Successes and Challenges ofVolunteer Monitoring

New Jersey Monitoring CouncilMay 25, 2005

Linda T. Green

National Water Quality Monitoring CouncilUniversity of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension

USDA Cooperative State Research EducationExtension Service (CSREES)

Pioneering Programs

National Weather Service (1890)1900 National Audubon Society1954 National Marine Fisheries ServiceStream Monitoring - (Maryland - 1969)

Lakes - (Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, NH) – 1971-1978

Estuaries – RI, Chesapeake Bay -1985

0200400600800

1000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1998

# of Reported Programs# of Reported Programs

* Nat’l Dir. of Envir. Mon. Progs. - 5th Ed.

Volunteer Monitoring Came ofAge in the 1990s*

Ecosystems Monitored*

0 25 50 75 100

River/Stream

Lake/Pond

Wetland

Estuary

Reservoir

Groundwater

Marine

% of Programs Monitoring Each Environment% of Programs Monitoring Each Environment

* Nat’l Dir. of Envir. Mon. Progs. - 5th Ed.

What Is Volunteer Monitoring?

People who willingly, diligently andregularly assess water quality of variousenvironments in their free time.People who watch over the health of theirwatersheds because they care.People who advocate for improvementand/or protection of their waters

Who Are These Volunteers?

Mid-lifeMid-lifeAdults (40%)Adults (40%)

Youth underYouth under18 (28%)18 (28%)

SeniorsSeniors(25%)(25%)

College-ageCollege-age(7%)(7%)

Volunteer Monitors are CommunityEducators

Casco BayKeepers, Maine

Message Culminated in Action

Media campaignincluded full page adsHome & garden centerbrochuresGarden show boothDirect mail

] Workshop attended by~120 homeownersand applicators

Wisconsin Research on SocietalParticipation*

Experienced monitors –Did not have more factual info about water quality Feel more connected to those in their communityconcerned with environmental issuesare more likely to participate in political action events

reading, personal research (72%)Talk with neighbors (72%)Attend public meetings (65%)Share monitoring info with others (54%)

*Overdevest, Orr, Stepenuck, 2004 NWQMC conference

Volunteer Monitors AreCitizen Scientists

Volunteer Monitors AreCitizen Scientists

Top Parameters Lakes & Rivers*

River/StreamsWater Temp. (88%)pH (78%)Macroinverts (76%)Diss. Oxygen (73%)Nitrogen (53%)Flow/water level(51%)

River/StreamsWater Temp. (88%)pH (78%)Macroinverts (76%)Diss. Oxygen (73%)Nitrogen (53%)Flow/water level(51%)

LakesSecchi trans. (88%)Water Temp. (74%)Phosphorus (66%)Diss. Oxygen (58%)Chlorophyll (51%)pH (45%)

LakesSecchi trans. (88%)Water Temp. (74%)Phosphorus (66%)Diss. Oxygen (58%)Chlorophyll (51%)pH (45%)

* Nat’l Dir. of Envir. Mon. Progs. - 5th Ed.

Meadowbrook Pond0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4/18

5/2

5/16

5/30

6/13

7/6

7/12

7/24

8/15

8/29

9/10

9/26

10/8

10/2

6

11/3

Depth (m)

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

SECCHI DEPTH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 6/30 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 9/22 10/6 10/20 11/3

Me s otrophic

Eutrophic

ppbCHLOROPHYLL LEVELS

Distribution of Lakes by P TSI

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73

RANK OF LAKES BY MEAN MULTI-YEAR TROPHIC STATUS

Oligotrophic

Mesotrophic

Eutrophic

URIWW Locations with 3 or more years of data only

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10-M

ay

30-J

ul

17-O

ct

8-Ju

n

2-Sep

19-A

pr

5-Ju

l

20-S

ep

21-M

ay

21-A

ug

26-A

pr

6-Aug

7-M

ay

6-Aug

4-M

ay

27-J

ul

26-O

ct

6-Ju

l

20-S

ep

24-M

ay

8-Aug

23-O

ct

10-J

ul

26-S

ep

11-J

un

27-A

ug

17-M

ay

4-Aug

4-M

ay

20-J

ul

5-O

ct

21-J

un

6-Sep

6-Ju

n

22-A

ug

6-Aug

Secchi Depth Bottom Depth

Watchaug Pond - Water Clarity 1988 - 2004, running averages

Depth (m)

Source of Long term Data

Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)URIWW data used toURIWW data used to

•• Assess impairment Assess impairment

•• Develop TMDL and community “buy-in” Develop TMDL and community “buy-in”

•• Monitor effectiveness upon Monitor effectiveness uponimplementationimplementation

Lower Order Streams,Southern RI - 1991

020406080

100120

Belleville Sluice.

Carr InletChipuxet - ResChipuxet - MillBrushy Br.Log House Br.Meadow Br.Mud BrookPasq InletOak Hill BrShore InletShick - PotterShick - MiskShunock - Babcock

Shunock - Hewitt

Watchaug Inlet

TPppb

Illegal Shellfish ProcessorNo provision for proper waste disposalNo provision for proper waste disposal

1975 to 1988 unlined sewage lagoons1975 to 1988 unlined sewage lagoons (= above ground detention basins) (= above ground detention basins)

10 mg/l total P in lagoons10 mg/l total P in lagoons1 mg/l total P in groundwater1 mg/l total P in groundwater1130 mg/l 1130 mg/l ClCl in groundwater in groundwater

0.025 mg/l P in lakes = algae blooms

Decreased P, decreased algae, increasedclarity … great advertisement for program

05

10152025303540

ug/l

chl-a

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

BarberYawgoo

“It is in the marriage of credibledata and increasedstewardship behavior that thetrue potential and vitality ofcitizen monitoring begins toemerge.”-Steven Hubbell, Colorado River Watch

Stafford Pond

314/319 GrantsDiagnostic studyPublic EducationProject

Home*A*SystTargetedFactsheetsResidentialguide0

2468

10121416

ppb

1993 1994 1995 1996

Algal Concentration

Lake Monitoring and NPSProgram Partnerships Deliver: The Lake Chocorua Project

Jeffrey SchlossUniversity of New Hampshire

Cooperative Extension Water ResourcesUNH Center for Freshwater Biology

(the volunteer monitors were)‘the “hub of the wheel” thatmade the project asuccess…They provided thefactual data on whichdecisions were made. ’ - -Sherry GodlewskiNH DES

‘…it is this type of modelproject that we at the EPA wantto support and continue to seeoccur … ’

-Warren Howard EPA-NE

-Toby PageLake Chocorua Association

‘I don’t knowwhen was the lasttime I’ve workedwith 12 agenciesand gottensomething done’

Many programs are entering theirsecond decade of monitoring

Clarified their purpose(s)Secure in their techniquesHave jumped thru QA hoopsAre realizing the value of theircommunity connections

CredibilityCredibility doesn’t meandoesn’t meanhaving the most exactinghaving the most exacting

techniques. It meanstechniques. It meansdelivering on your promises,delivering on your promises,no matter how small or largeno matter how small or large

they are.they are.-Meg Kerr-Meg Kerr

RI River RescueRI River Rescue

Main Uses of Volunteer DataWater Quality or Watershed EducationDocument Existing ConditionsProblem IdentificationLocal Decisions

Education/Awareness

Problem ID, Assess

Impairment,Local

Decisions

Legal &Regulatory

Increasing Time - Rigor - QA - Expense $$Increasing Time - Rigor - QA - Expense $$

Geoff Dates, River Network

The Continuum of Monitoring Data Use

NJ - Options for InvolvementNJ - Options for Involvement

Tier A: Environmental EducationTier A: Environmental EducationTier B: StewardshipTier B: StewardshipTier C: Community AssessmentTier C: Community AssessmentTier D: Indicators/Regulatory ResponseTier D: Indicators/Regulatory Response

Tier C: Community &/or WatershedAssessment- NJ

•Local decision-makers

•Watershedassociation

•Environmentalorganizations

•Possibly DEP

•Assess currentconditions

•Track trends

•Source track down ofNonpoint sourcepollution

•Medium/highlevel of rigor

•Data needs toreliably detectchanges overtime & space

•QAPPapproved & onfile w/ intendeddata user.

•Trainingrequired

Data Users Data Use

Quality Needed

Quality is Assured through:TrainingRepetitionRoutine samplingMonitoring multiple indicatorsQA/QC field and laboratory testingAdhering to established procedures

The most important factor determiningthe level of quality is the cost of being

wrong.

Secchi Comparison Plot

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Depth (m)

Volu

ntee

rs

Staff

= 1:1

R2 = .96

Methodology:Professional Vs. Volunteer

Volunteers typically use kits orsend samples to professionallaboratories.

Sampling and analyticalmethods used are generallycomparable to those used byprofessionals.

The Volunteer MonitoringThe Volunteer Monitoring“System”“System”

Regional

State

National

DirectDirectServiceService

ProvidersProviders

MonitoringGroups

Volunteer Monitoring: Moving into the Mainstream, Austin TX 2000

Strong Support by the US EPANumerous Web sitesGuidance documents

Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods ManualVolunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods ManualVolunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods ManualThe Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality AssuranceProject Plans

Volunteer Monitor NewsletterNational Directory of Volunteer ProgramsVolunteer Monitoring List serve (~300program coordinators)Workshops

www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

The National Water Quality Monitoring Councilprovides a national forum to coordinate consistentand scientifically defensible methods and strategiesfor improving water quality monitoring, assessment,

and reporting.

•Promoting State Monitoring Councils•Conferences

•National Environmental MethodsIndex (NEMI)

•Water Quality Data Elements

Provide organizational and technical serviceto program coordinators at all levels

Organizational development and supportStudy designTechnical training and supportAnalytical servicesData management and interpretationNetworking with other programs

State, County, Academic, andNon-profit Organizations

ChallengesMethodology

How real time does it have to be? How exact?Volunteer – professional comparisonsInvolving vs using volunteers

monitoring vs sample collectingLiability issues

The ever-rising QC barWill the data stand up in court? Should it haveto?Prescriptive techniques vs performance basedData validation issuesQAPP’s

ChallengesData Handling

Databases vs spreadsheetsWho’s data is it anyway?What route does it take thru anagencySTORET –easier to STOR than RET

FundingCost-Effective NOT cost freeStart-up funding easier than continuationCommunity support essential

Reality of Using VolunteerCollected Data

•We need more data at a higher frequencyof collection

•EPA has encouraged use of volunteercollected data

•Volunteers want to do it right

Agency Questions (probabilistic)What is the condition of the nation’ssurface, ground, estuarine, and coastalwaters?Where, how and why are water qualityconditions changing over time?Where are problems related to waterquality and what is their cause?Are programs to address problemsworking effectively?Are water quality goals and standardsbeing met?

-I want to find out what’s in mywater.

-I think there’s something wrongwith my lake/river/bay.

-Is it safe to swim in the water?

-Is it safe to drink this water?

Community and IndividualConcerns (targetted monitoring)

Development of MeaningfulIndicators for the Community

Agency needs vs organizations needsHypoxia vs no troutHypereutophication vs pea soup

… and issuesFulfilling work is needed to keep interestKnowing what you want to achieve iscriticalGood ecological monitoring requireshealthy organizationsSuccessful programs require good trainingand coordinationStart-up funding easier to get thancontinuation funding

SuccessesVolunteer Monitoring originates in thecommunity & builds strong communitypartnershipsVolunteer monitoring educates thecommunity to make informed decisionsVolunteer monitoring provides youth withcivic lessons and hands-on scienceVolunteer monitoring provides a pathway toincreased civic activities/responsibility

SuccessesVolunteer monitoring can build familyrelationshipsVolunteer monitoring can reach underservedaudiencesVolunteer monitoring tangibly connectspeople to their environment

counteracts the plastic world of TV, videos,computer games

Ordinary people can collect good data

SuccessesHuge increase in number of locationsmonitored (~10 vol mon to 1 agency site)Source of long-term data (15, 20, 25 years…)IDs the high quality waters as well as problemareasProvides agency personnel the opportunity toget out in the fieldCan gain support for agency initiatives

Volunteer MonitoringMakes A DifferenceIdentifies & solves problems locallyInvolves people in real scienceRaises awareness, and educatesProvides info on places where no oneelse is lookingCreates an informed constituencyCreates stewards

Volunteers- The Wave of theFuture for Watershed Planningand Implementation - C. Snyder, PA DEP

Remember that only 18% ofUS waters have beenassessed

Thank you!

Geoff Dates

Jerry Schoen

Elizabeth Herron

Jeff Schloss

Danielle Donkersloot

Kris Stepenuck