algo-
rithmic procedure, that is, a rule that if the value of particu-
lar components exceeds particular distress levels, the
overall BQI will fall into the "poor" category. The need for
such a procedure becomes larger as the number of compo-
nents used in the BQI increases, since the weight of any one
component is likely to go down. Thus, very poor values of an
important parameter may not have enough weight in the
traditional weighting approach to push the index into the
"poor" category.
STEP #4; Select Sub-Indices
Most estuary programs will want more detail on outcomes than is yielded by an
overall, estuary-wide BQI. Two major types of sub-indices should be considered:
Q Sub-indices for various geographic segments of the estuary; and
Q Sub-indices for various groups of components such as living resources,
support of desired uses of the bay, and water quality.
Such breakouts of the overall BQI provide estuary program public officials with
much greater ability to identify where problems are occurring. They therefore
enable officials to allocate scarce resources more efficiently. As officials track the
BQI values over time, they can identify where conditions are improving or wors-
ening. This provides a much better picture of what is happening, where it is
happening, how successful programs have been, and where further activity is
needed.
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
95
-------
Q GEOGRAPHIC SUB-INDICES
Calculating and reporting the BQI for each segment of the bay is likely to be very
useful to estuary program officials and the public. The Buzzards Bay Project is
breaking out its BQI for each of its more than 30 major embayments. Water quality
and fecal coliform measurements are being made for each embayment to help
answer embayment-specific questions. However, the more areas covered by sub-
indices, the more data (and sample points) are needed, thus raising the costs of data
collection.
The HCEPC annually prepares maps that show Water Quality Index categories
for each part of Tampa Bay. The 1991 map is shown in Exhibit 7.6. HCEPC's annual
reports include maps for both the latest year and the prior year (HCEPC has been
calculating its index since 1985). The Tampa Bay NEP plans to calculate its BQI for
approximately seven major sections of the bay.
Q TYPE OF COMPONENT
Some estuary protection programs will find it useful to have sub-indices based on
particular categories of components such as the condition of living resources, the
extent of support for desired uses, and water quality. A sub-index could be
prepared for each category. The Buzzards Bay Project, for example, is currently
calculating data on "water quality" separately from its "supporting-uses" category,
with the latter based on shellfishing closures.
ESTABLISHING A BQI
Most estuary programs are likely to find it useful to establish a working group to
develop the BQI. This could be a subcommittee of an existing technical committee.
This subcommittee, however, should also include substantial representation from
management and policy personnel, because the BQI is not intended as a scientific
tool but as a management and policymaking tool. It also should contain broad
community representation, because the BQI focuses on elements of direct concern
to users such as shellfish and swimming closures, and illnesses due to consumption
of contaminated seafood. Citizens are likely to want to know if they can eat the fish,
swim in the water, and walk along the beach without getting into tar, oil slicks, and
unpleasant odors.
One intriguing way to identify needed outcome indicators is to interview local
people in a series of "oral histories" about what the estuary used to be like. This
provides a baseline of past conditions and suggests conditions that should be
tracked and perhaps included as long-range objectives.
96 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
EXHIBIT 7.6 Bay Quality Index by Section of Tampa Bay
**ft*****************
GENERAL WATER
QUALITY INDEX
1991
EXCELLENT
_ QOOO
+ FAIR
O POOR
• UNDESIRABLE
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay.Quality Index
97
-------
The subcommittee should be responsible for undertaking the steps discussed
above. It should also have responsibility for monitoring the index for at least two
to three years to ascertain that it is providing sensible findings.
Subsequently, the estuary program should provide for a periodic review of the
index to determine whether changes are needed because of new environmental
monitoring technology or newly emerging bay quality problems.
A major use of the index is to monitor trends over time. If the index is
significantly changed, this can substantially degrade the ability to monitor trends.
Changing the method of measurement of any components or adding or dropping
components can substantially alter the time series. The estuary program subcom-
mittee should then attempt adjustments to overlap the old and new time series.
This might be done, for example, by continuing the old series for an additional year
or two so that it overlaps with the new index, in order to permit reasonable insights
into the overall time trend.
ANALYZING AND REPORTING BQI INFORMATION
Step 4, Selecting Sub-Indices, has already identified how the BQI can be designed
to be of most utility to users of the information. Reporting an overall index for the
whole estuary is likely to be of interest to elected officials and the public, but is not
nearly as operationally useful to program personnel in government or the private
sector as data on the sub-indices and the individual environmental indicators.
Exhibit 7.6 illustrates an attractive form of reporting geographical information.
Such a map could also include data on sub-indices such as the condition of fish and
support for desired uses.
Section 8 below provides additional suggestions on analyzing and reporting
BQI data.
LIMITATIONS OF THE BQI
The BQI will not be able to cover all the environmental concerns that would ideally
be included in the index. Furthermore, formulating the index will require extensive
judgments based on sometimes arguable scientific information that is limited by
our current technical abilities to monitor the environment. As stated earlier, the
intent is to provide as good an indicator of overall bay quality as is currently
financially and technically feasible for estuary programs.
98 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
As emphasized elsewhere in this report, BQI values also provide an indication
of whether overall conditions are improving or worsening and to what extent, but
the data will not indicate what has caused these changes, nor what should be done to
improve them. However, using the geographical or other sub-indices, the estuary
program can attempt to link environmental outcomes to specific projects aimed at
particular geographical areas of the bay or at particular sub-indices. In general,
however, an estuary program will be undertaking many activities at one time
which, taken together, affect overall bay quality. Extracting the effects of any one
project is likely to require special in-depth evaluations.
To alleviate this problem, personnel involved with the estuary program should
provide, with each BQI report, the best information at their disposal that can help
users of the report understand why the BQI values were at the calculated levels.
Such explanatory information will aid users to better interpret the information, and
will give estuary protection personnel the opportunity to discuss issues, activities,
and problems that exist.
OUTCOME MONITORING TIME AND COSTS
Environmental monitoring can be very expensive for a local program. Costs are
affected by the number of parameters to be measured, the number of locations at
which parameters are to be measured, frequency of sampling, and amount of
precision sought (which can greatly affect the sample size needed). Estuary pro-
grams will need to concentrate scarce resources on those index components,
locations, and times that represent key "pressure points" for the estuary.
Environmental monitoring is undertaken even in the absence of a BQI require-
ment or regular outcome monitoring, sometimes by the federal government or
others in the scientific community. However, in general, federal monitoring does
not provide the number of samples in the desired locations nor the frequencies
likely to be needed in order to be useful to an estuary program for regular
monitoring.
Some BQI data components such as counts of the extent of shellfish closures
may require only a small amount of additional resources. Other data collection
efforts, such as annual estimates of acreage of seagrasses, can require substantial
additional resources and effort if not already being done on a regular basis.
To reduce cost, the estuary program can adjust data collection frequencies to
reflect relative risk, stability, and importance of individual BQI components. For
example, some components might be less frequently sampled in areas of the bay
that have had few problems in recent years. Components that do not change rapidly
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
99
-------
can be measured less frequently than those that do. A useful BQI might contain
data for some components that are older than ideally desirable. However, as long
as environmental experts consider that data are reasonably appropriate, this should
not prevent the use of those values in the BQI.
The process of developing the BQI is likely to be labor intensive because it relies
on local technical experts to help develop the index and make the various judg-
ments required. This effort will not necessarily require much additional out-of-
pocket expenses unless, as done in Tampa Bay, the estuary program prefers to
contract out parts of the BQI development. After the index has been developed, the
time and resources required to transform the readings for each component into an
overall BQI and sub-indices should be small—especially if the procedure has been
partly computerized. This applies even if the BQI is updated periodically through-
out the year.
The ultimate test for determining the worth of the time and cost required is
whether estuary protection personnel are able to use the information to help them
more effectively allocate resources for estuary protection and to communicate bay
quality progress to the estuary's citizens.
Notes, Section 7
\. Andrew Robertson (NOAA) and Wayne Davis (EPA), 1993. "The Selection and Use of Water
Quality Indicators." Working Paper for Proceedings of Water Environment Federation Conference,
Santa Clara, Ca., August.
2. Environmental monitoring data suggestions are provided in: "Monitoring Guidance for the
National Estuary Program," EPA 842-B-92-004, Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection
Agency (September 1992); "Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1992 State Water Quality Assess-
ments 305(b) Reports," Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, USEPA (August 1991); and "Strategic
Assessment of Honda's Environment: Final Review Indicator Manual," Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida
Dept. of Environmental Protection (March 1993).
3. For a description of the regional coverage, frequency, and environmental indicator coverage of
this major federal data collection program, see "EMAP Project Descriptions," Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., EPA 620/R-93/009,
September 1993.
4. For further information on the Tampa Bay BQI, see "Development of a Conceptual Design for
Bay Quality Index for Tampa Bay, Florida," St. Petersburg, Fla.: Coastal Environmental Incorpo-
rated, and the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (December 1993).
5. For example, see "Compilation of Scopes of ASTM Standards Relating to Environmental Moni-
toring," Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials (November 1993).
6. For other transformation scales developed by the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection
Commission, see its report on "Surface Water Quality," cited in Exhibit 7.2. See Appendix A of that
report for details on the procedure for transforming individual parameters into common units.
7. Ample precedence exists in the practice of establishing commonly understood categories to map
technical numerical values. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency categorizes local air
quality healthiness into the categories: hazardous, very unhealthful, unhealthful, moderate, and
good. The categorization is based on levels of a number of pollutants that have been converted into
a Pollutant Standard Index (PSI).
100
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
8. Florida's Department of Environmental Regulation has used a scale of good ("meets use"), fair
("partially meets use")/ and poor ("does not meet use") for assessing the quality of state waters. See
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, "1992 Florida Water Quality Assessment, 305(b)
Main Report," June 1992.
Obtaining Information on Bay Quality: The Bay Quality Index
101
-------
-------
SECTION 8
^Analyzing and
Reporting Outcome
Monitoring Information
T
he information obtained from outcome monitoring procedures can be used
by estuary program officials for many important purposes. Such information
should help estuary program public and private officials:
Q Identify where problems exist so that attention and resources can be
directed to those areas;
Q Identify the extent to which improved estuary outcomes have occurred
after actions were undertaken by the estuary program;
-------
Q Provide information to organizations funding the estuary protection
efforts, such as federal and state governments and local taxpayers, to
identify the outcomes of those expenditures;
Q Provide evidence for applying resources to activities where outcome
information indicates that needs exist, and identify candidates for cutting
back activities where desired outcomes have been completed and where
activities have not achieved the intended results.
Q Provide a baseline for long-range planning, against which future estuary
protection progress can be assessed, and identify specific goals that
should be included in the plan.
In the previous sections of this manual we provided suggestions on how to
analyze and report the information obtained from each data-gathering procedure.
Here we summarize, for each type of information, the major types of analysis and
reporting likely to be most useful to local estuary program officials and provide
suggestions on how to combine that information into a summary report. We also
identify the limitations of the procedures described in this manual.
GOVERNMENT ACTION CHECKLIST
OUTCOM ES (See Section 4)
Below are suggestions for analyzing and reporting data that track government
agency estuary protection progress.
1. For each category of government action (such as toxics reduction, storm
water and agricultural runoff management) calculate and report the number
and percentage of GAC items that all communities together have achieved,
and that each community has achieved on its own. This will provide
information on which categories of environmental protection appear to be
doing well and which are not. This will allow encouragement and technical
assistance to be provided to communities in categories of estuary protection
activities for which assistance seems needed.
2. For each community, and for all assessed communities in aggregate, calcu-
late and report the number and percentage of the checklist items that showed
improvement from the previous assessment. Some estuary protection pro-
grams may also want to calculate the number and percentage of communi-
ties that improved on a certain number of the checklist items (such as three).
This information indicates where progress has been made. The outcome
information here and in #1 above identifies the latest level of achievement
104
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
and progress made over the past year—giving a more complete and fairer
picture of each community's estuary protection status.
3. Calculate and report the number and percentage of those checklist items that
each community and the estuary program itself had previously targeted for
improvement and that showed improvement over the previous checklist
assessment. This information should help communities measure the pro-
gress they themselves hoped to make.
4. Calculate and report the number and percentage of all checklist items that
each assessed community has achieved (this is the total of #1 for each
community, obtained by combining all categories of government action).
Doing so provides an overall summary indicator of accomplishment for each
community. Estuary program officials may choose to use such information
to compare achievement among its communities, as has been done in
Buzzards Bay. This is a useful strategy, if done constructively, and provides
encouragement to communities to enhance their estuary protection. How-
ever, if, because of adverse media or inter-community relations, an antago-
nistic atmosphere exists, this comparative checklist information may
aggravate those problems. In such cases, estuary program officials may find
it better to play down the "report card" aspects of the presentation.
5. Tabulate and report (probably to a more limited audience) the number and
percentage of communities that have achieved each item on the checklist.
This information is more detailed than will be wanted by most outside
organizations and the public. However, it permits estuary program officials
to focus on specific protection activities that warrant special attention.
6. Provide explanatory information along with the outcome data. This infor-
mation should focus on those checklist items that the assessments indicate
are particularly problematic or have shown significant improvements. Local
government personnel responsible for the various checklist items should be
" encouraged to provide explanatory information on significant problems or
improvements, and should be given the opportunity to do so before the report
is disseminated externally. This will allow them to identify reasons and any
actions they are taking to correct problems. This process is necessary for
fairness and makes the outcome monitoring process less threatening, since
local officials know they will have the opportunity to provide their side of
the story. It also helps others interpret the major findings more easily.
7. Prepare a "Summary of Survey Findings," as illustrated in Exhibit 6.6.
Analysts should highlight significant progress made over previous checklist
assessments—progress made both by individual communities and by the
estuary program as a whole.
Analyzing and Reporting Outcome Monitoring Information
105
-------
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BEHAVIOR OUTCOMES (SeeSection5)
Below are suggestions for analyzing and reporting data on businesses that estuary
program officials are likely to find most useful.
1. For each estuary protection question in the survey, tabulate and report the
percentage of businesses that provided a response in each category. Also
calculate and report the number and percentage for each category of busi-
ness. As indicated in Section 5, businesses might be categorized by size, type,
and location. These data will provide information to estuary program
officials to help determine where future estuary protection efforts should be
targeted. The format used in Exhibit 6.5 for household surveys can also be
used for tabulating data on questions included in the survey of businesses.
2. After repeat surveys have been conducted, calculate and report comparisons
over time. The findings will indicate time trends and where improvements
have occurred. This information will be particularly useful to assess the
results of estuary program efforts to encourage or assist certain categories
of businesses. It will provide estuary program officials with evidence on
whether their efforts have led to desired outcomes. The evidence will be
stronger if changes in outcomes for assisted businesses are compared to
those for unassisted businesses, as suggested in Section 5.
3. Provide explanatory information along with the numerical data where
relevant. Such information will provide estuary program officials with a
better perspective on why the outcomes observed occurred. For example, if
business activity significantly increased or decreased during the year, or the
estuary protection program had assisted a particular industry to improve
handling of toxic or hazardous materials and waste, this might explain
improvement findings.
4. Prepare a "Summary of Survey Findings" as shown in Exhibit 6.6. This
information will be useful to public and private officials by enabling them
to glean the major findings from each such survey of businesses without
having to wade through extensive tables.
HOUSEHOLD AND BOATER ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION BEHAVIOR OUTCOMES (SeeSection6)
Below are suggestions for analyzing and reporting data on the estuary protection
behavior of households and boaters.
T06 MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
1. For each estuary protection question in the survey, tabulate and report the
percentage of respondents that provided a response in each category. These
data should also be broken out by household (or boater) characteristics of
importance, to help interpret the information and determine where future
estuary protection efforts should be directed. For example, the data on each
question might be tabulated for each community, by household size and
composition, and by whether the households are renters or owners. For
boater surveys, the docking location and type of boat would also likely be
relevant. Exhibit 6.5 illustrates one format for presenting the data on each
survey question. Such reporting will identify the extent to which potential
environmental problems are indeed problems and for which types of house-
holds. Such information will help determine what estuary protection efforts
are most needed and how these efforts should be targeted.
2. Calculate and report the overall percentage of households that indicate
having, say, two or more environmental problems. This is a summary
indicator that should also be broken out by the household characteristics
discussed directly above in item #1. This will help target types of households
that have multiple estuary protection problem behaviors.
3. Calculate and report comparisons of findings from one year to the next.
Findings from any one survey will be helpful in determining the current
need and level of household (or boater) estuary protection behavior. But for
tracking progress, repetitions of the same survey (with the same questions)
are needed. As multiple surveys are undertaken, time trends will become
evident. Changes in the findings from one year to the next should be of
particular interest to estuary programs that have been conducting major
activity aimed at increasing household or boater estuary protection behav-
ior. If activities in the past year have focused on particular household or
boater behaviors, the report should highlight findings related to the targeted
behaviors.
4. Provide relevant explanatory information to give a more in-depth perspec-
tive on the findings from the household or boater survey. For example,
analysts may be aware that a particular community has undertaken a
neighborhood assistance program. This might explain significant improve-
ments in the household estuary protection behavior of households in that
community.
5. Prepare a "Summary of Survey Findings," as illustrated in Exhibit 6.6.
Analysts should identify the key findings from the latest survey, including
trend information. They should, as appropriate, single out where particular
types of households were especially deficient or had made substantial
improvements in estuary protection behavior from previous surveys. This
Analyzing and Reporting Outcome Monitoring Information
107
-------
provides busy estuary program and community officials with a quick sum-
mary without having to pour through extensive tables.
BAY QUALITY INDEX (SeeSection?)
In Section 7 we described how to transform potentially overwhelming amounts of
environmental monitoring data into more manageable and useful form by creating
a BQI. Below we summarize ways to analyze and report BQI information.
1. Calculate and report the BQI for various portions of the estuary as well as
for the estuary as a whole. The BQI lends itself to breakouts by geographical
section of the estuary. This permits tabular presentations by estuary section
as well as visual displays, as illustrated in Exhibit 7.6. "Mapping" displays
can be particularly informative to officials and the public if the indices are
transformed into easy-to-understand bay quality categories such as excel-
lent, good, fair, or poor, as described in Section 7. This summary information
enables readers to obtain a comprehensive picture of bay quality. It can help
trigger, and gain support for, improvement efforts in parts of the bay found
to be of low quality.
2. Break the overall index into sub-indices for. various types of components
including water quality, health of living resources, and the extent of bay
support for desired uses such as swimming and commercial seafood collec-
tion.
3. Calculate and report comparisons of BQI findings from the current year to
previous years. This will indicate both short- and long-term trends.
4. Provide back-up information that helps explain significant changes in the
BQI from one period to another, or for any given period. This can be done
by analyzing the quantitative data on the particular components of the
index. For example, if nitrogen loadings or dissolved oxygen readings are
the main cause for the index's improvement or worsening, this should be
reported. The BQI is intended to be a summary measure that gives a
comprehensive picture of bay quality. However, the back-up data on indi-
vidual environmental indicators need to be examined for their effects on the
index values and to help guide future estuary protection actions.
5. Provide qualitative explanatory information with the BQI report. Likely
sources of problems reflected by the index will be of major interest to users
of the index information. For example, external events such as an unusual
amount of rain or the start up of new industries should be identified along
with the BQI data.
108
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
OVERALL SUMMARY OF ESTUARY PROTECTION
OUTCOMES
In the preceding sections we have suggested ways to analyze the findings from
individual data collection procedures. The estuary protection program will also
likely want an overall summary, combining the information obtained from these
procedures by:
Q Using a format such as that shown in Exhibit 8.1. Exhibit 8.1 identifies each
key outcome indicator, its order (whether it is a first-, second-, third-, or
fourth-order effect), and provides the latest and previous year's data for
each indicator. Each estuary program needs to develop its own set of
indicators as described in Section 3 and illustrated in Exhibit 3.3. In that
exhibit we presented a summary set of outcome indicators for each
category of estuary protection activity, preceded by a very short list of
overall outcome indicators that can provide a summary. Exhibit 8.1
includes only the very short list. Such aggregated data, however, do not
themselves provide information on where problems exist. To do that,
estuary program officials will need to examine the more detailed infor-
mation described earlier in this section.
Q Comparing the findings from the various outcome indicators against the goals
identified in the estuary's long-range plan (e.g., CCMP). Summarize the
extent of progress that has been made toward these goals. Outcome
monitoring information can be used to help track progress toward
long-range goals. Indicate whether the goals, or the planned time sched-
ule for achieving them, needs to be revised.
Q Preparing a "Summary of Survey Findings" that identifies for estuary program
officials significant improvements or problems indicated by the latest data.
Exhibit 6.6 illustrates such a report (in this case, based solely on house-
hold survey information). Explanatory information should be included
for unusually high or low values.
This summary should be drawn from the individual "Summary of
Survey Findings" developed for each of the data collection procedures
described in Sections 4 through 7. The highlights should also include
summary outcome data such as illustrated in Exhibit 8.1, and relevant
explanatory information, as discussed earlier. The highlights should
both:
• Summarize the extent to which targets set by the estuary program
have been achieved during the current reporting period; and
Analyzing and Reporting Outcome Monitoring Information 109
-------
8
Q
§
^
1
1^
O
O
r^>
*•*
§
1
CO
^
^>
a
• *
u
1i
*3
EXHIBIT 8.1 Illustrative Outcom
H Q
rn CC G
teg 5
& Q!
kgui
§i|
"•" Q.
WOT
= Q UJ
UJE<
£0.
DC
Ul
Q
CC
O
UJ
u. a:
0=5
11
INDICATOR
TT—
CO
•*— '
C
CD
M- E
0 c
CD 5
11
Z
CD
-to
Governments that Have Met at Least 75% <
Items on the "Government Action Checkli
T—
co
CD
„ TI3
O ^~
^5
§5 w
D_
u.
CO
r~"
Households with at Least One Problem B&\
T
eo
c
CD
»«__ "C3
o ^
^5
^^ ^^
Q) CO
C_3 Q^
a-
,_
CO
CD
CD
E
CD
.a
o
(X
CD
tr
O
CO
CO
CD
CO
.C
"i
co
S
0
DO
CM
CD
JD
|
2
co
ZJ
o
Businesses Reporting Reduction in Hazard
Waste Discharged
CM
£
c
Z)
CO
_g
CO
>
o
Amounts of Various Pollutants Discharged i
the Bay
CO
"cfl
O x
>_ CD
0) T3
^
"CO
O
CD
I
CO
CD
O
•<*•
X
CD
TJ
1^
o
CQ
Overall Bay Quality
Comments/Explanatory Information :
110
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
• Compare the outcome information for the current reporting period
to that for the previous period(s).
Thus, estuary program and community officials will likely find the outcome
information considerably more useful if the monitoring process provides the
following information:
Q A "Summary of Survey Findings" developed by staff based on their best
judgment of the most important findings for the reported period;
Q Explanatory information to supplement the outcome data, for the pur-
pose of identifying factors believed to have contributed significantly to
the main findings;
Q Comparison of current reporting-period outcomes to those of previous
reporting periods;
Q Comparison of actual outcomes to the targets set by estuary programs at
the beginning of the year, such as those set by individual communities
as part of the Government Action Checklist procedures.
OVERALL CONSTRAINTS ON OUTCOME
MONITORING
There are several limitations to the outcome monitoring process outlined in this
manual. We discuss them in turn below.
LJ LACK OF CAUSAL INFORMATION
The data collection procedures described in this manual, like most data collected
by estuary programs, do not tell what caused these outcomes. For example, the
presence of improvement from one year to the next hi the environmental protection
behavior of assisted businesses does not prove that it was the program activities
that caused those outcomes. Other factors could have brought about the observed
improvements in outcomes.
Outcome data provide a "scorecard" but do not generally provide a sound basis
for praising or blaming estuary protection activities. Outcome information is vital
for understanding what has been happening and what progress is being made, and
for helping to identify where future attention and resources are needed.
To obtain information on why the outcomes are as they are, or why changes over
the last reporting period have occurred, estuary program personnel will need to
conduct more in-depth examinations. These might be done by staff, but estuary
Analyzing and Reporting Outcome Monitoring Information
111
-------
program officials will usually need to rely on local experts and evaluations by local
colleges or universities to identify causes for outcomes.
The estuary program might also undertake in-depth program evaluations that
use a variety of statistical and analytical methods to attempt to identify the extent
to which specific activities have caused measured outcomes. These studies, how-
ever, can be expensive, and are unlikely to be feasible unless state or federal
resources are provided. If an estuary program has an outcome monitoring pro-
gram, in-depth studies are easier and less expensive to do, because more of the data
on outcomes will already have been collected.
Q THE NEED FOR PERIODIC OUTCOME INFORMATION
The first run of the outcome monitoring procedures will provide data for one point
in time that will also serve as baseline data for comparisons for future years. One
year of information, however, will be of somewhat limited value in identifying
fiends, unless the estuary program has been fortunate enough to have prior-year
data on the outcome indicators.
Q THE DELAYED EFFECTS OF PROGRAM ACTIONS
Some estuary protection actions cannot be expected to lead to quick, substantive
changes in some desired outcomes. For example, major problems in the presence
of toxins or excessive nitrogen may take years to correct, because a new sewage
treatment plant may take many years before it can correct a major source of the
pollution. The ability to dean up PCBs in the bay may also take years. Nevertheless,
early outcome information is needed to alert estuary program officials and the
public to the presence of problems so that protection actions can begin.
Q THE NEED FOR QUALITY CONTROL
This manual has not discussed quality control procedures for the outcome moni-
toring process. Clearly, each of the data collection procedures should be re-exam-
ined periodically (at least once every year or two) to ensure that the procedures are
being conducted properly and provide reasonably accurate data.
Q COST AND EFFORT
Establishing an outcome monitoring process can take considerable start-up effort.
It requires estuary program staff time, time on the part of personnel from the
various government agencies involved (to help select the items to include hi the
Government Action Checklist), and time on the part of many advisory groups
representing citizens, technical experts, and special interests in the community.
Once established, the regular ongoing data collection can also require consid-
erable effort. This will vary widely, depending on the various factors discussed in
previous sections of this manual. Once the procedures "become routine," the effort
required should be reduced considerably.
112
MEASURING PROGRESS OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-------
FINAL COMMENT
We hope that this manual is helpful to estuary programs throughout the country
in designing their own outcome monitoring processes and in making the findings
useful to estuary program officials for improving bay quality. We recognize that
this manual does not cover all the many outcome indicators that are likely to be
relevant to some estuaries. We know that implementing such a process is hard work
and is not something that an estuary program can do overnight. It will minimally
take a year to establish an outcome monitoring process, and probably two to three
years before the process can be fully implemented. The procedures first need to be
pilot tested. Therefore, time-trend data are not likely to be available until two or
three years after the process has begun. Estuary protection, however, is a long-run
proposition. To do it well requires continuous, long-term attention.
Ultimately, an outcome monitoring process needs to stand the test of cost-effec-
tiveness. If the information is not used to help estuary program officials improve
their work, or if it does not provide funders or the public with relevant information
that they can understand and utilize, the results will not be worth the costs.
Nevertheless, estuary program officials vitally need scorecard information that
tells them the progress they are making in protecting the bay and where deficiencies
lie. Estuary protection programs should make a full-scale effort to develop an
outcome monitoring process that will be useful to public and private officials.
Analyzing and Reporting Outcome Monitoring Information
113
-------
-------
-------
-------
The Coalition for
Hf Buzzards Bay
1993 Buzzards Bay
Environmental Report Card
(Evaluating CCMP Implementation)
* NEW BEDFORD *
Managing Sewage Treatment Facilities (BBCCMP, Pg. 115)
1. Has the city developed and implemented strategies to reduce influent volume at
the wastewater treatment facility -- including plans to reduce groundwater
infiltration and stormwater inputs, as well as promoting water conservation by
individuals and businesses? How much of a reduction in influent have you
experienced over the course of the last year? (Informational) Mayor's Office. DPW
2. Is the city in compliance with deadlines to upgrade the sewage treatment plant?
Please explain. Mayor's Office
-------
3. Were there any upgrades this year of Combined Sewer Overflows(CSOs)? How
many CSOs continue to discharge untreated waste in dry conditions? DPW. Board
of Health. Mayor's Office
Preventing Oil Pollution (BBCCMP, Pg. 87)
1. Does the city have an Oil Spill Coordinator and a Contingency Plan responsible
for overseeing the maintenance and deployment of equipment and for directing
response activities? Has the city signed on to the Buzzards Bay Mutual Aid
Agreement to coordinate spill response? Mayor's Office
2. Does the city have regulations that (a) require all boatyards and marinas to
maintain oil containment and cleanup equipment on site; and (b) manage the
appropriate fueling of vessels? Oil Spill Coordinator, Mayor's Office
3. Oil spill response training. Oil Spill Coordinator, Mayor's Office
a. Has the city implemented oil spill response training and drills? Date of last aim.
Number of participants.
-------
b. Does the city Oil Spill Coordinator attend yearly training sessions and
periodically update the local information needed for the Oil Spill Contingency Plan
as recommended by the US Coast Guard? Date of last session attended.
c. Has the city agreed to participate in free OSHA/EPA training through the Oil Spill
Mutual Aid Agreement ?
4. How does the city handle operational fuel oil spills on the commercial
waterfront? How often are spills reported to the Oil Spill Coordinator? Oil Spill
Coordinator
5. Does the city have a waste oil recycling program for residents? For commercial
fishermen? Board of Health
Reducing Toxic Pollution (BBCCMP, Pg. 121)
1. Has a program been developed and implemented concerning industrial
pretreatment and industrial waste reduction for industries that discharge directly
into receiving waters or sewage treatment facilities? Board of Health, DPW
-------
1a. What are the city's plans in the course of the next year to implement this
program?
2. Did the city hold a household hazardous waste collection? When? What were
the costs? How successful? Has the city been able to locate and employ innovative
strategies in the collection of HHW to reduce costs? Board of Health
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources (BBCCMP, Pg.55)
1. Has the city designated an individual with public health jurisdiction to assist the
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) in shorewalks and surveys? Who? When was
your last update of the sanitary survey? Mayor's Office. Board of Health, Shellfish
Warden
2. How successful have you been in the remediation of identified sou/ces of
conforms and pathogens (ie. individual septic systems, storm drain discharges, and
other "potential pollution sources" as listed in the DMF sanitary report) entering
rivers and estuaries through investigation and enforcement? Board of Health,
Shellfish Warden
-------
3. Have any acres of shellfish beds been closed this year due to pollution? Have
any shellfish beds been opened this year due to pollution mitigation efforts? (For
informational purposes) Board of Health. Shellfish Warden
Controlling Storm water Runoff (BBCCMP, Pg. 65)
1. Do the city's subdivision regulations and site plan review ordinance require Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater runoff (ie. detention/retention ponds
and leaching catch basins with runoff retention times long enough to allow for
pollution treatment) in residential subdivisions and commercial and industrial
developments to reduce non point source pollution on site? List technical highlights
of regulation. Planning Board
2a. Does the city have a map of all stormdrain discharges to surface waters
showing the road area of flow contribution? Board of Health. DPW
2b. Does the city have a mechanism for the prioritization of stormdrain discharge
repairs? Explain.
2c. How many stormwater discharges were remediated this year? (For
informational purposes, What are the locations of the city's top three priority
stormwater discharges?)
-------
3. What actions has the city taken through preventive maintenance programs such
as cleaning of catch basins to reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution? DPW.
Mayor's Office
4. Does the city have a policy that results in the installation of stormwater Best
Management Practices such as leaching catch basins when major road repairs
are performed in an area? DPW. Mayor's Office
5. Does the city require oil and grease removing catch basins in new subdivisions?
Is there a maintenance program associated with these basins? How often is
maintenance required? Planning Board. Conservation Commission, DPW
6. Does the city make efforts to limit impervious surfaces in new development in
order to reduce and treat runoff on site and allow for groundwater recharge?
Planning Board
-------
Protecting Wetlands and Coastal Habitat (BBCCMP, Pg. 95)
1. Do Conservation Commission members receive periodic training in permitting
under the Wetlands Protection Act and wetland delineation to improve their ability
to protect these resources? Date of last training? Conservation Commission,
Mayor's Office
2. What criteria does the city use in the appointment of Conservation Commission
members? Mayor's Office
3. Does the city employ a Conservation Agent to guide and facilitate Conservation
Commission actions? Conservation Commission
4. Has the city adopted a wetlands protection bylaw to strengthen protection of
city resource areas? What does it require above the provisions of the Wetlands
Protection Act (Please list highlights) Conservation Commission
-------
5. Does the Planning Board require that wetland, streams, and surface waters are
shown on plans and comment made by the Conservation Commission prior to
subdivision approval? Planning Board. Conservation Commission
6. Are minimum lot sizes for new development calculated using only the upland
portion of the lot or set a maximum percentage of lot area that can be wetlands to
limit encroachment on resource areas? Planning Board
7. Does the city utilize nonregulatory wetlands/habitat protection techniques such
as open space land acquisitions and conservation easements? Did the city acquire
any new open space this year? Conservation Commission
8. Has the city developed an embayment or harbor management plan for their
entire coastline to guide the use and protection of sensitive areas? (Please list
environmental highlights) Planning Board. Conservation Commission, Mayor's
Office. Harbormaster
8
-------
Managing Sewage From Boats (BBCCMP, Pg. 75)
1. Does the city provide mobile or land-based boat pumpout facilities? How many?
Where? How many private pumpouts exist in town? How many boats utilized the
pumpout each day? Board of Health. Harbormaster
2. Does the city have a management plan, regulation, or incentive program
(including Public education) to enforce the use of these facilities (ie. tank dyes,
locked heads, etc.)? Explain. Board of Health. Harbormaster
3. Has the city established or initiated the nomination of EPA designated no-
discharge areas? Does the city take enforcement actions for illegal discharges?
Board of Health. Harbormaster
-------
Managing On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems (BBCCMp, Pg. 81)
1. Does the city have an inspection and maintenance program to identify and
remediate septic systems not meeting Title 5 requirements? Please describe. (For
informational purposes, What percentage of the city is served by private on-site
wastewater disposal systems? have there been any sewer extensions and tie-ins
this year?) Board of Health
2. Does the city have septic system regulations that require inspection and
upgrade -
a. prior to title transfer
b. prior to conversion from summer to year round use
c. during significant renovations or additions? Explain. Board of Health
3. Do the city's septic system regulations establish a setback distance between
septic systems and surface waters and wetlands or require adjustments to the
system design and application rate to ensure viral removal in environmentally
sensitive areas? Board of Health, Conservation Commission
10
-------
Planning For A Shifting Shoreline (BBCCMP, Pg. 109}
1. Does the city regulate construction activities and establish coastal construction
setbacks more stringently for areas predicted to be subject to sea-level rise,
erosion, or flooding? Planning Board, Conservation Commission
Issues of Baywide Concern
1. How is the city leading others in developing regional solutions to environmental
management issues?
2. Who is the city's Buzzards Bay Action Committee (BBAC) representative?
How was their attendance at BBAC. meetings over the course of the past year?
Did they relay all information concerning technical and financial assistance to
city boards?
3. What methods does the city employ to train new board members?
4. Does the city have formal procedures for coordinating actions and fostering
communication among boards to achieve environmental goals?
11
-------
5. Does the city have a recycling program? Curbside or drop-off? How successful
has the town been in developing citywide compliance through education?
6. Has the city identified and removed any residential underground storage tanks
this year? Does the city prohibit the installation of USTs?
7. What is the status of the city landfill? When is it scheduled to close? What plan
has the city developed to deal with solid waste following the closing of the landfill?
8. Please fill out this matrix. Conservation. Planning Board, Board of Health
# meetings held in 1 993
% of Board members present
Approximate # of on-sites by board
Approximate # of on-sites by agent
# of training courses attended by board
Conservation
Health
Planning
Additional Comments
This space is for city boards to comment on what they feel their greatest
accomplishments were this past year in protecting the local environment and
Buzzards Bay. In addition, please comment on any of the issues addressed in this
evaluation which you would like to learn more about. Both Coalition and Buzzards
Bay Project staff are available to assist you in developing or improving local bylaws
and zoning.
(Continue on additional sheets if necessary)
12
-------
The Coalition for Buzzards Bay
•saassESte^^se&ir- -^sss; **
1993 Buzzards Bay
Environmental Report Card
(Evaluating CCMP Implementation)
* COASTAL TOWNS *
Managing Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments (BBCCMP, Pg. 41)
1. Has the town taken any steps in the investigation and management of nitrogen
sensitive embayments as listed in the Buzzards Bay CCMP? Explain. (Please
check off actions taken) Planning Board. Board of Health. Conservation
Commission
Delineate and calculate embayment critical nitrogen-loading limits
Calculate nitrogen inputs from existing and grandfathered parcels
Determine acceptable future nitrogen loads
Adjust future nitrogen loading inputs so that the total nitrogen
additions at build-out do not exceed the nitrogen-loading limits
(Buzzards Bay Project technical assistance is available for performing Nitrogen-
loading studies and developing necessary land use planning)
2a. Does the town zoning bylaw, subdivision regulations, or Board of Health
regulations address appropriate minimum lot sizes and specify allowable future land
uses based on nitrogen loading limits? Explain.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 268, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts 02532 • Office: 3rd Company
Dormitory • Massachusetts Maritime Academy • Phone: (508) 759-1440
-------
2b. Has the town addressed all of its coastal embayments?
Buzzards Bay embavments requiring Growth Management & Remediation
Westport: Westport River, East & West Branch Wareham: Wareham River
Dartmouth: Slocums River Weweantic River
Apponagansett Bay, inner Onset Bay
New Bedford: Acushnet River Buttermilk Bay
Fairhaven: Acushnet River, Inner Nasketucket Bourne: Buttermilk Bay
Mattapoisett: Mattapoisett Harbor, upper & lower Hen Cove
Pocasset River
Controlling Stormwater Runoff (BBCCMP, Pg. 65)
1. Do the town's subdivision regulations and site plan review bylaw require Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater runoff (ie. detention/retention ponds
and leaching catch basins with runoff retention times long enough to allow for
pollution treatment) in residential subdivisions and commercial and industrial
developments to reduce non point source pollution on site? List technical highlights
of regulation. Planning Board
2a. Does the town have a map of all stormdrain discharges to surface waters
showing the road area of flow contribution? Board of Health, DPW
2b. Does the town have a mechanism for the prioritization of stormdrain discharge
repairs? Explain.
-------
2c. How many stormwater discharges were remediated this year? (For
informational purposes, What are the locations of the towns top three priority
stormwater discharges?)
3. What actions has the town taken through preventive maintenance programs
such as cleaning of catch basins to reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution?
DPW. Board of Selectmen
4. Does the town have a policy that results in the installation of stormwater Best
Management Practices such as leaching catch basins when major road repairs are
performed in an area? Board of Selectmen. DPW
-------
5. Does the town require oil and grease removing catch basins in new
subdivisions? Is there a maintenance program associated with these basins? How
often is maintenance required? Planning Board. Conservation Commission, DPW
6. Does the town make efforts to limit impervious surfaces in new development in
order to reduce and treat runoff on site and allow for groundwater recharge?
Planning Board
7. What actions has the town taken to control domestic, waterfowl, or agricultural
animal waste entering surface waters? Board of Health
-------
Managing On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems (BBCCMp, Pg. 81)
1. Does the town have an inspection and maintenance program to identify and
remediate septic systems not meeting Title 5 requirements? Please describe. {For
informational purposes, What percentage of the town is served by private on-site
wastewater disposal systems? Have there been any sewer extensions and tie-ins
this year?) Board of Health
2. Does the town have septic system regulations that require inspection and
upgrade -
a. prior to title transfer
b. prior to conversion from summer to year round use
c. during significant renovations or additions? Explain. Board of Health
3. Do the town's septic system regulations establish a setback distance between
septic systems and surface waters and wetlands or require adjustments to the
system design and application rate to ensure viral removal in environmentally
sensitive areas? Board of Health. Conservation Commission
-------
Controlling Growth and Protecting Open Space
1. Has the town developed a Growth Management or Open Space Plan to, control
future development and provide protection for environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitat, and coastal and fresh water quality? Planning Board. Conservation
Commission
2. Does the town employ a Town Planner or hire consultants to assist in the
further development of zoning measures and the regulation of land use? Planning
Board. Board of Selectmen
3. Does the town actively pursue land acquisitions and conservation easements to
protect open space and meet the goals set in the Growth Management/Open Space
Plan? Did the town acquire any new open space this year? Planning Board,
Conservation Commission
4. Did the town utilize innovative land use planning techniques such as
cluster/density averaging or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) or work to
preserve farmland through the APR or Chapter 61 programs? Planning Board,
Conservation Commission
-------
Protecting Wetlands and Coastal Habitat (BBCCMP, Pg. 95)
1. Do Conservation Commission members receive periodic training in permitting
under the Wetlands Protection Act and wetland delineation to improve their ability
to protect these resources? Date of last training? How many members attended?
Conservation Commission. Board of Selectmen
2. What criteria does the town use in the appointment of Conservation
Commissioners? Is appointment dependant on attendance at wetlands training?
Board of Selectmen
3. Does the town employ a Conservation Agent to guide and facilitate
Conservation Commission actions? Conservation Commission
4. Has the town adopted a wetlands protection bylaw to strengthen protection of
town resource areas? What does it require above the provisions of the Wetlands
Protection Act (Please list highlights) Conservation Commission
-------
5. Are minimum lot sizes for new development calculated using only the upland
portion of the lot or set a maximum percentage of lot area that can be wetlands to
limit encroachment on resource areas? Planning Board
6. Does the Planning Board require that wetlands, streams, and surface waters are
shown on plans and comment made by the Conservation Commission prior to
subdivision approval? Planning Board. Conservation Commission
7. Has the town developed an embayment or harbor management plan for their
entire coastline to guide the use and protection of sensitive areas? (Please check
off issues addressed) Planning Board. Conservation Commission. Board of
Selectmen. Harbormaster
Townwide assessment of coastal natural resources (ie. eelgrass beds,
shellfish beds, fringing marshes, etc.)
Designates dock- and mooring-free zones based on sensitive natural
resources
Establishes boat exclusion zones and boat speed limits to minimize
adverse effects on natural resources
Defines where dredging is permitted and where it is not.
Specifies times of the year when construction or dredging are permitted
so as to minimize ecosystem impacts.
Other. Please elaborate.
b. Does the town have a policy, bylaw, or regulation to regulate the number and
placement of docks and piers? Does the town encourage shared docks?
8
-------
Managing Sewage From Boats (BBCCMP, Pg. 75)
1. Does the town provide mobile or land-based boat pumpout facilities? How
many? Where? How many private pumpouts exist in town? (For informational
purposes, How many boats participated in the utilization of the pumpout each
day?) Board of Health. Harbormaster
1a. Is the town actively pursuing Clean Vessel Act funds for additional pumpouts
facilities?
2. Does the town have a management plan, regulation, or incentive program
(including public education) to enforce and enhance the use of these facilities (ie.
tank dyes, locked heads, etc.)? Explain. Board of Health. Harbormaster
3. Has the town established or initiated the nomination of EPA designated no-
discharge areas? Does the town take enforcement actions for illegal discharges?
Board of Health. Harbormaster
10
-------
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources (BBCCMP, Pg.55)
1. Has the town designated an individual with public health jurisdiction to assist
the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) in shorewalks and surveys? Who? When
was your last update of the sanitary survey? Board of Selectmen. Board of Health.
Shellfish Warden
2. How successful have you been in the remediation of identified sources of
coliforms and pathogens (ie. individual septic systems, stormwater drain discharge,
animal waste, and other "potential pollution sources" as listed in the DMF sanitary
report) entering rivers and estuaries through investigation and enforcement? Board
of Health. Shellfish Warden
3. Have any acres of shellfish beds been closed this year due to pollution? Have
any shellfish beds been opened this year due to pollution mitigation efforts? (For
informational purposes)
-------
Preventing Oil Pollution (BBCCMP, Pg. 87)
1. Does the town have an Oil Spill Coordinator and a Contingency Plan responsible
for overseeing the maintenance and deployment of equipment and for directing
response activities? Has the town signed on to the Buzzards Bay Mutual Aid
Agreement to coordinate spill response? Board of Selectmen
2. Does the town have regulations that (a) require all boatyards and marinas to
maintain oil containment and cleanup equipment on site; and (b) manage the
appropriate fueling of vessels? Oil Spill Coordinator. Board of Selectmen
3.Oil spill response training. Oil Soill Coordinator, Board of Selectmen
a. Has the town implemented oil spill response training and drills? Date
of last drill. Number of participants.
b. Does the town Oil Spill Coordinator attend yearly training sessions and
periodically update the local information needed for the Oil Spill Contingency Plan
as recommended by the US Coast Guard? Date of last session attended.
c. Has the town agreed to participate in free OSHA/EPA training through the Oil
Spill Mutual Aid Agreement?
11
-------
4. Does the town have a waste oil recycling program? Describe. Board of Health
Managing Sewage Treatment Facilities (BBCCMP, Pg. 115}
1. Has the town developed and implemented strategies to reduce influent volume
at the wastewater treatment facility -- including plans to reduce groundwater
infiltration and stormwater inputs, as well as promoting water conservation by
individuals and businesses? Board of Selectmen. DPW
Reducing Toxic Pollution (BBCCMP, Pg. 121)
1. Did the town hold a household hazardous waste collection? When? What were
the costs? How successful? (For informational purposes, Has the town been able
to locate and employ innovative strategies in the collection of HHW to reduce
costs? Board of Health
2. Has the town developed and implemented a program of industrial pretreatment
and industrial waste reduction for industries that discharge directly into receiving
waters or sewage treatment facilities? Board of Health. DPW
12
-------
Planning For A Shifting Shoreline (BBCCMP, Pg. 109)
1. Has the town mapped critical areas that are subject to sea-level rise, erosion, or
flooding to investigate increased setbacks for septic systems and coastal
construction in these areas? Planning Board. Conservation Commission. Board of
Health
Issues of Baywide Concern
1. How is the town leading others in developing regional solutions to environmental
management issues?
2. Who is the town's Buzzards Bay Action Committee (BBAC) representative? How
was their attendance at BBAC meetings over the course of the past year? Do they
relay all information concerning technical and financial assistance to town boards?
3. Has the town applied for assistance or funding from the Buzzards Bay Project
this year? What issues?
4. What methods does the town employ to train new board members?
13
-------
5. Does the town have formal procedures for coordinating actions and fostering
communication among boards to achieve environmental goals?
6. Does the town have a recycling program? Curbside or drop-off? How successful
has the town been in developing townwide compliance through education?
7. Does the town have an aquifer protection bylaw to protect groundwater
resources? Has the town identified and removed any residential underground metal
fuel storage tanks this year? Does the town prohibit the installation of USTs?
8. What articles of environmental concern were proposed at town meeting? How
were they received by the town?
9. What is the status of the town landfill? When is it scheduled to close? What
plan has the town developed to deal with solid waste following the closing of the
landfill?
14
-------
10. Please fill out this matrix. Conservation. Planning Board. Board of Health
# meetings held in 1 993
% of Board members present
Approximate # of on-sites by board
Approximate # of on-sites by agent
# of training courses attended by board
Conservation
Health
Planning
Additional Comments
This space is for town boards to comment on what they feel their greatest
accomplishments were this past year in protecting the local environment.
In addition, please comment on any of the issues addressed in this evaluation
which you would like to learn more about. Both Coalition and Buzzards Bay Project
staff are available to assist you in developing or improving local bylaws and zoning.
15
-------
The Coalition for
Buzzards Bay
1993 Buzzards Bay
Environmental Report Card
(Evaluating CCMP Implementation)
* INLAND TOWNS *
Controlling Growth and Protecting Open Space
1. Has the town developed a Growth Management or Open Space Plan to control
future development and provide protection for-environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitat, and coastal and fresh water quality? Planning Board. Conservation
Commission
2. Does the town actively pursue land acquisitions and conservation easements to
protect open space and meet the goals set in the Growth Management/Open Space
Plan? Did the town acquire any new open space this year? Planning Board,
Conservation Commission
258 Main St., #A-3 • P.O. Box 268 • Buzzards Bay, MA 02532-0268 • (508) 759-1440 • FAX: (508) 759-1444
New Bedford Office: P.O. Box 40442 • New Bedford, MA 02744-0442 • (508) 979-1730
Primed on 100% recycled paper
-------
3. Does the town employ a Town Planner or hire consultants to assist in further
development of zoning measures and the regulation of land use? Planning Board.
Board of Selectmen
4. Did the town utilize innovative land use planning techniques such as
cluster/density averaging or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) or work to
preserve farmland through the APR or Chapter 61 programs? Planning Board.
Conservation Commission
Managing On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems (BBCCMP, Pg. 81)
1. Does the town have an inspection and maintenance program to identify and
remediate septic systems not meeting Title 5 requirements? Please describe.(For
informational purposes, What percentage of the town is served by private on-site
wastewater disposal systems? Have there been any sewer extensions and tie-ins
this year?) Board of Health
2. Does the town have septic system regulations that require inspection and
upgrade -
a. prior to title transfer
b. prior to conversion from summer to year round use
c. during significant renovations or additions? Explain. Board of Health
-------
3. Do the town's septic system regulations establish a setback distance between
septic systems and surface waters and wetlands or require adjustments to the
system design and application rate to ensure viral removal in environmentally
sensitive areas? Board of Health. Conservation Commission
Protecting Wetlands (BBCCMP, Pg. 95)
1. Do Conservation Commission members receive periodic training in permitting
under the Wetlands Protection Act and wetland delineation to improve their ability
to protect these resources? Date of last training? How many members attended?
Conservation Commission, Board of Selectmen
2. What criteria does the town use in the appointment of Conservation
Commissioners? Is appointment dependant on attendance at wetlands training?
Board of Selectmen
3. Does the town employ a Conservation Agent to guide and facilitate
Conservation Commission actions? Conservation Commission
4. Has the town adopted a wetlands protection bylaw to strengthen protection of
town resource areas? What does it require above the provisions of the Wetlands
Protection Act (Please list highlights) Conservation Commission
-------
5. Does the Planning Board require that wetlands, streams, and ponds are shown
on plans and comment made by the Conservation Commission prior to subdivision
approval? Planning Board. Conservation Commission
6. Are minimum lot sizes for new development calculated using only the upland
portion of the lot or set a maximum percentage of lot area that can be wetlands to
limit encroachment on resource areas? Planning Board
Controlling Stormwater Runoff (BBCCMP, Pg. 65)
1. Do the town's subdivision regulations and site plan review bylaw require Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater runoff (ie. detention/retention ponds
and leaching catch basins with runoff retention times long enough to allow for
pollution treatment)in residential subdivisions and commercial and industrial
developments to reduce non point source pollution on site? List technical highlights
of regulation. Planning Board
2a. Does the town have a map of all stormdrain discharges to surface waters
showing the road area of flow contribution? Board of Health. DPW
2b. Does the town have a mechanism for the prioritization of stormdrain discharge
repairs? Explain.
2c. How many stormwater discharges were remediated this year? (For
informational purposes, What are the locations of the towns top three priority
stormwater discharges?)
-------
3. What actions has the town taken through preventive maintenance programs
such as street cleaning and cleaning of catch basins to reduce the impacts of
stormwater pollution? DPW. Board of Selectmen
4. Does the town have a policy that results in the installation of stormwater Best
Management Practices such as leaching catch basins when major road repairs are
performed in an area? Board of Selectmen, DPW
5. Does the town require oil and grease removing catch basins in new
subdivisions? Is there a maintenance program associated with these basins? How
often is maintenance required? Planning Board, Conservation Commission, DPW
6. Does the town make efforts to limit impervious surfaces in new development in
order to reduce and treat runoff on site and allow for groundwater recharge?
Planning Board
7. What actions has the town taken to control domestic, waterfowl, or agricultural
animal waste entering surface waters? Board of Health
-------
Preventing Oil Pollution (BBCCMP, Pg. 87)
1. Does the town have an Oil Spill Coordinator and a Contingency Plan responsible
for overseeing the maintenance and deployment of equipment and for directing
response activities? Has the town signed on to the Buzzards Bay Mutual Aid
Agreement to coordinate spill response? Board of Selectmen
2. Oil spill response training. Oil Spill Coordinator. Board of Selectmen
2a. Has the town implemented oil spill response training and drills? Date of last
drill. Number of participants.
2b. Does the town Oil Spill Coordinator attend yearly training sessions and
periodically update the local information needed for the Oil Spill Contingency Plan?
2c. Has the town agreed to participate in free OSHA/EPA training through the Oil
Spill Mutual Aid Agreement?
3. Does the town have a waste oil recycling program? Describe. Board of Health
-------
Reducing Toxic Pollution (BBCCMP, Pg. 121)
1. Did the town hold a household hazardous waste collection? When? What were
the costs? How successful? (for informational purposes, Has the town been able to
locate and employ innovative strategies in the collection of HHW to reduce costs?
Board of Health
Issues of Baywide Concern
1. How is the town leading others in developing regional solutions to environmental
management issues?
2. Who is the town's Buzzards Bay Action Committee(BBAC) representative? How
was their attendance at BBAC meetings over the course of the past year? Do they
relay all information concerning technical and financial assistance to town boards?
3. Has the town applied for assistance or funding from the Buzzards Bay Project
this year? What Issues?
4. What methods does the town employ to train new board members?
5. Does the town have formal procedures for coordinating actions and fostering
communications among boards to achieve environmental goals?
-------
6. Does the town have a recycling program? Curbside or drop-off? How successful
has the town been in developing townwide compliance through education?
7. Does the town have an aquifer protection bylaw to protect groundwater
resources?
Has the town identified and removed any residential underground metal fuel
storage tanks this year? Does the town prohibit the installation of such devices?
8. What articles of environmental concern were proposed at town meeting? How
were they received by the town?
9. Please fill out this matrix. Conservation. Planning Board. Board of Health
# meetings held in 1 993
% of Board members present
Approximate # of on-sites by board
Approximate # of on-sites by agent
# of training courses attended by board
Conservation
Health
Planning
Additional Comments
This space is for town boards to comment on what they feel their greatest
accomplishments were this past year in protecting the local environment.
In addition, please comment on any of the issues addressed in this evaluation
which you would like to learn more about. Both Coalition and Buzzards Bay Project
staff are available to assist you in developing or improving local bylaws and zoning.
8
-------
-------
-------
-------
1
October 7, 1993
TAMPA BAY: MEASUREMENT COMPONENTS FOR RATING
GOVERNMENT ACTION CHECKLIST (GAC)
Note:
1.
2.
3.
Items entered in bold type are additions suggested during September 27-28 discussions
on measurement and rating issues.
* Denotes items that TBNEP believes no local government has yet accomplished
either partially or fully.
•/" Denotes items that need to be checked - Connie is looking into these.
Considerations for pilot, and subsequent administrations, of the checklist:
1. A cover letter should accompany the checklist, (i) explaining its evolution and purpose
and (ii) providing clear instructions for completion, as well as noting who local
governments should contact in the event of questions/problems. Among the instructions,
should be:
• Awareness that although local governments may wish to solicit input from several
cognizant individuals/agencies:
Each local government should have only one responsible party who
coordinates the various pieces and provides the government's single
official response.
The official government respondent should be identified, and may choose
to identify other individuals to contact for selected topics.
• Some indication of whether, and in what way, the governments will be debriefed;
TBNEP and RPC should consider whether they will provide summary feedback
on each government's response, or item-by-item responses; also whether they will
facilitate inter-governmental communication (and technology transfer) by
providing the names of contact people within each jurisdiction.
2. The checklist needs to be formatted with sufficient space to permit respondents to enter
explanatory information.
-------
3. Since the TBNEP and RFC plan to use the initial administration of the checklist as a
baseline inventory, rather than as a rating system, each item might have at least 3 possible
categorical responses: yes, no, not applicable.
-------
TAMPA BAY: DRAFT MEASUREMENT COMPONENTS FOR RATING
GOVERNMENT ACTION CHECKLIST (GAC)
Intergovernmental Coordination
The local government:
1. Coordinates watershed planning along and/or adjacent to common watershed boundaries.
• Has developed specific watershed management plans.
• Participates in Tampa Bay Regional Data Coordinating Council.
2.* Actively participates in NEP process, and implements strategies for a coordinated
approach to achieving goals of the NEP.
• Attends coordination meetings.
• Incorporates CCMP into local comprehensive plans.1
• Implements plans as designated in the CCMP.1
• Integrates common goals for the Bay into NPDES permits.
• Participates in Tampa Bay Regional Data Coordinating Council.
3.V Has delegation of authority from state agencies for environmental resource permits, and
has adopted state criteria (or criteria that exceed state requirements).
• Is seeking or has sought delegation of authority from state agencies for:
Stormwater.
Dredge and fill.
Mangrove trimming.
Management and storage of surface water.
Wetlands.
Other; specify:
• Holds delegated authority for:
Stormwater. %
1 These criteria will be included in the GAC assessments after the CCMP has been prepared
and approved.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
4.
Dredge and fill.
Mangrove trimming.
Management and storage of surface water.
Wetlands.
Other; specify:
Has other innovative intergovernmental coordination practices that benefit the
estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
Septic Systems
The local government:
Has identified locations of septic tanks.
• Has inventoried location of septic tanks.
• Has identified them by some kind of locator (e.g., address and longitude/latitude).
• Has developed a database for use in other activities that deal with septic systems.
Has a health or environmental management program that requires and enforces periodic
inspection of septic systems, and requires homeowners to have tanks pumped, if
necessary.
• Routinely inspects septic systems.
• Requires homeowners to certify that a maintenance firm has performed an
inspection.
• Has assessed fines for non-compliance or has issued legal orders for violators to
take corrective action.
• If YES, specify program/governmental entity:
*7. Has a health or environmental management program that requires pre-sale inspections
or certification that the septic system is functioning properly.
8. Has an ordinance that controls septic system factors not regulated by federal/state entities.
• Considers potential impacts of nutrients on water quality and aquatic resources as
part of the permitting process criteria for septic tanks and their drain fields.
• Restricts system density.
• Restricts type of facility.
• Has setback requirements.
• Has other controls.
9. Has an education program for residential and non-residential septic users that stresses
proper septic system operation and maintenance procedures, as well as actions to avoid
(such as discarding toxic organic chemicals into the system and use of certain
cleaners/cosmetics).
• Has information available on request.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
Proactively disseminates information to septic system users.
10.
11.
Promotes the use of innovative and alternative wastewater systems, such as batch
treatment process, at appropriate commercial, industrial, and large residential land use
sites.
Identifies appropriate potential users, and disseminates information to them.
Provides incentives for use.
Mandates the use of innovative and alternative wastewater systems by appropriate
users.
Has ordinance or policy that requires hookup of septic tanks to existing sanitary sewer
systems, and does not permit new septic tanks after such service is available.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
12.
Has other innovative septic system programs or practices that benefit the estuarine
environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
Public Information/Technical Assistance
The local government:
13. Has a public information program on such topics as (i) how they can contribute to
controlling non-point source pollution; (ii) the importance of not over-applying fertilizers
and pesticides; (iii) alternatives to and proper handling, storage, and disposition of
household hazardous materials; and (iv) maintenance of native vegetation and shoreline
features.
• Has print information or speakers available on request.
• Conducts a public information campaign that proactively sends education notices
to homes, businesses, industries, etc.
• Conduct other public outreach activities, such as media campaigns or speakers
bureaus that target specific audiences.
14. Provides for public input (including from public interest organizations) on public
decisions relating to Bay protection, beyond making required notice of public hearings by
the governing board.
• Has a citizens group/board that serves only in an advisory capacity .
• Has a formal environmental issues committee/board that carries official sanction.
15. Has an active program to provide technical assistance to households about household
activities relating to Bay protection (e.g., neighborhood assistance program on vegetation,
use of pesticides and fertilizers, and disposal of hazardous wastes).
• Has technical advisors and information available on request.
• Proactively identifies target households/neighborhoods to offer technical assistance.
16. Has other innovative public information/technical assistance programs or practices
that benefit the estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
17.
Municipal Waste and Wastewater
The local government:
Actively investigates and prosecutes illegal dumping, including illegal excavation
activities related to illegal dumping.
Has its own proactive monitoring program to detect illegal dumping.
Proactively solicits reports of illegal dumping through hotlines and other public
outreach activities.
Has investigative response to report of illegal activities:
If YES: please specify:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Number of investigations:
Number of warnings/citations:
Number of prosecutions:
18. Has state-approved recycling program, e.g., drop-off centers, curbside programs, etc.
• Has voluntary recycling program.
• Has mandatory recycling program.
• Has, and enforces, penalties for non-compliance where recycling is mandatory.
• Offers incentives for recycling (e.g., exempts approved charitable organizations
that operate successful recycling programs from disposal charges).
19. Has active programs for the use of reclaimed water by public, residential, commercial,
and industrial users of potable water and nonpotable substitution.2
• Has an active program for reclaiming wastewater.
If YES: please specify:
(1) Design capacity of the government's reclaimed water system:
(2) Number of gallons of reclaimed wastewater during distributed past 12
months (or latest 12 months for which data are available):
2 Reclaimed water is defined as: treated wastewater used in place of potable or raw
groundwater.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
20.
21.
22.
(3) Percentage of total treated wastewater that is reclaimed:
(4) Procedure used to estimate the demand for reclaimed water:
Provides advanced waste treatment for reclaimed water3
Has assessed the demand for reclaimed water, using a reasonably reliable
procedure; specify procedure used to estimate demand:
Sewage treatment plants have requirements for industrial on-site pre-treatment of wastes
that exceed EPA program requirements.
Monitors pre-treatment. actions of privately owned plants or franchises.
Monitors landfill leachate.
Monitors reports by agency or haulers that certain quantities have been withdrawn
at specified times.
Uses readings from wells to detect changes over time.
• Monitors groundwater conditions.
Has other innovative municipal waste and wastewater programs or practices that
benefit the estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
3 AWT is defined as: 5 mg/liter BOD; 5 mg/liter TSS; 3 mg/liter total nitrogen; and 1
mg/liter total phosphorus.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
10
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes
The local government:
23./ Has an underground storage tank program.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Monitors leaking underground storage tanks.
Has overseen replacement of tanks; specify number of tanks:
Actively enforces existing regulations, including non-compliant small quantity generators
(SQGs) and non-notifiers.
Has an active hazardous wastes program targeting households and non-residential
generators.
• Provides, and publicizes, regular household hazardous waste materials collection;
specify how often these are scheduled:.
• Holds drop-off or amnesty days to reduce improper disposal of wastes; specify
how often these are scheduled: .
Has an active information and technical assistance program to encourage participation in
hazardous material use and waste minimization; pre-treatment prior to disposal (whether
into the sewer system, incinerator, or whatever); reuse or recycling of hazardous waste;
and facilitation of waste exchanges.
Has information, available on request, on minimization of use, handling, and
proper disposal.
Proactively targets specific audiences to receive information or technical assistance
on minimization of use, handling, and proper disposal.
Has an oil recycling program.
Regulates the proper storage and disposal of oil of commercial firms.
Identifies deficiencies in hazardous waste compliance and enforcement programs
regardless of which agency is responsible, and attempts to work out solutions.
Has proactively addressed oil spill emergency responses.
Has contingency plans for releases from government facilities.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
31.
32.
11
Has an individual responsible for cooperating with the Coast Guard in the event
or an oil spill.
Participates in the area response committee.
Has received training, including OSHA training.
• Has containment equipment.
Has hazardous materials response plans for local government facilities that have
hazardous substances on site.
Has other innovative hazardous materials and hazardous wastes programs or
practices that benefit the estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
12
Stormwater
The local government:
33. Has regulations that address stormwater quality and quantity concerns, including flooding
and erosion problems, and requires development and redevelopment projects to
reduce/control pollutants in stormwater runoff.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
If YES: please specify:
(1) Number of projects using BMPs/stormwater treatment:
(2) Percent of projects using BMPs/stormwater treatment:
34. Has a stormwater utility system that relies on dedicated funding sources other than tax
revenues for funding.
35. Has a stormwater management ordinance that requires discharges to the local government
municipal separate stormwater system be treated through BMPs before the stormwater is
added to the system.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
36. Encourages practices that include the following stormwater pollution preventive actions:
• Use of pervious pavement for roadways and parking areas.
• Planted and landscaped retention or wet detention areas that utilize native
vegetation.
• Natural wetlands.
• Other vegetative BMPs, such as filter strips, urban forestry, etc.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
13
Other practices; specify:
37. Uses street cleaning machinery capable of collecting fine particles.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
38. Has a program for household fertilizer application control to reduce nutrient runoff.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
39. In addition to ambient water quality monitoring, identifies specific pollutant problems
and sources that impact local area.
• Responds to citizen complaints or requests for inspection.
• Monitors point-source stormwater discharge.
• Conducts site-specific water quality monitoring.
40. Requires that development not be allowed to shed more stormwater onto adjacent property
than was discharged from the site in its natural, unimproved state.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
. • Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
41. Has a program implementing stormwater rehabilitation projects in priority watersheds
(e.g., it has upgraded or retrofitted drainage systems in urbanized areas in priority
watersheds to improve stormwater treatment) by:
• Providing land for the projects.
• Contributing a cash match or in-kind services
• Overseeing perpetual maintenance of the local government project.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
14
• Ensures that permitted detention/retention systems are designed and maintained in
accordance with development requirements.
42. Monitors publicly maintained stormwater treatment systems (and where appropriate, major
privately maintained systems) to ensure proper functioning.
43. Requires as-built certification or inspection of publicly maintained stormwater
treatment systems (and where appropriate, major privately maintained systems).
44. Encourages or requires catch basin BMPs for removal of oil and grease.
45. Has other innovative stormwater programs or practices that benefit the estuarine
environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
15
46.
Dredge and Fill
The local government:
Restricts dredge and fill operations within the coastal areas to activities that facilitate the
continued use of existing channels, activities associated with appropriate water-dependent
uses, activities that correct environmental problems, and other activities determined to
be overriding public interest.4
• Has a policy that restricts such operations
If YES, specify:
(1) Ordinance or rule under which reviews take place:
(2) Number of applications received per year:
(3) Number of resubmissions received per year:
(4) Number of permits denied per year:
(5) Number of permits withdrawn per year:
Has permitting authority; specify source of authority:
• Requires as-built certifications or inspections for mitigation projects.
• Tracks the cumulative (total) number of acres affected.
Tracks the cumulative (total) number of acres mitigated.
47. Prohibits the dredging or filling of bay bottom containing significant seagrass habitat,
except in cases of overriding public interest.
48. Implements erosion control regulations that control turbidity and sedimentation from
construction projects.
• Requires turbidity curtains or other turbidity control measures (e.g., hay bales)
as a standard condition for permit approval.
• Monitors turbidity curtains around dredges.
• Requires removal of turbidity curtains after construction.
49. Has other innovative dredge and fill programs or practices that benefit the estuarine
4 See DEP definition of "public interest".
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
16
environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
17
50.
Water Conservation Measures
The local government:
Has implemented a residential indoor and outdoor water conservation program to
encourage reduced average-day and maximum-day water demands.
• Has policies incorporated in local plans or LDRs.
« Encourages use of:
Water-conserving toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators.
Water-conserving landscape (xeriscape).
Recycled household laundry water.
Reclaimed water for outdoor non-potable purposes.
Promotes practical, economically feasible, and efficient designs and products
(e.g., ultra-low volume plumbing fixtures, rain shut-off devices, and irrigation
restrictions) for new residential systems.
• Promotes the replacement or improvement of older, less efficient systems.
• Provides free water-saving devices or other incentives to use such devices; specify
what:
• Has water-conserving rate structure (e.g., increasing water fees during dry months
or inverting water fee structures).
• Has water conservation public information programs.
• Has innovative or demonstration projects on water conservation; specify:
51.
Has implemented a non-residential conservation program for agricultural, commercial,
and industrial uses.
Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
Has informal operating procedures.
Has implemented the policy.
Promotes practical, economically feasible, and efficient designs and products
(e.g., ultra-low volume plumbing fixtures, rain shut-off devices, and irrigation
restrictions) for new non-residential systems.
Promotes the replacement or improvement of older, less efficient systems.
Encourages use of irrigation using detained or retained stormwater.
Provides water conservation utility rates or other incentives that encourage
adequate treatment, utilization, or reuse of water resources; specify incentives
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
18
used:
52. Has other innovative water conservation programs or practices that benefit the
estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
19
Boat Use and Boater Discharges
53.
54.
The local government:
Requires marinas to have sewage pump-out facilities.
• Has local ordinance; specify any limitations: _
Has an active program to encourage boaters not to discharge on-board waste to surface
waters.
Has boater information available on request.
Proactively disseminates information to boaters.
Provides incentives; specify what:
55.V 5Requires all marinas and boatyards to have adequate oil containment and cleanup
equipment on site.
56. Requires all marinas and boatyards with fuel facilities to operate the appropriate fueling
of vessels.
57.
Regulates dock and marina siting in environmentally sensitive areas, and discourages non-
water dependent use of jurisdiction's waters
58.
Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
Has informal operating procedures.
Has implemented the policy.
Does not permit elevated decks, gazebos, screened rooms, or walled structures on
docks.
Uses waterfront buffers (e.g., native vegetation or setbacks) to minimize shoreline impacts
due to boating activities.
This item has been questioned by reviewers as to whether local governments have any
responsibility, rather than the Coast guard. Hillsborough rates this item as high priority;
it might be worthwhile to check it with Hillsborough.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
20
Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
Has informal operating procedures.
Has implemented the policy.
59.
Regulates and enforces boat speeds to promote protection of wildlife and public safety,
and to minimize erosion (e.g., has seagrass protection ordinance and appropriate signage).
60.
• Has a policy that regulates boat speed.
• Distributes information to boaters explaining regulations, signs, and covering other
water pollution dangers, such as boat wastes.
• Has marine enforcement program; i.e., an on-the-water presence such as marine
patrol.
• Issues warnings and citations for violations.
Has other innovative boater programs or practices that benefit the estuarine
environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
21
61.
62.
Agriculture and Industry
The local government:
Has nutrient monitoring and control program within the Tampa Bay watershed.
Has interlocal agreements for nutrient monitoring.
Has demonstration programs or pilot projects.
Has agricultural and industrial BMP requirements for controlling nutrient and
hazardous/toxic materials loadings, including retrofitting if needed.
63. Requires BMPs for controlling fertilizer/phosphorus industry activities:
• Materials handling protocols.
• Record keeping and reporting of spillage requirements.
• Operator training certificates.
• Recycling water.
• Runoff protection from conveyor belts.
• Overflow warning devices with a quick response time.
• Tank and berm containers.
• Double lining for pipe over water.
64. Regulates port actions for reducing solid and liquid spillage during on- and off-loading
of cargo.
65. Has other innovative agriculture and industry programs or practices that benefit the
estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
22
66.
*
Shellfish Beds Reopening
The local government:
Has an active program promoting the opening of shellfish beds.
• Monitors presence of coliform/pathogens in shellfish beds.
• Assesses the sources of contamination of shellfish beds.
• Has a plan of corrective action.
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
23
Land Use
The local government:
67. Has or participates in a program to acquire open space or environmentally sensitive
land for aquifer recharge, stormwater filtration/percolation, wellfield protection, and
habitat and wildlife protection.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
68. Encourages site design using joint or shared use of parking areas or access roads, or
clustering of uses to maximize the preservation of vegetated open space.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
69. Has incentives (e.g., reduced tax rates, transfer of development rights, density/intensity
transfers, or others) to preserve environmentally sensitive property.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
70. Has local permitting requirements that protect wetlands and upland buffer zones.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
71. Requires landscaping practices and landscape maintenance beneficial for estuary
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
72.
24
protection (e.g., preserving existing native vegetation on a building site; maximizing use
of low ground cover in place of turf grass; where turf grass is used, selecting varieties
with minimum requirements for irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, and mowing; mulching
around shrubs).
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
• Has informal operating procedures.
• Has implemented the policy.
Requires that a particular percent of all post-development vegetation be indigenous to the
region.
Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
Has policy incorporated in land development regulations (LDRs), or other
ordinances or codes; specify which:
Has informal operating procedures.
Has implemented the policy.
73.
Has other innovative land use programs or practices that benefit the estuarine
environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
25
Miscellaneous
The local government:
74. Provides support for habitat restoration or enhancement projects.
• Has policy incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
• Provides land for habitat restoration.
• Provides financial or in-kind services.
75. Has an active program, or participates in a program, to protect and restore existing
marine resources, such as fisheries, shellfish harvesting areas, and seagrass beds.
76. Protects manatees.
• Designates idle speed zones for marinas and multi-family docking facilities.
• Designates slow speed zones for all access channels to marinas and multi-family
docking facilities, and in areas of known manatee habitat or congregation sites.
• Posts and maintains educational displays and regulatory signs at marina-type uses
and access channels.
• Keeps new boat ramps away from high manatee concentrations.
• Limits density of multi-family docking facilities and single-family docks.
77. Dedicates fines collected from polluters to environmental protection or mitigation.
• Has an environmental fund or pollution recovery fund.
78. Has other innovative programs or practices, not previously described in this survey,
that benefit the estuarine environment; please describe briefly:
Note: Please indicate if responsibility has been delegated to another governmental unit (and
to whom) for any of the above items.
-------
-------
• l ..MMvi»ii»iiiagri:g-t.5L.!i^^?»iititKtiitP^-i. a ^.,^$m
a*|v si,V|i; ¥Tv"4 -,\ -iss^Mjt*11if iS'illii-ii--I ,oS -' r *1. \"-'~ **fWlMiiilti:
fit i"?r'-i-*'£! '•%•'- -'• >~ -1-SSilliiilSJf *****i5?. T-^^v'-'i. • '-i-, 'itMllfi'-ilfl**
-------
TAMPA BAY HOUSEHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY
Please complete this questionnaire. It should only take about 10 minutes of your time.
Please mail it back in the enclosed stamped addressed envelope.
1.
2.
3.
4.
In the past 12 months, have you
checked your home for water leaks
(e.g., checked toilets, or looked for
changes in water-meter readings
during periods when water was not in
use)?
No
Yes
Do your faucets or showerheads have
water flow savings devices?
Yes, faucets only
Yes, showerheads only
Both
Neither
Don't know
Do you turn the water off while
brushing your teeth or shaving?
Always
Almost always
Sometimes
Never
Do your toilets have either a
displacement device (e.g., toilet dam)
or a water-saver toilet?
No
Yes, all toilets set up to save
water
Yes, some toilets set up to
save water
Don't know
5. a. In the past 12 months, did you
dispose of any used motor oil, paints,
or chemicals?
No
Yes
b. If YES:
Where did you dispose of them?
(check all that apply)
Sewer
At county collection sites
Local service station
Poured into outside storm drain
or gutter
Other; Specify:
6. Are you a sail or power boat owner?
No
Yes, sail boat
Yes, power boat
Yes, power & sail boat
b. If YES:
(1) In the past 12 months, when you
removed trash from the boat, where
did you dispose of it?
Put trash in shore receptacles
Put non-plastics into the
water, and plastics into shore
receptacles
Put trash into the water
(2) In the past 12 months, how have
you disposed of used oil or fuel?
-------
Brought to marina or service
station recycling facility
Dumped overboard
Other; Specify:
(3) What type of head do you have
on the boat?
Bucket or Porta-Potty
A marine sanitation device
with a holding tank
A marine sanitation device
without a holding tank
(4) What do you use to wash your
boat?
Phosphate-free soap
Regular soap
No soap; brush only
7. Do you normally separate any of
your trash for recycling?
No
Yes
b. // YES: (check all that apply)
(1)
Cans (aluminum items)
Paper
Glass
Plastics
(2) Where do you put these items:
At curb for pickup
Take to a recycling
collections center
a. Do you own a dog?
No Yes
b. If YES:
Within the past 6 months, did you
pick up your animal's wastes from
lawns, sidewalks, and curbs:
. Usually
Never
Sometimes
NOTE: If you live in an apartment,
condominium, or mobile home, skip to
question 26.
9.
10.
11.
a. Have you fertilized your lawn
within the past 6 months?
No
If YES:
Yes
b. The last time you fertilized, did
you use "slow release" forms of
fertilizers?
No
Yes
Don't know
What methods have you used to
control pests for your yard over the
past 12 months?
Pesticides
Pruning
Hand picking
Other; Specify:
What materials make up your walk
areas (e.g., sidewalks, driveways,
patios)?
Asphalt
Concrete
-------
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Flagstone
Brick
Sand or gravel
a. In the past 12 months, have you
paved any surface outside your
home?
No
Yes
b. If YES:
What material did you use?
Asphalt
Concrete
Flagstone
Brick
Sand or gravel
Does your landscape include any
swales (low areas) and berms
(elevated areas)?
No Yes
Where do your gutters drain?
Onto concrete or asphalt
surfaces
Into grassy areas
Other; Specify:
Do you have native, drought resistant
plants and trees in your yard?
Mostly
Some
None
Not sure
a. During the past 12 months, did
you plant any shrubs, bushes, trees,
etc.?
No
Yes
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. If YES:
Were any of these drought resistant?
No Yes
Don't know
Do you group plants according to
similar watering and fertilizing
needs?
.No
Don't know
Yes
a. Do you use mulching at all?
No Yes
b. If YES:
What type of mulch is used?
Cypress
Pine needles
Composted materials
Other: Specify:
What percentage of your landscape is
lawn (turf grass)?
0 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%
What height do you set your
lawnmower blade?
High (3" or less of blade is out)
Medium
Low
21. How have you usually disposed of
-------
your grass clippings?
Leave on lawn
Use as mulch
Compost
Bag and discard in trash
22. Do you typically water your lawn:
Before 9:00 am
Midday
After 6:00 pm
23.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
24.
When watering your lawn, do you do
any of the following:
NO YES
Use a garden hose
shut off device
Use a drip system
Use a micro-irrigation
system
Hand water
Water only when
grass wilts
Other; Specify:
a. In the past 12 months, have you
contacted any government agency for
information about water saving or
xeriscaping techniques?
No
Yes
b. If YES:
Who did you contact?
25. a. Do you have a septic system?
No Yes
b. If YES:
(1) When was the last time you had
it pumped out?
(Month & Year)
(2) About how often have you been
doing this?
Every year
Every 2 years
Every 3 years
Every 4 or more years
(3) Have you used any septic
cleaning compounds in the past 12
months?
No
Yes
(4) Do you use a garbage disposal?
No Yes
Demographics
26. Type of property:
Single-family home
Multi-unit home (e.g., duplex)
Condominium or apartment
complex
Mobile home
27. Do you rent or own your own home?
Rent
Own
28. What is your household composition?
# of Adults
# of children living at home
-------
29. What county do you live in?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
Please return to:
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
111 7th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
-------
:T^ i' ^-^ HFirf ?W
• -,-!,• r'v*j-/;! .-1;-*.". iV^*'! ?,';• ,-., • ' :•,•,-.. ^ ~-i = ,>j ; '; 5:
• • • , , ' • •,:'.-• i ;. i !-'.-"" ,i»«^.? - = ? ', - s i f -
• T i.' L-lil':lKVs'i*!7r*sli,«lkIiJel-».rSiJI?f il'rflll
-- - ;-.-
"^'S'^jf^ 'If I f r| »*.- '|4j ,t 6 . S ' ;i8 i§ ;{•§, ;
if' |i\' Jl\-rii!j||l«f||Kjl/iJ^'J^..-?Kr"" > r ?-*=.!• i - ,••! M. i-':'-t ;''t"^;i;:i-:I^?l*^ll^ll|lllf4!l
lliJlll p^l^lfilJfl^lfi^y^i/vr:; ? :i; <:.•;;•. ;^ l:s '^ fci M J-;f Ivt Ia4ri^!c|!aff i?!>l^ll
1 r ; -?^" p^,- ' s, i : &'* ' ^^ ^'/A - \•. ,*%/•*• *-w%^^^.s ?i "„ - r / ^ s? ,? E - ^ ^ ••,:, z ~<~ f- - s • / ' - ^ u r • " •-'i ? *'- "- ^ '~'\ $4 I
;!«j ;4;?,;; vf *,-*•* 3<;.s*i?, / *1, -s*'l.< ^^yH^'fii^4*v:A^i'^ffif¥^^:'^'^ .$;;,,{,- . s=,\ > V4- J<4 -,j.~:-. vV4'-f * •-Vf^*- *|"*|(f I
:\'}'{ >- ,}'•" T> i'^'V'f si? !|£-1-? i:^-f-x;S:7;P^i^f^2|F|?|fl*f|j;-||;;;-t|.''J|>jf|, 'Jf- ,|L '|J IJ .|ff 'Itl#|l|
^^^M^l^^i^^^^-r s\^\..:^K^~.ti-<4^
-------
-------
Pilot Test of Boater Survey
For the pilot test, we need to administer the questionnaire in three locations, to six
people in each location. Three of the six in each location should fill out the
questionnaire themselves and three should be filled in by Page Minshew for the
respondent. This will help us decide on how we will conduct the survey.
If the person is reluctant to be interviewed, attempt tactfully and pleasantly to
encourage them to be interviewed. For example, point out that their answers will
help local officials to make improvements.
At the end of the interview, offer copies of the pamphlets to the respondent. In
fact, if the person refuses to be interviewed, we might offer the pamphlets to the
person. This also might encourage the person to be interviewed.
Introductory Material
I am from the Buzzards Bay Project. We would like to ask you
a few questions relating to the protection of Buzzards Bay. It will take only a few
minutes. This is a test of our survey form and questions, so at the end I'll ask you to
comment on the questionnaire—questions that weren't clear, or optional answers that
were missing or not appropriate.
Your answers will be kept confidential. We don't even need your name. The
information we obtain from you will be combined with information we obtain from
other respondents before it is reported.
The information will be used to help improve our programs to protect the Bay.
First, we have a few questions about your boat.
-------
Interviewer fills this in for all six respondents in all three locations.
a) Date.
b) Time of day_
c) Location.
d) Type of boat: Power Sail.
e) Length_
f) Recreational Commercial.
g) Interviewer.
-------
September 23, 1994
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Buzzards Bay Boaters' Questionnaire
a) What is your home port?
b) In what town/city is your full-time home?_
About how many hours/days were you out on the boat this time?_
How many persons were with you?
Did anyone use the boat's head during the time you were out? No_
What type of head do you have on the boat?
(a) Bucket or Porta-Potty
Yes
} Go to Q6-8
Read definitions of Types I, II, III below, if needed
(b) Type I Marine Sanitation Device _
(c) Type II Marine Sanitation Device
(d) Doesn't know if Type I or II
} Go to Q9
(e) Type III Marine Sanitation Device } Go to Q10
For Porta-Potty or bucket
6. Have you treated the waste with chemicals? No Yes
7.
8.
What did you treat it with? Chemical name
Brand name
Have you disposed of the waste?
Yes How?
No What are you going to do with it?_
Definitions of Marine Sanitation Devices Types I, II, III
Type I: Chops up and disinfects waste with chemicals to a level of 1000 fecal
coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters of water (about three ounces).
Type II: Does same as Type I, but reduces fecal coliform bacteria to 200 per three
ounces of water.
Type III: Holding tank equipped with piping to discharge waste when over three miles
from shore or, better yet, into fixed or floating pump-out facility.
-------
For Type I or II Marine Sanitation Device [If someone used the head...]
9. Have you disposed of the waste?
A. Yes (a) Used a pump-out facility. Which one?
(b) Were you charged for the pump-out? No Yes How much?
(c) How satisfied were you with the service at the pump-out facility:
(1) Excellent__ (2) Good
(3) Fair__ (4) Poor
[If Fair or Poor] Why do you say that?
B. Yes (d) But, did not use pump-out facility because [check all that apply.]
(e) Takes too much time.
(f) It's not near enough.
(g) Doesn't seem important to do; doesn't hurt the bay.
(h) It costs too much.
(i) Other ?
C. Yes Discharged it
D. Yes Did something else? Explain:
E. No What are you going to do with it?
-------
For Type III Marine Sanitation Device [If someone used the head...]
10. Have you disposed of the waste?
A. Yes (a) Used a pump-out facility. Which one?
(b) Were you charged for the pump-out? No Yes How much?
(c) How satisfied were you with the service at the pump-out facility:
(1) Excellent_ (2) Good
(3) Fair (4) Poor
[If Fair or Poor] Why do you say that?
B. Yes (d) But, did not use pump-out facility because [check all that apply.]
(e) __Takes too much time.
(f) It's not near enough.
(g) Doesn't seem important to do; doesn't hurt the bay.
(h) It costs too much.
(i) Other ?
C. Yes Discharged it
D. Yes Did something else? Explain:
E. No Still in the holding tank, which is not full.
F. No What are you going to do with it?
-------
11, Do you know if there are any officially designated "no discharge" areas in Buzzards Bay?
No
Yes If yes, can you name them?
12.
Have you seen either of these two pamphlets [SHOW THEM] Yes_ No_
[If Yes] Did you find it/them useful to you? Yes No
[If Yes] In what ways?
[Yes or No] How could the pamphlet/s be made more useful to you, for example,
what other material would you like to see covered?
13. Are there any suggestions or comments you would like to make about the disposition of
wastes from a boat?
14. Since this is a test of the questionnaire, could you please tell us your reaction to the questions?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!
WOULD YOU LIKE COPIES OF EITHER OF THE TWO PAMPHLETS?
-------
-------
-------
I
43 CD
c
0)
0
O
£
O
c
111
-------
13
%
£
CO
I
I
O
o
CQ
o>
CA
wa
C3
1
A
S
o>
at
a
I
«
s
•a
1
S
€
I
.a
I
I
•s
cu
y ••
£ S
ol
^5
S>
S
S
U
two's
.a c3
-g ^
^H ^2
^5 S5
OH -4-i
o. t/5
•§
(U
0>
g
*CJ
§.
o
•»"
F~
f"
I
U
ns
O)
t:
o
g
'§
S
o
^
f
*
&
I
C3
0>
So
II III
-------
1
o
60
=3
ater
ice of
a
§
detailed
C3 «•
c/a
O)
bD
Sc«
1
.3
S a)
la
o -*•*
|.g
5s
c* ,fi
I
pu
conside
ed to the
IT)
S
.a
13
.
to be added
^ «IM
^H &b
0 ^
1-!
a t!
1 a
A\
VI
^1
o
-a
o
1
•B S"
p^4 J-i
h C«
II
o
=
8 S
-------
rt ta "§ ^
•alii
fl o> fc
o> £ c
c^ S
!is!
o
11
•p
o P
3 i
s
c *a s
§12
S T3
** S fl
S !§
O "^^
ft 8 S
too aj >•
_ S s-»
a
03
fc
s-a
1
?,
45
~
f,
1-s
S
0
g
:li|
H J2 «S
do '"c
•** s • ss
,
co «S
8)73
11
CO ^
S51
ll&
Pu
-------
II
61)
-------
I .8
O
* # *
(O
CO
"8
S o
•
3 £
*"' C
2 LJJ
re
£ X
a
Ill
nil
o -~
O
LLI
feb
•o
CJ
o .2 £
k_ r> :=
1
o>
^ •"
"
I
-
•a •*•
•S *
a
-------
UJ
UJ
o
X.
o
O
D
O
UJ
, , , , , .
ooooooooo
O O r O S O O
> > f"1 > S? > >
S- &• OO [^ I^ ^" ^"
o o o o o o o
o
cu cu CL, Q
W W W U
&0
ex
oo ^
**
Q O
oo oo
S P
1
CD
II
o|
u 2
o!
!
I
pq
* fc
•HI
Is!
C »a
'w "S O
.« 'J3
6<1
o
*3 "3 •"=
a
Sii
u c
^a
if
G & ~
.2 js
3 -s
< ^
00
-------
c
O
O
O)
O)
O
CM
U)
-------
-------
-------
O
2
CQ (DJD
O O
PN m"
d
^^^
,-« 0
§
s
O)
T-
i
O
13
O
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
TT
CO
-------
-------
n
e
C
,1— 1
c
fe
•J V
o
00
O)
o
E
S
U)
0 cr
> v-
w §
o
UJ
co
CD
O :£: o
E 1 E
ts o
CO
•a
c
c
03
co
2 o>
ci
o .g
o
CD
G) >
— CO —
O CD CD
(Q
Q
CD
CD
CD
O)
CO
C
£- c
5? .o
o "g
Q. O
I!
co -=
O CD
CO
5 cL o o
^3 CD o
C O "tl "O
••BB ^^ ^? ^""
"^ 3 s- °
*5 ^ Q. T3
"™ CO ffi S
I So I
c E co o
s
-------
i
§tf
0)
0)
e
o
0)
"J5T £
ft O
o
•- o
CD
gto
(0
thl CD
DC
6*
CO
CD
O
CD O
i c
0
CD
O
+- c
03
CD
73
C
CO
15
CD
03
._ *-• := CO
H- O.
to
o
CD
£2
CD
o
CD
CO
O
(0
0)
0)
C
0)
o
0)
O)
o
3
(0
O)
CO
0
0) .
.a ±:
rtt *^?T
03
O
O) _
2 2
Q. O,
o
t
O)
o o
(0 ^
T£* ••• MM
CD 03 JS
•"• ^ ™*
D)
O
-------
I—*,
.1"!
C'/
n
bU
£
CO
c
g
s
c
o
o
0)
c
^,
"CO
13
cr
0
to
CO
73
c
1
c
0
0
s
0
JQ
CO
0
0)
1
•o
co
CO
0
CO
CO
CO
0
2
13
o
CO
co
'x „
0 0
0
N
O C
O) CL>
CO
co
•* co & X
O .c 0 c
.0), O Q =5
*- ?>»
rtN *-•
0 :=
CO
D '—
• •
c
o
*g
_o
"5.
Q.
<
CO
2
O)
2
Q.
inagement
CO
"CO
CT
0
to
m
•22
CO
"co
QJ
•
CO
0
73
O
16
0
to
^
§
•D
CO
0
+5
.Q
0
•
w
"c
requiremel
s
la
CO
<
CO
0
.N
0
"S
CO
jS
O
•
CO
CO
O
D)
4—1
ca
;£-
CO
.C
0
Q
O
CO
0)
C
*o
0
a.
"0
0
T3
•c
0
a.
Q.
3
CO
•
1
0
CO
CO
0
CO
co
__
CO
nvironment
0
£
0
C
"0
CO
co
CO
.92
5
to
LU
•
o c
c m
*
co
£S
o c
a S4
25
-------
-------
C
—
c
0)O
Q .55
Q.
C
O)
S "o
*• *«
CO
*•• v m
^S c >
a. co CD
p-t.
CD
"O CO
C TJ
CD UZ
Q. O
CO CO
5
CO
_
T3 CD
® %
CO o
.<2 S)
Q >»
" X
O
co
•5 8
C CD
CO O
5
CD
o
"is
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
2 » « c
11 r
-------
-------
(jA/sqi suojiiiiu) smoqdsoiid
-------
(l/Bui) snjoi|dsoi(d
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
*3 C •— _
-------
IT
I
(X
o
I.
tij
r
o
1
•c
2
vO
0^
§
• •-
-•
<
0
e
o
o
0
CM
!••
co
§-
o
+••
s
0)
tn
O)
*^
+-
flfr
if | c£
§»|i
f^ 2^ |M *f"
.« <0 ~ Q C >™*'
lj=. o^ .2 w
l5 S c Q.
1
1
I
[4—
•
•
^^m
— O>
CO O 4.1
C T- (0
•-«»•& 5
C * O QQ
IH W ^^ C
1 2 ^ §-> E
1^1 I «?
o w •{/) o c
O 1 ft O i
o
0
o
8 a-
" 1- ro
CO ^
>•
o
CM
. U)
O>
™
<>.<
f"* ""Si
^N ^
S "^s*1 i
03 S}-*1
,
o
(4A/sq| SUOHIIUI)
CD —
^ O
II
If
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
JdAjU jo sa|j|/y
-------
-------
gSoou Oo£.>
Z £ £ 5
-------
(spunod
-------
spunod ^o suoui!|/\| ui
-------
= « o>S
— W 0) »_
spunod |o suo!i|i|/\i u[
-------
*(30dO) xepuj
-------
iQ XSIAI
pejaAOosin ouuan
spunod jo suon|i|/\i ui
-------
o o o o
(MO CO
-------
O 5 S o ~
e; 5 Q. Q.
CO CM
spuesnou I ui }unon
-------
junoo uojieindod epeg
-------
-------
-------
o.§£
&£&<£
-------
uoi||ui jad sped u; suojjejjuaouoo i g i
-------
-------
-------
oo to C4 o» «e co
T- T- T-
JB9A Jad ojoy Jad spunod
-------
0)
o
O)
O T3
— £ <0
IS *- fll
•o fe ••" -
_ o 0 -c
«M •*" 21 •»
O (0
o
5>t= -5
i£E
3
*£§> S
(0
(0
O .^!
E
o .•=
a o
O
O)
G) (0
III
• is!!
V S « g.«
c •— gn s?*??
o ® o -9
C Q. O «
Eg O §,OL W \U X
1/5
u.
CO
paisejoj
-------
IT
cvr
03
ler Feedback
E
0
+-•
(/>
D
0
\
(0
O)
unicatin
E
O
cess Measures
O
3
0)
O
O
D)
(0
0)
o
•••i
jQ
3
Q.
§
'55
o
0
e
o
Q.
0)
o:
C/3
CO
O)
2
Q.
"eo
c
c
ig of Resources
*•
1)
5
\
p
v_
^
•js
03
£
"D
•8
&
c
i_ (D
Baromete
Journal C
>» >»
03 03
CQ CQ
$. Other Federal Agencies
— ^*
LLJ
•
fi
0
Q.
0
or
^
^
CQ
0
•5
Q
-LJ
CO
(0
"43
Q Q
CO O
• •
.g
/r5
+2
c
o
(0
o
0.
"w
o
CL
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
0)
(0
(0
CD
-------
O)
-------
c
LU
3O
-------
-------
II
Co Co Co
C
CD CD (D
E E E
C C C
o o o
------- |