NJ Watershed Watch Network Department of Environmental

Protection

Danielle DonkerslootVolunteer Monitoring Program Coordinator

EPA Quality ConferenceMay 2009

Presentation Overview• Introductions

• Volunteer Monitoring Community– NJ Watershed Watch Network – NJ Tiered Approach

• Key Ingredients to a Successful Program

• Data Uses

• Data Management

May 2009, EPA Quality Conference

What Exit are You From?

Great Bay, Tuckerton, NJ

Oswego River, Pine Barrens, N J

The Great Falls are the second-highest on the east coast (second only to Niagara). 

Great Falls, Paterson, NJ

Scott’s Landing Creek, Leeds Point, NJ

Introductions

• Who are you?

• Where are you from?

• Are you currently involved with volunteer monitoring?

•Population NJ 8.7 million people

•7,505 square miles

•1,134.4 persons per square mile

•18,126 miles of rivers & streams

NJ DEP’s latest evaluation 19% of the State’s Waters are fully assessed

Nationally, 19% of the nations waters are assessed

NJ Watershed Watch Network2003 survey results

• 29 River/Stream Monitoring Organizations

– 800 active river monitors

– Over $460,000 annually

• 58 Lake Monitoring Organizations

NJ Watershed Watch Network

• Internal Advisory Council – Water Monitoring & Standards– Compliance and Enforcement

– Division of Watershed Management – Office of Quality Assurance

• External Advisory Council– Riverkeepers– Watershed Associations – Volunteer Coordinators– Volunteers

Myths of Using Volunteer Collected Data

•Quality Assurance & Quality Control

•Volunteers have “hidden agendas”

•Volunteers are not scientists

Reality of Using Volunteer Collected Data

•We need more data at a higher frequency of collection

•EPA has been encouraging the use of volunteer collected

data since 1988

•Volunteers want to do it right

Potential Data Uses

• Education

• Identifying potential sources of pollution

• Local decision making

• Research

• NPS assessment

• TMDL

• Watershed planning/open space acquisition

• Monitoring the success/failure of restoration projects

• 303d & 305b Integrated Report

NJ’s 4 Tiered Approach

• Allows for volunteers to choose level of monitoring involvement based on:– Intended purpose for monitoring – Intended data use– Intended data users

Tier A-Environmental Education

Data Users

•Participants•Students•Watershed residents

•Promote stewardship•Raise their level of understanding of watershed ecology

•Low level of rigor, but use sound science•Wide variety of study designs are acceptable•Quality assurance (QA) optional

Data Use Quality Needed

Tier B-Stewardship

•Participants

•Watershed residents

•Landowners

•Local decision makers (optional)

•Understanding of existing conditions and how any changes over time

•Screen for and identify problems and positive attributes

•Low to medium rigor

•Variety of study designs is acceptable

•Training

•QAPP recommended

Data User Data Use Quality Needed

Tier C-Community &/or Watershed Assessment

•Local decision- makers

•Watershed association

•Environmental organizations

•Possibly DEP

•Assess current conditions

•Track trends

•Source track down of Nonpoint source pollution

•Medium/high level of rigor

•Data needs to reliably detect changes over time & space

•QAPP approved & on file w/ intended data user.

•Training required

Data Users Data Use Quality Needed

Tier D-Indicators & Regulatory Response

•NJDEP

•Local decision- makers

•Watershed associations

Environmental organizations

•Assess current conditions

•Supplement agency data collection

•Research

•Evaluate best management practices (BMP) measures

•Regulatory Response

•High level of rigor

•Study design & methods need to be equivalent & recognized by agencies using data

•Training required

•QAPP approved by Office of Quality Assurance & data user, annual recertification

• Audits

Data Users Data Use Quality Needed

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

Problem ID, Assess

Impairment,Local Decisions

Legal & RegulatoryEducation/Awareness

Tier A Tier A Tier B Tier B Tier C Tier C Tier DTier D

Credit to: Geoff Dates

NJDEP Data Users

•Watershed Area Managers (TIERS B,C,D)

•Water Assessment Team/Standards (TIER D)

•NPS Program (TIER C, D)

•TMDL Program (TIER B, C, D)

•Other Programs or Divisions

Quality Checks & Balances

•Quality Assurance Criteria

•QAPP or Study Design

•Program Specific Training & Support

•Individual Evaluation of Monitoring Programs

•There needs to be “translator” between volunteer community & regulatory agency

•Communication

Data Use

•Organizations need to Take Ownership of their Information

•Organizations need Guidance on Different Types of Data Use

•Sometimes it may take another person to find your story….

•share success and failures stories

•get the word out-articles, press releases

•find examples of data uses at all levels, local, state, & national

NJ Water Monitoring & Assessment Strategy 2005-2014

THE STATE’S MONITORING MATRIX

Sources of Data Used for the 2008 Draft Integrated Report

85 volunteer monitored sites were added to the Report this year

• Pequannock River Coalition• Pompeston Creek Watershed

Association• South Branch Watershed

Association• Stony Brook Millstone

Watershed Association

Sources of Data Used for the 2008 Draft Integrated Report

*Does not include 3700 shellfish stations used for Shellfish Classification

2008 Stations

69%

25%

4% 2%

NJDEP

Non DEP government

Water and Wastewaterutilities

Non-profit groups

Total of ~1 million water quality data points assessed

*

(e.g., DRBC, USGS, EPA, IEC)

AmeriCorps Data

Linda Green & Elizabeth Herron

University of RI Cooperative Extension CSREES Volunteer Water Quality National Facilitation Project

Danielle DonkerslootNew Jersey Watershed Watch

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Start with the End in Mind:

Key Ingredients for Effectively Putting Your Data to Use

Successful Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Programs are. . .• Well-organized

• Sound scientific basis

• Strong support network

• Report results

• Communication plan

• Make a difference

Well OrganizedWell Organized• Defined purpose• Develop strong partnerships

– NJ Watershed Watch Network– Good relations w/ decision-makers

• Strong leadership & coordination– Clear staff, board, & volunteer roles

• Proper scientific documentation– Calibration logs, clean functioning equipment,

audit records

• Frequent & Easy to Access Training

A Sound Scientific Basis A Sound Scientific Basis

• Clear monitoring goals and questions

• Written study design

• Clear documentation of instructions

• Scale of Monitoring Project

• QA appropriate to data use

Program Support-State & Local

• Cooperative Extension• University & High School Departments• State Natural Resources Departments• Tribal, State, County or Municipal Agencies• Soil and Water Conservation Districts• Non-profit Organizations• Interest Groups• Other volunteer monitoring programs

Program Support-Nationwide

• EPA (http://www.epa.gov/owow/)• Volunteer Monitoring Methods manuals• Volunteer Monitor Newsletter• List serve • 1997 Nat’l Directory of Volunteer Monitoring

Programs

• EPA regions • Volunteer monitoring coordinators• Equipment loan programs• QAPP guidance

Volunteer Monitoring List Serves

• volmonlists@epa.gov

• csreesvolmon@lists.uwex.edu

• exchanges archived at www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

Successful ProgramsReport and Use Their Results

Successful ProgramsReport and Use Their Results

• Data are turned into a story

• Results are reported in various ways tailored to the audience

• Information is turned into action

• Monitoring is used to assess progress and reevaluate goals

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4/1

8

5/2

5/1

6

5/3

0

6/1

3

7/6

7/1

2

7/2

4

8/1

5

8/2

9

9/1

0

9/2

6

10

/8

10

/26

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

Mesotrophic

Eutrophic

ppbCHLOROPHYLL LEVELS

Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Buttermilk Creek

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ap

ril-

01

Ju

ne

-01

Au

gu

st-

01

Octo

be

r-0

1

De

ce

mb

er-

01

Fe

bru

ary

-02

Ap

ril-

02

Ju

ne

-02

Au

gu

st-

02

Octo

be

r-0

2

De

ce

mb

er-

02

Fe

bru

ary

-03

Ap

ril-

03

Ju

ne

-03

Au

gu

st-

03

Octo

be

r-0

3

De

ce

mb

er-

03

Fe

bru

ary

-04

Ap

ril-

04

Ju

ne

-04

Au

gu

st-

04

Octo

be

r-0

4

De

ce

mb

er-

04

Nit

rate

an

d D

iss

olv

ed

Ox

yg

en

(m

g/L

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ph

os

ph

ate

an

d N

itri

te (

mg

/L)

Nitrate Dissolved Oxygen Nitrite Phosphate

Assess What is Possible Not just during the project planning phase, but throughout the

project…

• Skills and knowledge

• Potential data uses & users

• Level of commitment

• Financial resources

• Partners

Getting StartedCompile Information

• About the resource

• About the goals of the organization/community

• About current & past monitoring or research efforts

• About volunteer monitoring

Goals and Objectives• Goal – where do you want to go?

• We want to remove the old mill dam• We want to know if our kids can swim in Lake Shawnee• We want to know why we are have fish kills

• Objectives – Specific and measurable– After you find out if State WQ Standards are met– OR you may find the State does not have the data

• Benthic community, habitat assessment, sediment tests• Nutrients, DO, temp, visual survey, e. coli• Temperature, DO, benthic community, land use, flow

• Assess the need• Develop objectives• Design your program• Collect the data• Compile and manage data• Assess and interpret data• Convey results and findings• Evaluate your program

National Water Quality Monitoring Council “A Framework for Monitoring”-

Program Planning: The Framework for Monitoring

Program Monitoring/Study Design

It is the What, When, Who & How for your monitoring program.

Should flow out of the vision, goals & objectives– Should objectively reflect resources– Should include data consumers & producers

Work with your partners

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

Problem ID, Assess

Impairment,Local

Decisions

Legal & Regulatory

Education/Awareness

Match the Method to the Goals

Program Management Design

• Home organization– Tribe– Agency (state, county, local)– Non Governmental Organization– University– County Extension

• All volunteer, paid staff or combo- Dedicated staff is critical to success

Communication Plan

• Assess your audience – Different types of information appeal to

different audiences – Think about starting w/ a Focus Group

• Compile examples of reports, flyers, media campaigns that have been effective

• Work with your team of partners

Resources Available for Monitoring Programs:

You aren’t alone

Involve People in Real Science

Create Strong Partnerships

Promote Stewardship

Provide Information on Places People Enjoy that may not be Assessed by any Other Group

Identify & Solve Problems

Successful Programs Make A Difference

Volunteer Monitoring: Cost Effective – Not Cost Free

• Staff (incredibly hard-working, usually underpaid) • Field and lab equipment and supplies• Laboratory space or analytical services• Office supplies • Communication Planning• Publications• Conferences / workshops• Transportation (personnel or samples)• Insurance• Special events / volunteer recognition

Keys to Success

• Whoever is using the monitoring data – whether it’s a government agency, university or community – should provide resource assistance

• In-kind support, such as donations of technical expertise, equipment or laboratory analysis can really help keep a program going!

ALLARM

Data Exchange Problem

Macs

DEP

Paper

QAPP

electronic

Excel

Tiers?

Projects

PCs

Online Data Management System?

• Standardize, not change VM business processes

• Collect all data types based on Tier

• Make data publicly available through queries

• Provide reports including photos, geo-spatial tools

• Exchange data (of a know quality) w/ agencies, associations

NJDEP Water Monitoring and Standards

We needed expertise

• Professionals– Consultant 1-xyz– Consultant 2-abc– Consultant 3-NJDEP

• VM Program Coordinators – NJ Watershed Watch Network– NJDEP Data Collectors & Data Users– Watershed Associations

Design Solution• Input

– On-line submission- Forms or Batch files – Cut & paste from Excel– Site Selection using GIS tool– Upload attachments– System security appropriate for VM use

• Data storage at NJDEP • Output

– Raw data– Scores & Assessments– Graph Trends– GIS map

• Design user friendly

NJDEP Water Monitoring and Standards

Business Process of Project• Design

– Build• TEST

– Revise– Modify Database

• TEST– Put in Data

• TEST– Revise– Write Reports

• TEST– Revise

• Train Data Reporters

Unforeseen Issues

• Design phase too long, so…– Consultant 1 built on-line submission– Consultant 2 modified existing database– Consultant 3 writing initial reports– GIS tool upgrade during project

• Changes after design phase not addressed– New metrics emerged, protocols, etc.– Lack of funding

Project Management Difficulties

– “I am not a chemist”– “This is not the way it was supposed to work!”– “Server is down…again”– “This is not my data”– “Who’s data is this?”– “Can you say that again…Macro-what?”– “My wife is having twins…today”– “We have to test the system”– “Hmm what an I reviewing again”– “Define a bug verses an enhancement again please?”

Language BarriersProgrammers vs. Biologists

• Learning curve for us– XML? Schema? OWWQX? NAD83?

• Learning curve for them– Data with different levels of rigor– What’s a family tolerance value– Volunteers are not a regulated community

• Words you think you understand– Net, Table, Mapping, Raw Data, Testing,

Reports

NJDEP Water Monitoring and Standards

E2

• Volunteer & AmeriCorps collected data is currently going into E2 for public use– DataMiner– Geo-web

• Finally up and running….5 years beyond original deadline….– 1000’s of data points entered to date…even

on streams we did not know existed

Data Mgt/Exchange Conclusion• Building a data management & exchange system for

VM data requires– Flexible System– Clear Project Design– Partners – Initial Budget + Annual Maintenance Budget (40% +

more than what we thought was needed)– Clear Goals – Training data producers & consumers– Translator– Full Time Support Help– Sense of Humor and Optimism

Is it worth it?

Using Independent Sector’s estimate $18.04 an hour, a standard measurement for the value of a volunteer’s time, the value of the 8.2 billion hours annually donated by Americans equates to $147.6 billion, a powerful economic impact of volunteering to the entire nation.

Youth Adult Konnections, August 30, 2006

Is it worth it?

The NJ volunteer monitoring community provides the Department with:

$780,000 annual in services by collecting water monitoring information

$1.15 million including watershed and water monitoring education

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

--Margaret Mead

NJ Watershed Watch Network

Danielle Donkersloot, Program Manager

609-633-9241

Danielle.donkersloot@dep.state.nj.us