Author: kstepenu

Categories
Listserv

Total Dissolved Solids Meters

Question 1: I’m looking at Total Dissolved Solids portable meters and wondered what experience folks have had with them as far as durability, etc.

Question 2: Does anyone have any experience and advise on which total dissolved solids meters are the best ones to use?

Question 1

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:18:00 -0600
From: Steven Witmer
Subject: [volmonitor] Total Dissolved Solids – meters

Hello all,

I’m looking at Total Dissolved Solids portable (preferably “pocket”) meters and wondered what experience folks have had with them as far as durability, cost, accuracy, etc. I’m looking for something that is inexpensive (of course) but yet accurate enough to be worthwhile and durable enough for field use. I’ve seen price ranges from as low as around $20, while others are more like ten times that and everything in between. I’d hate to go cheap and end up with something that won’t serve it’s purpose or last more than a week, but on the other hand I’d rather not spend a lot of money if there is something cheaper that will do just about as well.

Feel free to respond to the list – I’m sure others out there would be interested as well. If there are any comments on field meters generally regardless of parameter, I’d be happy to see those, too.

Thanks,
Steven Witmer

Responses to Question 1

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:03:38 -0500
From: Ginger North
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Total Dissolved Solids – meters

Steve – We have used several different conductivity meters over the years & the ones we are using now are easy to use, reliable, not as accurate as some but sturdy in field conditions & wide temperature ranges. They are Oakton brand & come in Total Dissolved Solids readout as well as conductivity & for an extra $20 you can get temperature readout as well. The ones we use are about $55 & handheld “pocket” meters. We have been only using them for the past 2 years so I am not sure about their lifespan as yet. Some of the meters we have used in the past only have a limited lifespan – 3 or 4 years. At $55 we can afford to replace them after a few years however. They only read in increments of 10uS for the low range (0-1990uS) which is plenty sensitive for our purposes. Oakton ECTestr Low is model we use. The TDS model is called TDStestr Low (0-1990ppm)resolution is 10ppm & TDSTestr High (0-10ppt).
Ginger North
Stream Watch Coordinator
Delaware Nature Society
302-239-2334×100
Fax 302-239-2473
ginger@dnsashland.org
www.delawarenaturesociety.org

 

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:51:07 -0600
From: Steven Witmer
Subject: [volmonitor] TDS meter response

I thought I’d share the results of my query to the group for TDS portable meters. I got several responses on and off the list, and all of them pointed me toward Oakton low-range models, and most recommended the waterproof models especially. Cost on them (based on the responses and from online browsing I’ve done) runs around $60 or so.

My thanks to everyone who shared their comments!

Steven Witmer

Question 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Wilderman, Candie wrote:

We are currently developing a protocol for volunteer monitors to be watchdogs for impact from Marcellus shale gas development activities in PA. As part of that protocol, we would like to measure Total Dissolved Solids, using one of the many small TDS meters (which actually measure conductivity) that are now on the market.

Does anyone have any experience and advise on which ones are the best ones to use, considering both accuracy/precision and ease of calibration/use? We would like to spend less than $100 per meter. What would be the most important features to consider in making this choice?

Any advise would be greatly appreciated! If folks would like, I’d be happy to compile responses and post.

Candie Wilderman
Founder and Science Director
Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM)
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA 17011
717.245.1573

Responses to Question 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Chris Riggert wrote:

Hi Candie,

We have used a couple of TDS/conductivity pens over the years with the MO Stream Team’s VWQM. The first pen was a ‘TDS’ pen, but as you accurately surmised, it was really measuring conductivity and doing a mathematical calculation to provide the reading. About 10 years ago we switched to the Pocket Pal Conductivity Tester from Hach (# 2686601, $67.89). When these pens worked, they worked very well, and were relatively inexpensive. However:
– they were a bear to calibrate because of the placement of the calibration screw (on the back of the pen…opposite the LCD readout),
– they were very jumpy (couldn’t have ANY metal around, including jewelry, notebook rings, etc.),
– and overall, we ended up replacing a lot of ‘bad’ pens.
– Additionally, despite claims, they were not waterproof, so if submerged too deeply into the water…well, you can guess how well they functioned after that.

With this in mind we began testing other products that were both affordable, but still met our acceptability limits. About 5-6 years ago, we decided to switch to the Oakton Conductivity Tester from Hach (#2845500, $81.39). Yes, they run about $15 more than the Pocket Pal model, but they are a much better pen.
– They are MUCH easier to calibrate (push buttons under the battery cap),
– has a ‘hold’ button allowing you to take your reading and hold it making it easier to read without standing on your head in the water,
– has an auto-shutoff (saves tons on replacement batteries),
– are waterproof (with rubber O-rings preventing water from entering circuitry),
– has a replaceable tip/probe preventing the replacement of the entire pen (Hach # 2845900, $51.25).
– it comes in its own plastic box that you can put a little silica pack in during storage to help prevent rusting of the probes.
– One thing to keep in mind is that the probes are coated with a thin layer of oil to prevent rusting during storage, so this must be cleaned off prior to using (easily done with rubbing alcohol and a cotton ball).

The long and short of it is we are happy to have made the switch to the Oakton pens. They test well, are ‘relatively’ inexpensive, are much easier to calibrate and use, I believe we are getting better data because of it, and saving money in the long run b/c we are replacing fewer pens.

Hope this helps!!
Chris

Christopher M. Riggert
Stream Team Program
Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Coordinator
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
2901 W. Truman Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
Phone: (573) 522-4115 ext. 3167
Fax: (573) 526-0990
Chris.Riggert@mdc.mo.gov
www.mostreamteam.org

 

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM, ginger north wrote:

Candie – We too have been using the Oakton TDSTestr for about 7 or 8 years – different models as they update them we now use the model #11 and we have had no problems with them at all. They are very easy to use and very stable as Chris mentioned. So I would second that recommendation.
Ginger North
Science Science Coordinator
Delaware Nature Society
PO Box 700
Hockessin, DE 19707
www.delawarenaturesociety.org
ginger@delawarenaturesociety.org
302-239-2334 ext. 100

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Revital Katznelson wrote:

I also found that the Oakton conductivity and TDS meters worked well. However, one of their models had a very thick layer of plastic around the thermistor, and the temperature (which affects the temperature-compensated reading) took a long time to equilibrate. As I recall, I added a sentence about this to the Clean Water Team’s SOP-3.1.3.1 (available at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_guidance.shtml )

Revital
510 406 8514

From: Bonani Madikizela
To: “csreesvolmon-bounces@lists.uwex.edu” , ‘Volunteer water monitoring’
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:18:32 +0200
Subject: FW: Somerset Water Kits

Good day volunteers !

In South Africa I ‘m busy implementing a voluntary monitoring programme, called Adopt a River. Indeed I ‘m looking at simply tools for the public participation and school kids. I haveMalcom Beech of Somerset Water Kits. I strongly believe that he can answer your questions regarding electrical conductivity, which can also be broadly calculated to estimate TDS.

Enjoy your fun days in the field, we do so in South Africa !

Regards

Dik’s

Mr Bonani Madikizela
Research Manager
Water Research Commission
Private Bag X03, Gezina, 0031, South Africa
Email: bonanim@wrc.org.za
Tel: +27 12 330 9021
Fax: +27 12 331 2565
Cell: +0832907238

From: Zagry Scholtz
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: Bonani Madikizela
Subject: FW: Somerset Water Kits

fyi

From: Malcom Beech [mbeech@isat.co.za]
Sent: 03 February 2010 05:40 PM
To: Zagry Scholtz
Subject: Somerset Water Kits

Dear Zagry

 

Thank you for your valued enquiry today regarding the water testing kits we supply.

We have shipped off to you a Microlife Water Quality Testing Kit plus a Microlife Water Field Kit, to assist you in establishing which kit would better serve your needs for this project.

Attached please find our catalogue (1.3 MB odf file), in which I kindly refer you to page 19 for details on the two kits.

I look forward to your feedback.

With kind regards

Malcolm

Malcolm Beech
Managing Director
Somerset Educational (Pty) Ltd
Tel : 042 – 243 2030
Fax : 042 – 243 2746
Cell : 082 314 3567

Categories
Listserv

Toxins and Emerging Pollutant Monitoring

Question

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:32:15 -0500
From: John Murphy

Dear Colleagues,
I would appreciate information about community-based stream/river monitoring groups who collect data on toxins, metals, persistent organic pollutants, and emerging pollutants — both sediment-borne and in the water column. I am just beginning to explore the feasibility of doing this with my program in central Virginia.
Thank you in advance for any info you can provide.
John Murphy
Director, StreamWatch
434-242-1145
P.O. Box 181, Ivy, VA Â 22945
www.streamwatch.org

Responses

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:49:47 -0500
From: Marcus Griswold

Hi John,
This can become quite expensive. Unless you are collecting storm event samples, your sediment samples will be better indicators of historic and current pollutants. Are you collecting biological samples at the same time? If you have thoughts on specific chemicals from a polluter, that might be cheaper. I would try to collaborate with a university if possible since they may have the equipment to analyze the samples. The problem with sediment sampling is that it can be highly variable over a short distance and you may need many samples. I would also look into any samples USGS may have collected in your area.
Good Luck
Marcus

 

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:56:23 -0500
From: John Murphy
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Toxins, Emerging Pollutants

Hi Marcus,
Thank you for this advice. I am fairly familiar with the challenges of this kind of sampling–though I have lot to learn about some technical details. Your suggestions are well noted.
But do you know of some community-based groups, including groups w/ significant volunteer participation, who perform this kind of monitoring?
Cheers,
John

 

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:21:32 -0500
From: Zevin.Paula@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Toxins, Emerging Pollutants

To add to what Marcus said, you could also check with your state agency and EPA Region 3 to see if there are any data available for the area.
Paula Zevin
Division of Environmental Science and Assessment
Monitoring and Assessment Branch/MOS
U.S.E.P.A. – Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-220
Edison, NJ 08837
Tel.: (732) 321-4456
Fax: (732) 321-6616
zevin.paula@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region02/monitor/

 

John,
I concur with Paula and Marcus, and would like to add a couple of suggestions:
1. If you decide to sample sediments (because the water comes and goes, but the sediment remembers), you will have a better chance of detecting anything (particularly DDTs and PCBs) if you (a) focus on fine sediments; (b) create a composite sample from several areas of fine sediment deposition.
2. As for water samples, here in California we find very little of anything in dry weather base flow, but when we analyze water samples collected during the first storm of the rainy season we find too much. Stormwater runoff collection is logistically complex, but working with a large group of dedicated volunteers allows you to sample at multiple places at the same time. Our experience and findings have been summarized in the Russian River First Flush 2002 Summary Report, which you can find at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/publications_and_forms/available_documents/
There are several follow-up studies reported recently by the Russian Riverkeeper group at
http://www.russianriverkeeper.org/
and many other studies, including the First Flush 2000, reported by the Monterey Bay Volunteer Monitoring Network at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/monitoringnetwork/events.html
Good luck,
Revital
==================
Revital Katznelson, Ph.D.
Environmental Scientist
Berkeley, California
revitalk@sbcglobal.net
510 406 8514

Categories
Listserv

Train the Trainer

Question

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:06:41 -0500
From: Jo Latimore
Subject: [volmonitor] Training volunteers to train others

Hello!
Here in Michigan we are working on a “Train the Trainer” type program for our statewide volunteer lake monitoring program. Up to this point, we have held a single, centrally located, required training event for the entire state each year. Every year, without exception, there are interested individuals who would like to volunteer, but cannot make it to the training event. Sometimes program staff can meet with them individually to provide training, but that is often not possible.

To keep us from losing those interested individuals, we are planning a new program to train some of our more experienced volunteers to be “Volunteer Mentors” around the state. These trained Mentors would then be available to train new volunteers in their area on an “as needed” basis. We plan to continue the statewide central training event, just using these Mentors to train individuals who can’t make it to the event.

Have other programs attempted/succeeded with such an effort? Any thoughts, comments or lessons learned would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-Jo
Jo A. Latimore, Ph.D.
Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
13 Natural Resources
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 432-1491
latimor1@msu.edu

Responses

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:15:02 -0700
From: “Horn, Barb”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Training volunteers to train others

Yes—but you have to accept the change in YOUR resource output as well. If you were doing side trainings to train these folks (outside your one training) then this model of might save you time..but if you are not, and it doesn’t seem you are –you are ADDING another training to your time. The trade off is perhaps more folks trained than you could train, but is it will be an increase in training for you. You will still have your annual event. T-T-T is a great model if you support the Trainers..you have to have training for them, that includes how they would train others like you would and ways to test their training if you will. If you choose to train them one at a time, that is not likely efficient. So they will need to come to a training likely anyhow. In the end if you do all you can to have trainings at a variety of times/locations and it means enough to them they will find a way to come, otherwise they may not be worth the investment. Good luck, hope this made sense.
Barb Horn
Water Resource Specialist
Colorado Division of Wildlife
151 E 16th Ave
Durango, CO 81301
Vc: 970.382.6667
Fx: 970.247.4785

 

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:29:30 -0500
From: “Schenk, Ann”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Training volunteers to train others

Concur with Barb Horn that the trainers will have to be supported. But you know that.
Suggest you have the prospective trainers actually do the training at your next annual session after having them meet the day before at a special “train the trainers” session. They then get experience actually doing the training, and your get the confidence that they are doing it correctly. They should then have access to your staff for additional questions that may arise, and hard copies of training materials.
Any public acknowledgement, like listing in web sites and publications, will also increase the likelihood of getting a long-term commitment to quality training. These trainers are special people, and should be treated special.
Ann Schenk
Natural Resource Biologist III
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Ave., C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
phone: 410-260-8609

 

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:51:22 -0800
From: Eleanor Ely
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Training volunteers to train others

There is brief information about Alabama Water Watch’s training of trainers in the Winter 2005 issue of The Volunteer Monitor, page 6. (For this and other back issues see www.epa.gov/owow/volunteer/vm_index.html).
Eleanor Ely
Editor, The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
50 Benton Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94112

 

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:11:19 -0600
From: Chris Riggert
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Training volunteers to train others

We tried this in Missouri several years ago…with mixed success. We really liked the idea of having additional trainers to theoretically cut staff time by reducing the number of Program staff needed at each of the regular trainings (we usually hold 25-30 trainings a year, of differing levels, all over the state…and nearly all on weekends).

The TTT training was set up at a central location, and we never had issues with people not showing up. The individuals that attended were other agency staff as well as very dedicated volunteer monitors. Here are some initial suggestions:

1) I would suggest you don’t have an “open training,” but rather target specific individuals with which you have built relationships and have a handle on how they relate to people, what “teaching” skills to they have, etc.

2) I would also highly recommend you think long and hard about how these individuals would be utilized. Draft a summary of expectations, rules/guidelines, etc. ahead of time. Be up front with these individuals on all of this.

3) I am not sure what information you have set for this type of training, but be sure to spend time on the “logistics” of putting on this kind of training. What needs to be done ahead of time, what is done the “day of,” how the workshop should be run, paying attention to the time required for the presentations, and then the inevitable post-workshop aftermath.

As eluded to above we still wanted at least one Program staff there as to answer questions, handle the “day of logistics,” haul the training materials, equipment provided. It also gave us a first hand evaluation of these trained trainers. What we found was other agency staff (Conservation Dept. and Natural Resources) tended to be more dependable when it came time to teach…both on being there, as well as what was said. But there were also issues of them receiving “permission” to do this from their supervisors…sad, but true.

As for the volunteer trainers, most are VERY good at collecting and reporting the data. However, teaching in the classroom was a different ballgame. Additionally, several of these volunteers began to schedule their “own” training sessions. Our policy is that we will only accept data from those that have attended our workshops (for QAQC reasons). So when we began receiving data from individuals that we didn’t have listed as taking a workshop, we made a lot of phone calls telling these individuals that while we appreciated their passion, we could not accept their data for these QAQC reasons. Or, we’d get wind of a training that we had not scheduled and tried to get a staff member there so it would “count.” It got to be such a hassle, and was actually costing us more staff time, we quit doing this. Now, some of this blame can be placed on ourselves. We were probably not as clear with some of this information as we should have been. Combine this with some passionate volunteers and it was a recipe for failure.

Additionally, we were not willing to “give up” control of these lower level of trainings because we felt strongly that this was the foundation on which the other levels of training were based. We did not want to waste time “re-teaching” what should have been learned at the entry level of training. Let me be clear that I don’t believe this was a wasted effort. We did end up with some excellent trained trainers that we still use today (both volunteers and other agency staff). However, it wasn’t worth the amount of effort put forth for the relatively small percentage of successes. The other individuals still have valuable talents that we try to utilize. For example, rather than having them assist the classroom teaching, we invite them to give us a hand during the field portion of our workshops, as well as point them out as potential mentors for new monitors. This has been more successful, but requires some very good “people skills.” The key is not to offend them by not inviting them to teach in the classroom. I am probably not telling you anything you didn’t already know, but these were the hard lessons we learned. We haven’t totally abandoned the idea of this TTT workshop. It is one of the many things cooking on the “back burner.” But it would need to be re-written, we will be much more selective on who we invite to these trainings, etc. I wish you luck, and do not hesitate to give me a shout if you have any additional questions!

Chris
Christopher M. Riggert
Stream Team Program
Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Coordinator
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
2901 W. Truman Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
Phone: (573) 522-4115 ext. 3167
Fax: (573) 526-0990
Chris.Riggert@mdc.mo.gov
www.mostreamteam.org

“In the end, we will conserve only what we love, love only what we understand, and understand only what we are taught.” — Baba Dioum, Ecologist

 

Categories
Listserv

Understanding Data Results

Question 1: What do the data from several drainage ways mean?  How can I evaluate it?

Question 2: What are the implications of biological impairment (beyond wildlife and stream biology itself)?

Question 3: Any comments regarding relating biological metrics to stressors would be greatly appreciated.

Question 1

I have several years of data from several drainage ways in the City of Arlington Texas. What does the data mean? How can I evaluate it? What is good water quality? Should I change my monitoring program to collect more or less data?

Where is a good guide to evaluating the data collected with a volunteer monitoring program? Evaluating the data in terms of is the water quality good or bad improving or declining etc.

Responses to Question 1

Hello Robert:

I thought I would address a few of your questions regarding the drainage way data your have. Obviously without having the data itself all I can do is direct you to resources for helping you evaluate the information you have.

I’m sure you have already done this, but the first step would be to look at the water quality standards as identified by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wqstand/index.html#copies). These are generally in a narrative form, but do provide some numbers for dissolved oxygen for you to compare your data against. These standards will also help you to determine if your monitoring program is focusing on those parameters for which there are criteria, and if not, perhaps you can consider adding some of these parameters.

The best source for identifying water quality criteria on the federal level is USEPA (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/). This site will give you access to criteria for a wide range of parameters including biological, chemical and microbiological. Also look for the Texas nutrient criteria information at (http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wqstand/ncdawg.html).

Three other sources for assessing volunteer generated stream data are the USEPA Volunteer Stream Monitoring Manual (available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/), River Network’s Living Waters document (http://www.rivernetwork.org/lw/) and Washington (State) Dept of Ecology’s A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/index.html).

In terms of your monitoring program – the biggest question is to ask what your goals are, and whether the program is meeting those? Our factsheet Designing Your Monitoring Strategy… (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/csreesvolmon/Outreach/DesigningYourStrategy.pdf) may help you to determine that, as well as direct you to other resources.

If you have any questions after reviewing these sources, I would recommend contacting the TNRC and/or water quality experts at Texas Cooperative Extension. Also we would be happy to take another stab at answering some specific questions about the data or your monitoring program. Good luck!

 

Elizabeth Herron

Program Coordinator

URI Watershed Watch

Phone: 401-874-4552

Fax: 401-874-4561

Web: http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/

Question 2

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:25:43 -0500
From: John Murphy
Subject: [volmonitor] Biological Impairment – So What?

November 16, 2008
Dear Fellow Monitors and Monitoring Program Coordinators,
Our program here in Central Virginia is six years old, and we’ve achieved a high level of credibility in our community. Few doubt the accuracy of our data or the veracity of our finding that most local streams fail to meet the Virginia benthic standard. But the question arising now is “what are the implications of biological impairment (beyond wildlife and stream biology itself)?”. Some quarters of the community want to know whether there are human economic or health implications.
I have not formally researched this question, and, in a sense, this post to EPA Volmon is an initiation of research. But I have a working familiarity with at least some of the literature, and my sense so far is that the correlations between biological impairment and direct, “first order” human health and economic costs are moderate, not strong. Streams that are badly biologically impaired, for instance, may often be non-swimmable, but streams that are moderately biologically impaired are often A-OK for recreation. Similarly, I am unaware of findings that show a strong correlation between biological condition and water treatment costs.
In our community, most streams are moderately biologically impaired, and some sectors of the community don’t find this alarming. If you would care to comment or direct me to literature addressing this issue, I would be grateful.
—
John Murphy
Director, StreamWatch
Office 434-923-8642
Cell 434-242-1145
johnmurphy@streamwatch.org
www.streamwatch.org

Responses to Question 2

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:20:00 -0600
From: Danelle Haake
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Biological Impairment – So What?

John,
The implications of biological impairments are as varied as the streams that we monitor. To really know the human health implications, the economic losses to the community (recreational value, fishing), or the economics of remediating the system, we must know what is causing the biological impairment (or at least have a good idea). Possibly a fish kill several years ago removed resident fish species and a dam or culvert is preventing repopulation. Excess road salt may have washed into the stream, causing chronically or acutely toxic conditions. Excessive erosion from agricultural fields or construction sites may have filled pools and interstitial spaces, removing vital habitat. These examples would have minimal human health impacts, though they may decimate the aquatic community. Or the causes could be toxic conditions (e.g., excessive pesticides, human releases of hormones and pharmaceuticals, heavy metals) or pathogens. These could have human health implications. I’ve used the EPA Stressor Identification protocol (an adapted version) to identify causes of impairments in Iowa streams. There will be an upcoming issue of the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) dedicated to stressor ID case studies. Let me know if you would like furter information.

Danelle Haake
Deer Creek Consulting, LLC
www.deercreekconsultingllc.com
River des Peres Watershed Coalition
www.riverdesperes.org

 

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:42:14 -0600
From: “Clayton, Christopher R – DNR”

John and All,
Here’s a link to a review of recent research linking economic cost and eutrophication of surface waters nationwide:
Economic damages from nutrient pollution create a “toxic debt”
A U.S. analysis of nutrient pollution in freshwater reveals annual losses of at least $4 billion, mostly from dips in lakefront property values and loss of recreational use.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/html/es803044n.html
Click on the second link in the review text to get a copy of the study. By the way, the study addresses several costs, including the treatment of drinking water.
Chris

Chris Clayton
Coordinator
Citizen Based Stream Monitoring
River Alliance of Wisconsin and WDNR
306 E. Wilson, 2W
Madison, WI 53703
608/257-2424 x120

 

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:31:42 -0500
From: Simon Gruber
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Biological Impairment – So What?

This is a very important topic and question. I don’t have any specific information at hand. I believe that while it may not be well documented in controlled scientific studies, it is prudent and rational to base management and restoration policies on an assumption that there is a direct link between the health of stream biota and of people who live with and near these resources, and of people who live downstream. This approach follows the precautionary principle, which is apparently a guiding framework in other countries (especially parts of Europe) but less so in the US. This principle places the burden of proof on claims that something is safe, rather than requiring a demonstration of harm before taking action. This viewpoint should also apply to economic values and impacts. Initiatives to monitor and protect ambient water quality will definitely be strengthened and their usefulness improved through stronger links between the water quality sector and organizations and people working on public health issues. If anyone has any information or contacts on existing partnerships along these lines please share.

Simon Gruber

 

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:49:42 +1300
From: Phil
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Biological Impairment – So What?

I’ve hesitated to respond to this but there are important concepts involved.
We protect the environment to protect ourselves, not due to a sense of altruism or good nature. Declining environmental quality is indicated by biological impairment in streams, although the ultimate source can be industry, agriculture, storm water or other source of contaminants. But when we see deterioration in streams, we are getting proof of system decline. This proof is needed to get action from the vested interests causing the problem. Without proof of impact, the people behind the sources can’t really be forced to clean up.

Phil Ross
New Zealand

 

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:51:38 -0500
From: John Murphy

Dear VolMon Colleagues,

A few weeks back I submitted a post entitled “Biological Impairment – So What?” in which I noted that our monitoring program in Central Virginia is prompting some community members to ask about the implications of biological degradation. (Full text of my post is pasted to the end of this email). I asked VolMon members to comment on or give examples of economic and health correlates of biological impairment. I received a number of interesting responses; the digest below captures representative examples. I have slotted the excerpts into two categories: “QUANTITATIVE” and “QUALITTIVE”. One respondent provided some references which are also pasted below.

The VolMon authors didn’t necessarily send their posts to the whole listserv, so I don’t give their names here.

Thank you for your thoughts and information!

John Murphy
StreamWatch
Charlottesville, Virginia

*****************

QUANTITATIVE

1) An often cited example, which comes from the Chichilnisky and Heal 1998 paper (see REFERENCES below) is the comparison between the cost of technological replacements for the provision of clean, safe drinking water in one watershed (Catskill watershed, New York). Costs for water treatment were estimated at US$6-8 billion, leading municipalities to purchase the entire watershed to perform this ecosystem service for US$1-1.5 billion instead.

2) Lands in permanent vegetative cover have been estimated to reduce the cost of filtering sediment in municipal drinking water by $5.60 per hectare per year, and phosphorus reduction costs by $23.30 per hectare per year.

3) Economic damages from nutrient pollution create a “toxic debt”
A U.S. analysis of nutrient pollution in freshwater reveals annual losses of at least $4 billion, mostly from dips in lakefront property values and loss of recreational use.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/html/es803044n.html

Click on the link in the review text to get a copy of the study. By the way, the study addresses several costs, including the treatment of drinking water.

*********************

QUALITATIVE

1) The implications of biological impairments are as varied as the streams that we monitor. To really know the human health implications, the economic losses to the community (recreational value, fishing), or the economics of remediating the system, we must know what is causing the biological impairment (or at least have a good idea). Possibly a fish kill several years ago removed resident fish species and a dam or culvert is preventing repopulation. Excess road salt may have washed into the stream, causing chronically or acutely toxic conditions. Excessive erosion from agricultural fields or construction sites may have filled pools and interstitial spaces, removing vital habitat. These examples would have minimal human health impacts, though they may decimate the aquatic community. Or the causes could be toxic conditions (e.g., excessive pesticides, human releases of hormones and pharmaceuticals, heavy metals) or pathogens. These could have human health implications.

2) . . . it is prudent and rational to base management and restoration policies on an assumption that there is a direct link between the health of stream biota and of people who live with and near these resources, and of people who live downstream. This approach follows the precautionary principle, which is apparently a guiding framework in other countries (especially parts of Europe) but less so in the US. This principle places the burden of proof on claims that something is safe, rather than requiring a demonstration of harm before taking action. This viewpoint should also apply to economic values and impacts.
*************

REFERENCES
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg,K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.

Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daily, G.C., T. Soderquist, S. Aniyar, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, P.R. Ehrlich, C. Folke, A.M. Jansson, B.O. Jansson, N. Kautsky, S. Levin, J. Lubchenco, K.G. Maler, S. David,D. Starrett, D. Tilman, and B. Walker. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289:395-396.

Chichilnisky, G. and G. Heal. 1998. Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature 391:629-630.

—
John Murphy
Director, StreamWatch
Office 434-923-8642
Cell 434-242-1145
johnmurphy@streamwatch.org
www.streamwatch.org

 

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:02:39 -0500
From: Simon Gruber

John, Thanks for compiling these responses. One clarification: the Catskill watershed example cited, which is part of NY City’s water supply system, is indeed a major example of watershed protection as an alternative to filtration. But while this watershed protection program does include outright acquisition of significant land areas (only from willing sellers, on a voluntary basis), the majority of the land area in the watershed is still privately owned. The watershed protection and filtration avoidance program has many other components designed to protect water quality, with land acquisition being just one. Based on progress during the first 10 years, EPA recently renewed and extended the filtration avoidance determination for another 10 years. The dollar figure you listed, somewhere over $1B, is the cost of all the measures implemented by the City, state and other entities for land acquisition, upgrade of wastewater systems, stormwater management, come economic development assistance in the watershed, agricultural best practices, and other measures. Simon Gruber

Question 3

Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:24:56 -0400
From: John Murphy
Subject: [volmonitor] relating biological metrics to specific stressors

Colleagues-

Our stream monitoring program in central Virginia is looking into the feasibility of employing benthic data to indicate presence and effect intensity of specific stressors (e.g. sediment). Karr and others allude to biomonitoring’s application in this vein, but I have not encountered a guidance document. We are aware of some of the general theoretical relationships between taxa and stressors (e.g.hydropsychidae and excess fine particulate organic matter), but, again, we are not aware of published literature we can pull off the shelf and use to guide an analysis. We’ll be exploring the literature, but I thought it would also make sense to post the question here.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

John Murphy

John Murphy, Director
StreamWatch
streamwatch@cstone.net
office: (434) 923-8642
cell: (434) 242-1145
www.streamwatch.org

Responses to Question 3

Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:02:28 -0400
From: “J. Kelly Nolan, Capital Region Coordinator”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] relating biological metrics to specific stressors

Hello John- NYS DEC uses a community similarity method called Impact Source Determination (ISD) to determine the most likely stressor that may be occurring at a site. They have developed several models which help determine the most likely stressor that may be occurring at a site. One of the stressors is siltation. I now determine ISD for all my biomonitoring surveys.

There is a book titled Biological Response Signatures and the EPA has a written discussion on it at this web site:
http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/brsig.html

You can also find the book at Amazon.com

I hope this helps and perhaps we can talk more about this at the macroinvertebrate workshop in February.

Kelly

 

Alice Mayio
Volunteer water monitoring
10/11/2005 10:15

John,

EPA’s Office of Science and Technology published a guidance document a few years ago, the Stressor Identification Guidance Document (EPA 822-B-00-025).

It’s available on the web at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.html

(this page has a fact sheet and a link to the pdf file) and (if it seems to be what you need) you should also be able to order a hard copy from EPA’s Water Resource Center at center.water-resouce@epa.gov.

This would appear to be what you’re looking for.

Alice Mayio
USEPA (4503T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-1184

Street Address for visitors/deliveries:
EPA West
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Room 7424B
Washington, DC 20004

 

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:22:23 -0400
From: Toth.David@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] relating biological metrics to specific stressors

Dear Alice,

The document “Stressor Identification Guidance Document”, 822/B-00/025
can also be ordered from www.epa.gov/nscep.

David Toth

 

From: ANNE MILLER

Below is the link to the USGS publication regarding aquatic
macroinvertebrates and nutrients.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1722/

In case the link doesn’t work, the publication is “Nutrient Concentrations and Their Relations to the Biotic Integrity of Wadeable Streams in Wisconsin” by Dale M. Robertson1, David J. Graczyk, Paul J. Garrison, Lizhu Wang, Gina LaLiberte, and Roger Bannerman. USGS Publication 1772.

Anne

Categories
Listserv

Uses of Volunteer Monitoring Data

Question 1: I am interested in examples of how volunteer monitoring data is being used by local and state agencies.

Question 2: How do volunteer monitoring groups use their data?

Question 3: Would any of you happen to have any examples of how volunteer data have been used by state and/or federal agencies for 305(b) reports or 303(d) lists?

Question 4: Do you know of or are you a part of a government agency that refuses to use volunteer collected data? If so, what are the reasons for that? Or, what are your biggest concerns or problems with trying to get your volunteer collected data used by government agencies?

Question 1

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:52:35 -0400
From: Jessica Thompson
Subject: [volmonitor] Questions regarding uses of volunteer monitoring

I am interested in examples of how volunteer monitoring data is being used by local and state agencies. Particulary for activities beyond public outreach, such as decision making, law enforcement, etc. If you have knowledge of an active or planned program using this sort of data, please respond with basic information, such as the following.

Are you using volunteer monitoring data for any purpose beyond citizen outreach and education? If so, what is it being used for? Do you think it would possible to use this data for implementation of the Clean Water Act, such as water body classification?

What are some details of the structure of the program, such as budget, amount of staff, sampling protocols used, training materials used, overall numbers of volunteers? What kind of data are the citizens collecting (basic field parameters, other water quality data, biological data)?

How long has the program been in existence? Do you have any specific success stories? Was there significant resistance to the program at the start, either within local and state agencies, or by the community?

Thanks very much for your help.

Jessica Thompson
jess_thompson@alumni.duke.edu
River Alliance of Wisconsin
www.wisconsinrivers.org

Responses to Question 1

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:56:44 -0400
From: URI Watershed Watch
Subject: [volmonitor] RE: Questions regarding uses of volunteer monitoring

Jessica:
For some good success stories of how volunteer data has been used beyond education and outreach I’d suggest checking out The Volunteer Monitor newsletter issue with that title (http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/summer02/volmon.pdf) Our program has a story included in there, and we are fortunate that the URI Watershed Watch data enjoys a wide range of uses.

It is directly incorporated into the RI Department of Environmental Management’s water quality database, and is used for waterbody classification through the State of RI Waters report (305B report) and to identify impaired waters (303 D list). Our volunteer generated data is sought by DEM personnel and consultants for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), environmental impact and other studies, including follow-up monitoring after the implementation of best management practices, etc. To our knowledge the data has not, nor would we want it to be used directly for law enforcement purposes. Rather the data has helped better target follow-up monitoring by enforcement agencies. The data has also been used to justify changes in local ordinances such as the development of special areas of protection, waste water ordinances, and prohibition of the feeding of waterfowl (which has now gone statewide)

This has been accomplished over more than a decade (program started in 1988) and with a lot of hard work by our staff (2 full-time employees, many students) and the many hundreds of volunteers that have participated – with approximately 300 currently active on more than 200 sites statewide. For more information about our program I invite you to check out our website (http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/ click on Watershed Watch). The site includes our monitoring manuals, as well as linkages to some of our partners. I’d also be happy to discuss our program to help answer the remainder of your questions.

To learn more about other similar programs I’d suggest checking out our website for the National Facilitation of Cooperative Extension Volunteer Monitoring – and especially the factsheet on Why Monitoring Makes Sense (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/csreesvolmon/).

Good luck,
Elizabeth Herron
URI Watershed Watch
Phone: 401-874-4552
Fax: 401-874-4561
Web: http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/

Question 2

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:07:32 -0400
From: Joan Martin
Subject: RE:[volmonitor] How does your group make use of your data?

How do volunteer monitoring groups use their data? We have often heard
group leaders focusing on finding out how they can get the State or
other authority to “use” or accept their data, but that attitude seems
to us to omit the value that comes from making your own use of your
data.

We would be very interested in the methods that volunteer groups have of
using their data to protect their river or lake.

Thanks,
-Joan Martin
Huron River Watershed Council
(734) 769-5971

Question 2 Responses

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:34:32 -0400
From: “Snyder, Cheryl”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] How does your group make use of your data?
Joan and others,

I have responded to everyone since you all may find this information useful.

Data use and data users are probably the two most important topics that volunteer groups should address when setting up a monitoring program. I coordinate Pennsylvania DEP’s Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program, and we strive to have groups monitor for their own reason and not necessarily to have DEP use the data. If the volunteers want to work with us to meet some of our needs, we will gladly do that. However, we stress the importance of developing a study design before actually monitoring so that the groups can determine why they are monitoring and what their goals are. Data use and data users should be addressed in the study design. This 10-step study design process addresses the who’s, what’s, when’s, where’s and why’s of monitoring. The resulting study design (monitoring plan) can then be used to guide the group to meet their monitoring needs.

We have had a number of groups participate in some of our programs including our bacteria monitoring, watershed monitoring and lake monitoring programs and then move beyond the scope of our programs to pursue use of their data on their own. Other groups have attended study design workshops and then pursued data use on their own. Still others work with service providers to meet their needs. They all took the initiative to develop partnerships to reach their goals. Here are just a few examples of groups who took the next step and pursued data use on their own to protect water resources.

Watershed Associations have worked with their local municipalities to help monitor and protect local water resources including areas in the Poconos which is one of the fastest developing areas in Pennsylvania.

Two county Senior Environment Corps, developed in partnership with EASI, have pursued local data use. One partners with local watershed groups, the county conservation district and DEP to work on coal mining remediation projects. The second works with the City of Philadelphia by monitoring waterways for bacteria and helping the City pinpoint areas to check for leaking sanitary sewer lines that are contaminating the waterways.

A Watershed Association in southeastern Pennsylvania has worked in the Upper Chester Creek Partnership to monitor for bacteria. They have been instrumental in working with the local municipalities to investigate areas with high bacteria counts and to have local ordinances passed for dog waste pick-up in local parks.

A high school in southeastern Pennsylvania has taken part in our Watershed Snapshot event for seven years. This event is for education and awareness with the teacher keeping the data to check trends over the years. When a local Sportsmen’s Association was looking for background data to show stream improvements in order to petition the Fish and Boat Commission to stock the stream with trout, the data supported the request. The stream was stocked for the first time in 20 years.

A number of monitoring groups have used their monitoring data to petition the DEP for stream upgrades.

A lake association took part in our monitoring program in 2004 and have been inspired to take the next step. They are going to work with a consultant to develop a lake management plan to better manage and protect their lake.

I hope these examples give you an idea as to how volunteer monitoring groups use their own data to pursue watershed restoration and protection.

Thanks!!!

Cheryl Snyder

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Cheryl Snyder
DEP-Bureau of Watershed Management
Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program Coordinator
717-772-5640
chesnyder@state.pa.us

 

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: F5creeks@aol.com
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] How does your group make use of your data?

Re how groups use volunteer monitoring data:

Various watershed groups on the east side of San Francisco Bay, including my
group, Friends of Five Creeks, have used E. coli data to get sewer mains and
laterals repaired. Our local US EPA Region 9 lab will do the lab work if
volunteers sample for five weeks running using their protocol. For Friends of Five
Creeks, the same tests have detected chloramines (toxic to fish) that have led
to repairs of major drinking-water leaks. But these can be harder to trace —
we have hit a blind alley with one big leak of chloramines.

Basic information obtained by monitoring is important in setting restoration
goals, e.g. is a particular creek cold enough for trout? are there obvious
problems such as turbidity, or absence of the expected species of aquatic
macroinvertebrates?

With help from Balance Hydrologics, a local firm, we recently began putting
live readouts of flow, temperature, and conductivity from one of our creeks on
line (link via www.fivecreeks.org). Early use of this automated datalogger led
to a change in the way our local utility handles water-main breaks. The
current graphs vividly illustrate the flash-flood-like nature of urban runoff
(although our rainy season is almost over). This sort of information can be useful
in advocacy. We also expect these data to be useful to students in a variety
of projects. Patterns anomalous spikes, of course, would indicate something
worth investigating.

Susan Schwartz
Friends of Five Creeks
Albany, Berkeley, Kensington, & El Cerrito, California

Question 3

From: Brian Soenen [mailto:Brian.Soenen@dnr.state.ia.us]
S ent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:55 PM
To: Volunteer water monitoring
Subject: [volmonitor] Volunteer Data Usage in 305(b) Reports and 303(d) Lists

Greetings!

Would any of you happen to have any examples of how volunteer data have been used by state and/or federal agencies for 305(b) reports or 303(d) lists? If so, I’d very much appreciate it if you could share them with me.

Thanks and have a great week!

Brian Soenen
IOWATER Coordinator
3625 Nebraska Street
Sioux City, IA 51104
515.205.8587 (cell)
Brian.Soenen@dnr.state.ia.us
www.iowater.net
www.iowaprojectaware.com

Responses to Question 3

11/7/2005 3:54:10 PM

In Minnesota we are in the process of using volunteer-collected transparency tube values to assess turbidity for the first time during production of the 2006 Impaired Waters list. A fact sheet on the process can be accessed at:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/csmp-reports.html#forms

Let me know if you have any questions about this process.

Regards,

Laurie Sovell
Coordinator, Citizen Stream-Monitoring Program
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd. N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
651/296-7187 (phone)
651/297-8324 (fax)
laurie.sovell@pca.state.mn.us
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/csmp.html

 

11/7/2005 3:57:26 PM

The Upper Merrimack Monitoring Program’s data have been used for the State of NH’s reports. Steve Landry and I can provide further information to your questions if you wish to call or email us.

—

Michele L. Tremblay
naturesource communications
PO Box 3019 • Boscawen NH 03303
603.796.2615 • 796.2600 fax
http://www.naturesource.net

 

11/7/2005 4:11:41 PM

River Watch in CO–has our data in STORET and provides it to the State Health Dept for basin triennial reviews…when each major basin is up for CWA review of standards, classifications, resegmentation, etc..they put out a data request–we submit data there and also provide it via STORET. That data is used in assessing attainment for each triennial basin review, 305(b) and listing/delisting on the 303d. In each of these “report” formats the source of the data used is provided and our Program is cited. In some cases we have provided the only data there is, in others it adds to others database. The primary purpose of our program  is Colorado’s CWA decision process and targeted decision maker is the Health Dept–so our methods, data management, etc. all match what that process and those folks require.

Barb Horn
Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife
151 E. 16th Ave.
Durango, CO 81301
vc: 970/382-6667
fx: 970/247-4785

 

11/7/2005 4:23:12 PM

Volunteer data generated by organizations participating in the ODEQ’s Volunteer Monitoring Program is submitted to me for review and upload into the DEQ database LASAR http://deq12.deq.state.or.us/lasar2/default.aspx. All data of sufficient quality (designated as A or B) is assessed for the 303(d) list regardless of the sampling agency.

Steve Hanson
Volunteer Monitoring Specialist
Oregon DEQ Laboratory
Phone: 503.229.5449
Toll Free: 1.800.452.4011
Fax: 503.229.6957
email: hanson.steve@deq.state.or.us
2020 SW Fourth Ave. Suite 400
Portland, OR 97201

 

Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:58:00 -0500
From: “Picotte, Amy”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Volunteer Data Usage in 305(b) Reports and 303(d)
Lists

Brian, check out Appendix F in our new Vermont Volunteer Surface Water
Monitoring Guide. Good luck.
http://www.vtwaterquality.org/lakes/htm/lp_monitoringguide.htm

 

Amy Picotte
Environmental Analyst
DEC-Water Quality Division
103 S. Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
Tel. 802-241-3789
fax. 802-241-4537

New email as of July, 2005:
Amy.Picotte@state.vt.us

 

11/8/2005 8:39:37 AM

Our volunteer data has been published in the Delaware 305(b) for the last 10 years. We monitor and collect data on specific watersheds – Christina Watershed since 1995 and the Mispillion Watershed since 2003. I am happy to give more information or send our manual and/or QAPP for this program.

Ginger North
Stream Watch Coordinator
Delaware Nature Society
302-239-2334×100
Fax 302-239-2473
ginger@delawarenaturesociety.org
www.delawarenaturesociety.org

 

11/8/2005 9:22:54 AM

I was forwarded your e-mail regarding the use of volunteer monitoring data in 305(b)/303(d) assessments and listing. To my knowledge, all four of our Basin states (NJ, NY, PA and DE) put out a call for data prior to beginning their assessment work each cycle, in order to compile “all readily available” data as EPA requires.

If you haven’t already done so, you may wish to contact Pennsylvania DEP. They came to my mind when I thought about formal processes for using volunteer data. Because of quality assurance and control needs, they have a fairly developed processes for handling this. Take a look at the form they use and the requirements therin. The address is:

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/wqstandards.htm

In particular, see the link under “2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” Section III.E. Outside Agency Data and Quality Assurance Requirements. The link will open up a Microsoft Word document. The link above that, II.C., provides more guidance on volunteer quality assurance plans and a further link to EPA on that topic.

I hope this information is useful for you. Good luck!

Jon Zangwill

Jonathan.Zangwill@drbc.state.nj.us

 

11/8/2005 4:08:03 PM

The Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet has a published guidance for use of “third party data” for regulatory purposes, including that generated by volunteers and citizen monitors. You can see a copy of that policy in PDF form at:

http://www.water.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B8F9FC52-D32F-4FBB-9CC0-9C6945CE5A8A/0/volunteer_monitoring_data_final.pdf

(If the link doesn’t work, be sure you paste the entire URL into your browser address bar)

Essentially it articulates a prior notification procedure and requires that those requesting that their data be used for 303d/305b determinations to meet US EPA Quality Assurance Project Planning requirements.

For more information on how volunteer groups in our state have responded to that policy, visit:

http://kywater.org/watch/qa.htm

Thanks,

Ken Cooke
KY Water Watch
Ken.Cooke@ky.gov

 

11/9/2005 9:00:32 AM

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection uses data from at least one volunteer monitoring organization for its Integrated Report, and has incorporated volunteer monitoring into its long term strategy. New York State has also relied for a long time on data collected by volunteer monitors. I’d be happy to supply you with the appropriate contacts in NJDEP and NYSDEC, although I’m sure that some folks, who are also on this listserv will respond in person.

Paula Zevin
Regional Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
Division of Environmental Science and Assessment
U.S.E.P.A. – Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-220
Edison, NJ 08837
Tel.: (732) 321-4456
Fax: (732) 321-6616
zevin.paula@epa.gov

 

11/9/2005 11:34:41 AM

As it happens I just completed an index to past issues of the Volunteer Monitor newsletter (www.epa.gov/owow/volunteer/vm_index.html). This should help you track down some examples of volunteer data usage in 305(b) and 303(d). I’m sure this is not a comprehensive list even of examples that have appeared in the newsletter, because I didn’t index every single mention of any topic, just the more important articles. Still, it may be helpful.

Ellie

Eleanor Ely
Editor, The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
50 Benton Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94112

 

11/9/2005 5:05:43 PM

Awhile back I came across this report from Minnesota – thought you might find it relevant.

http://www.riversmn.org/Reports_Thalweg/ttube04.pdf

Steven Witmer
Planning Assistant
Community Development Department
City of Johnston
(515) 727-7765, fax 515-278-2033

 

11/10/2005 7:12:15 AM

As Paula suggested, volunteer monitoring data has been part of the 305(b) and 303(d) process for many years in New York State.  There was a session at the 6th national volunteer monitoring conference (I believe in Austin) that discussed the role of volunteers in TMDL development- mostly in developing the datasets to support the 303d lists.  The abstracts from those presentations can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/owow/volunteer/proceedings/sixth/session6.pdf

Feel free to contact me at any of the below numbers if you would like more information about the role of volunteer data in NYS.

Scott A. Kishbaugh, P.E.
Environmental Engineer II
Lake Services Section
Bureau of Water Assessment and Management
NYSDEC Division of Water
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, NY  12233-3502
(phone) 518-402-8282
(fax) 518-402-9029
(email) sakishba@gw.dec.state.ny.us

 

11/10/2005 7:29:06 AM

For lotic systems in NYS any data or survey assessment conducted by volunteers or otherwise will not be used in the 303(d) process for impairment determination. This has been stated to volunteer groups both verbally and in writing:

“The fact is, no matter how good the data volunteers – or anyone else – collects, it is DEC’s role to evaluate the data and make an assessment that is consistent with assessments throughout the state. (Actually, this issue relates to the discussions we’ve been having about the details of the “How data is Used” matrix in the guidance document…and why we have balked at suggestions that volunteer data alone could result in “yellow” and “red” flags.)

While we encourage participation in the assessment process (thru the WI/PWL workshops and update effort) we cannot relinquish DEC’s responsibility for making the w.q. determinations.

In short, the role of volunteer monitoring is to provide data of a known quality to help DEC make these decisions. However, it is DEC’s (not volunteers’) role to make the assessment decisions.”

Kelly

HBRW@worldnet.att.net

 

11/11/2005 7:28:46 PM

Our citizen monitoring data was used in the recent State 303d listing.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_update.html

On the plus side, our data was used to call attention to several parameters on a few creeks which had not previously been on the 303d list, and was used in various places as lines of evidence for some of the conclusions they made.

On the negative side, we feel the data was used inappropriately in a few places, including to de-list a creek for sediment based on our turbidity data.

Several groups up here are concerned about the proposed de-listing of the Laguna de Santa Rosa for nutrients. We will be submitting P and N data on that point.

I am working on a letter of comments, since the comment period is currently open. At the SYRCL conference I asked around if others had submitted data to this 303d list. No one had, but DeltaKeeper had influenced a bacteria listing in the Central Valley, and Friends of Five Creeks in Nevada County had influenced a 303d listing on the Yuba River. Those were both done through meetings directly with SWRCB staff in Sacramento, not through the formal submittal process.

Take care,

Mike Sandler
Program Coordinator
Community Clean Water Institute
6741 Sebastopol Ave. Suite 140
Sebastopol, CA 95472
(707) 824-4370
www.ccwi.org

 

11/12/2005 8:15:48 AM

Regarding use of volunteer water monitoring data for 303d and 305 lists, suggest you email with Dr. Bill Deutsch. I am cc’ing him so you can capture his email address. Bill started and is the current director of the Alabama Water Watch Program.  This program is about 13 years old and is particially funded by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

Bryan Burgess
burgessbe@alltel.net

 

11/14/2005 6:31:54 AM

I was forwarded an request regarding how some states may use volunteer data in 305(b) reports. Here in CT we have at a variety of different levels. If you would like to call me to discuss feel free. 860-424-4185.

Mike Beauchene
CT DEP
Bureau of Water Management
mike.beauchene@po.state.ct.us

 

11/14/2005 9:01:44 AM

URI Watershed Watch monitoring data is used by the State of RI in their 305b (State of State WQ) report as on par with professional data and is thus used as a basis for listing in 303d (impaired waters). Often the RI DEM staff will call us to discuss the results of our data with them to determine, for example, if we think a lake is naturally acidified or not.

RI DEM contributes funding to our Extension based program. They provide us with an annual list of lakes with no, little, or not-recent data. We do our best to recruit volunteers to monitor those locations.

For the water,

Linda
URI Cooperative Extension Water Quality
Department of Natural Resources Science
1 Greenhouse Road
Kingston, RI 02881-0804
401-874-2905
www.uri.edu/ce/wq/
www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

 

11/15/2005 1:22:44 PM

I know I am responding to everyone, I think many are interested. Paula Zevin already hit on this but here is more info.

Pequannock River Coalition monitors water within the Pequannock and Wanaque Rivers watersheds. Three parameters are measured: temperature, flow and physical characteristics. The data is collected by volunteers and has been used by the NJDEP and local environmental groups for a variety of applications. The NJDEP has used the data for development of the Integrated List (formerly known as the 303(d) and 305(b) reports). The data has also been used for prioritization of local open space acquisitions and determination of local land use issues.

http://www.pequannockriver.org/

The Pequannock River Coalition’s temperature monitoring program actually even “changed the way the state did assessments”. By that I mean, prior to PRC’s monitoring program, NJ had no such term as “temperature impairment”. Because of this, there was not way to “take action” or regulate temperature impairments. Now because of Ross’s program the State now “lists” waters that exceed standards and we have TMDL’s develop specifically for Temp Impairments.

Please let me know if you’d like more info.

 

Danielle Donkersloot

Danielle.Donkersloot@dep.state.nj.us

Question 4

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:14:46 -0800
From: Amie Frisch
Subject: [volmonitor] volunteer data – the bad side

Hello!

I am a San Jose State University student writing a research paper on the use of volunteer collected scientific/water quality data. I have done tons of research, and have come up with quite a few studies that find either, ‘volunteer collected data is great’ or ‘volunteer collected data is great as long as you don’t make the mistakes we made’. Clearly volunteer data is both highly useful and widely used. However, many of the studies also say something like, ‘many scientists/governments question the quality of volunteer collected data’. None of these statements are expanded on or cited. I would like to include both sides of this issue in my paper.

So, here is my question: Do you know of or are you a part of a government agency that refuses to use volunteer collected data? If so, what are the reasons for that? Or, what are your biggest concerns or problems with trying to get your volunteer collected data used by government agencies?

If you respond, please be sure to include your first and last name, and what group/agency you work for so that I can cite you in my paper.

Thanks!!!

Responses to Question 4

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:30:34 -0500
From: Rita Jack
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] volunteer data – the bad side

Training, training, training – and respect for their abilities. If volunteers are properly trained, including being tested to make sure they understand and are following procedures fully, then their data are as robust as any “professional”. I don’t live there – but I’ve heard lots about their program – the state of Missouri’s Stream Teams are probably among the best trained volunteers in the country, and they use 4 levels of certification for their volunteers. I understand that levels 3 and 4 are certified to do enforcement monitoring. Contact Angel and Tom Kruzen there, or Scott Dye.
I do know that the more that volunteers know, and the more their data are used for high-level decisions, the more motivated they are to do a very thorough and valid job. Put them through rigorous training, test them, have them develop a QAPP with assistance and guidance – and you’ll get darn good data out of them. Be lackadaisical about training and how their data are used – and their results will reflect that.
I’ve seen that volunteer water monitors will rise to the level that is required of them, depending on the needs of the waters at risk that they are monitoring.
-Rita
>>
Rita Jack
Water Sentinels Project, Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter
tel: 517-484-2372

 

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:12:25 -0500

From: Simon L Gruber
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] volunteer data – the bad side

Amie,

In response to your question on the listserve: I am an environmental planning consultant in Orange County, NY, and I’m managing a stream monitoring project (using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators) for the OC Water Authority, a county agency. While our project does not involve collection of data by volunteers except as part of educational workshops (ie., data collected by volunteer trainees is not being used to analyze water quality in our reports) the contractor that is collecting and analyzing all our samples is a non-profit organization, Hudson Basin River Watch, that does a lot of volunteer monitoring work including training. We are following the methodology of the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation’ Stream Biomonitoring Unit in all our work, and the contractor is a professional who knows this method well. In the course of this project, we’ve learned that a) the NY State DEC’s official policy seems to be that they won’t use any data collected by anyone other than agency staff, at least not in the same ways that they use their own data; b) in fact, they do pay some attention to information submitted by outside agencies and by citizens. I believe the reasoning behind this is that when they write official reports, they can only stand behind data collected by their own staff. But they can, and I believe sometimes do, consider outside data and follow up on it by doing their own sampling. If you want, I can get more information from agency staff about their policies and practices (and even put you in touch with them) if you contact me off the list.

One telling example: Years ago, a local citizen who lives on the Woodbury Creek, a trout stream, saw that trout were spawning in the Creek. (This was not necessarily organized monitoring, but conceptually the point is somewhat similar). Told of this, DEC staff did a stream survey and confirmed that trout were spawning, which resulted in 1) a planned wastewater discharge into the creek being abandoned, and 2) the stream’s classification being upgraded.

Beyond that, I have not personally addressed this issue because we are not currently focusing on trying to use volunteer’s data. However, I do believe that if a consensus policy could be developed so that volunteers knew that their data would be used by government agencies, it would provide a strong incentive to motivate more people to do volunteer monitoring.

Simon Gruber
Environmental Services
sgruber@frontiernet.net

 

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:49:10 -0500
From: Linda Green
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] volunteer data – the bad side

We all have stories. My favorite was the professional consultants under contract to the state for a stormwater monitoring program. We kept prepping to receive their samples for lab analysis, wondering where they were until they told us that they were only going to collect samples weekdays 9-5 and were waiting for a storm to come during that time.

Training and more training and having folks understand exactly why they must follow the steps is key. My favorite volunteer query was from the man who asked if he had if he had to follow the steps in the instruction manual in order, since I hadn’t so specified. I couldn’t help but ask him if he had ever baked a cake. And I have added to our instruction manual the admonition “Please follow the steps in the order that they are written”

Linda

URI Cooperative Extension Water Quality
Department of Natural Resources Science
1 Greenhouse Road
Kingston, RI 02881-0804
401-874-2905
www.uri.edu/ce/wq/
www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

 

: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:52:53 -0600
From: Angie Becker Kudelka
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] volunteer data – the bad side

Amie,
In 2002 Rivers Council of Minnesota and River Network conducted research on the effectiveness of citizen monitoring in Minnesota, a published our findings in, “An Evaluation of Citizen Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring in Minnesota.” In it, we conducted in-depth studies with 40 citizen monitoring groups, local governments and 15 representatives from state agencies. We found that citizens are often dedicated to collecting data – but a major barrier exists in the pathway from data collection to data use. In my research of other monitoring programs around the country, this seems to be a common theme.

The report can be found on our website: http://www.riversmn.org/resources_citmon.html#MonArtNews (its the third story down, and as links to the executive summary, full report, and appendices.)

Chapter 5: Survey Design and Results, discusses the survey and includes areas that may help -such as intended data use, and barriers to citizen monitoring at the local and state level – which you are welcome to cite that info as part of your research paper, if its what your looking for. Best Wishes,
-Angie

Angie Becker Kudelka
River Watch Director
Rivers Council of Minnesota
Home Office:
817 South Minnesota St.
New Ulm, MN 56073
Phone: 507-359-3851

 

On 11/17/05, Kris Stepenuck wrote:
Amie

Although I would definitely NOT say data are refused by the Dept. of Natural Resources here in WI (our citizen lakes data are used by the Dept. regularly), our volunteer stream monitors’ data are not generally used by the Dept. of Natural Resources in making management decisions. That is because the program is designed to be educational and therefore the methods the volunteers use and the monitoring plan that the volunteers follow are not the same as DNR methods and not rigorous enough to get a good picture of water quality in streams – since streams are so dynamic. (So for instance, volunteers can monitor whenever they choose, there is not a set time of day or cyclic period during which they monitor. If they were asked to monitor at a certain time of day and on a specific frequency using DNR approved protocols and WA procedures, data would be able to be used on a regular basis. Occasionally stream monitors’ data have been used by the Dept. when the project’s monitoring sampling design was laid out in order to address a specific question and the monitoring followed that design. We (the Department of Natural Resouces) are in the process of planning a higher level program that will allow for citizen generated data to be entered directly into DNR database and be used for management decisions.

Kris Stepenuck

 

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:26:13 -0600
From: Donna Menown
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] volunteer data – the bad side

Since Missouri’s use of Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program data was mentioned earlier by Rita Jack, I thought it appropriate for Missouri Stream Team staff to clarify a few things. First, Rita, thank you so much for your kind portrayal of our program. You are sure right about the citizen volunteers. They are the heart and soul of the program and they deserve the credit for sure!

Although we value our volunteer monitors and they are an integral part of our understanding of the biological and chemical properties in our Missouri streams, we do not use volunteer-collected data for
enforcement cases. We only use data collected by our DNR professional staff for enforcement cases since the person collecting the samples may be required to testify as a professional in court.

The Missouri Volunteer program has 4 levels of certification but none of this data is used directly in enforcement cases. Volunteer collected data is primarily used to supplement agency-collected data and is used as screening data. Data from Levels 2, 3 and 4 are used to help decide where more
focused monitoring by DNR staff may be needed because it identifies emerging problems.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding of how Missouri uses volunteer data. Thanks again. Being on this list serve and reading about the diverse and wonderful efforts going on across the country is nothing short of inspirational.

Donna Menown
Stream Team Volunteer WQ Monitoring Coord.
& TMDL Developer
Div. of Env. Quality/Water Protection Program
MO Dept. of Natural Resources, Jeff. City
(573) 526-1595; FAX [522-9920]
e-mail: Donna.Menown@dnr.mo.gov

Categories
Listserv

Values of Long Term Monitoring

Question

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:24:11 -0700
From: “Williams, Gene”
Subject: [volmonitor] Values of Long-Term monitoring

I am looking for good arguments justifying the continuation of a monitoring program. We have a successful volunteer lake monitoring program that has been going for 13 years (a mere baby compared to the programs recognized in the recent email exchanges). Our program is well-supported by management, but each year there are questions such as: Haven’t you collected enough data yet? Don’t you have a good understanding of the lakes already? When does this program come to an end? Haven’t you satisfied most of your goals already? What’s the value of long-term monitoring compared to specific short term restoration projects? How do we convince elected officials and the public that this is not just another self-perpetuating government-funded program?

We obviously have responses to these questions—citing the value of long-term data and identifying trends, and the cost-effectiveness of volunteer monitoring, and the need for current, valid data as watershed conditions change and specific water quality concerns arise. But, I am looking to sharpen our responses and make even stronger statements about the value of long-term monitoring.

Any thoughts you have about this issue would be appreciated.

Gene Williams
Snohomish County Surface Water Management
2731 Wetmore Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 388-3464 x4563
gene.williams@co.snohomish.wa.us

Responses

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: David J Wilson
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Values of Long-Term monitoring

Gene,
Some additional arguments you’ve doubtless already thought of:

1. In developing areas, especially, changing situations and land use patterns bring new problems and exacerbate old ones. It is essential that one have both old and new data to spot trends that may require action. Long-term monitoring problems are somewhat like getting annual physical checkups from your doctor. It’s not a good idea to stop after you’ve had five or six!

2. Continued monitoring is needed to assess the effectiveness of various Best Management Practices as they are implemented. BMPs often cost quite a bit of money, and we need to be seeing how well they’re working.

3. In case regulatory or legal action is required, adequate and timely data are essential. Often in environmental work, comparisons between sites are needed. In order to make these with timely, relevant data, continuous establishment of an on-going baseline is necessary.

4. (Probably the least persuasive, but I’ll toss it into the pot anyway.) Ongoing monitoring programs help to educate the public and to focus its attention on environmental problems of current concern. No amount of emotional, highly visible tree-hugging and spotted owl-loving is likely to be as effective in the long haul as good, solid, current data that are carefully, conservatively, accurately interpreted.

Hope I’ve been able to be of some help. Best of luck.
Dave Wilson
Member, Huron River Watershed Council

 

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:36:12 -0700
From: Chrys Bertolotto
Subject: [volmonitor] Re: Values of Long-Term monitoring

Other items to add to the list:

Additional Eyes and Ears: Many agencies and organizations have limited resources. On-going volunteers have the knowledge and physical presence to identify and document problems quickly. Some examples include dumping, illicit water connections, vegetation clearing, invasive weed establishment, etc. With quick follow-up, these problems can be effectively addressed through the appropriate channels to remove that threat. Without the volunteer presence, those problems might go unnoticed and continue to threaten the natural resource quality.

I’ve found that providing a list of examples of some of the problems volunteers have spotted and their fixes has been very compelling.

Outside Data Uses: Different agencies may tap into your volunteer data for a variety of ‘implementation’ reasons: Clean Water Act Cleanup plans, Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans, tribal water quality assessments. Conveying how the use of hits data benefits the agency (and not just the natural resource) to meet larger regulatory mandates might help.

Chrys Bertolotto
City of Issaquah Resource Conservation Office (WA)
Water Quality and Habitat Stewardship Coordinator
(425) 837-3442

 

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:53:28 -0400
From: “Stuart R. Lynde”
Subject: [volmonitor] RE: Values of Long-Term monitoring

Long-term monitoring is crucial to early detection of problems within the system. It is not unlike a periodic physical or an annual mammogram in health care terms. Long term monitoring allows for early detection of problems, before they become more significant and costly. As early detection of tumors via mammograms greatly increases the overall survival rate and lowers overall cost and recovery time in patients with breast cancer, so to does volunteer monitoring increase the likelihood of early detection, of many potential threats to a water body, resulting in quicker recovery and overall lower costs. These threats include establishment of invasive species, such as species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), invasive fish such the snakehead. or the early warnings of invasive invertebrate such as the zebra mussel. Early Detection in one system will increase chances of containing an invasive, or more importantly preventing the invasive from migrating to another nearby water body.

Volunteers are typically much more intimately associated with “their” water body, than are agency personnel. This closeness with a system allows them to better distinguish when something is “different”, even if they cannot quantify those changes. This kind of intuitive monitoring is very difficult to acquire without local involvement. They are quick to recognize subtle changes that are out of the norm for that particular water body,

Volunteer monitoring programs are more likely to recognize dramatic changes in a system more rapidly. Rarely do state officials notice something on a “drive by”. Typically, there is only time and funding to investigate a system that has been reported as having a problem. Volunteer monitoring groups play a key role in the early detection of gross changes, fish kills, dumping, short-lived toxic water quality changes. It’s the extreme changes like, dramatic pH changes, localized toxic events that kill quickly and can do long term damage. Unfortunately the root causes can disappear rapidly, or becomes so dilute as to make it difficult, if not impossible to track.

Volunteers can drive down the overall cost of monitoring a system. Volunteers can be used to do many of the tasks required to “prepare” collect and prepare samples for analytical analysis. In our own lab, we are able to offset the cost of analysis for benthic samples by having volunteer groups doing the sampling and sorting or the samples prior to shipping them to us. This allows us to offer pricing for Lowest Practical Taxon analysis (RBP III) for a price less than that for family level data, with all the QA/QC necessary to make the data useful state monitoring and enforcement programs. Done right, volunteers can get you a significantly better “Bang for the $”

Currently ES&C is offering special pricing on benthic work, primarily aimed specifically at volunteer monitoring groups. More information is located at http://www.es-and-c.com/services/macros.php. ES&C is a certified HUBZone small business providing environmental consulting services to clients nationwide from offices in Virginia and Indiana.

Just my $0.02 and the corporate plug

Stuart

Stuart R. Lynde
Environmental Services & Consulting, LLC
101 Professional Park Drive, Suite 303
Blacksburg, VA 24060

Phone: 540-552-0144
Fax: 540-552-1528
email: slynde@es-and-c.com
web: http://www.es-and-c.com

Categories
Listserv

Volunteer Monitoring Trends

Question

On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:30 AM, Eleanor Ely wrote:
Dear friends:
Today I got a call from a writer who wanted quick and easy answers to large and difficult questions about volunteer monitoring. I was little annoyed that he seemed to be trying to throw something together at the last minute with a minimum of effort. But at the same time I felt bad that I couldn’t answer his questions. He was mainly looking for “news” — specifically, he wanted to know what’s new in the past decade. Is volunteer monitoring “growing”? Are there more programs, or more volunteers? What are the latest trends? (More centralization? More collaboration?) What new volunteer monitoring equipment or methods have been developed in the past decade? I wasn’t very helpful, and I tried to explain that no one really knows the answers to some of these questions — that it would take a lot of research and time to find out. But after I got off the phone two ideas occurred to me.

The first was that in some ways he was asking the wrong questions. He was looking for what’s new, what’s different. And I started thinking that a lot of the value of monitoring comes from what is NOT new. The fact that a lot of groups celebrated their 10th, 20th, or even 30th anniversary last year is probably more important than how many new groups formed that year or what new technologies were developed. The fact that some volunteers celebrated their 5th, 10th, or 15th anniversary with a monitoring program is probably more important than how many new volunteers the program recruited. In a sense, what you want to see in a volunteer monitoring program is the “same old same old” — same volunteers, same methods and parameters, and even (if your water body is healthy) the same results. And yet, as has been noted before, that sort of thing is not glamorous and sexy; it’s not “news.” Which is one of the things that makes it hard to convince policymakers and funders of the value of long-term monitoring.

But after thinking all that, I also decided that there probably IS some “news,” and that was when I got my second idea — the idea of asking people on this listserv for their views. I would love to hear your comments on my preliminary thoughts (see below) about possible “trends” in the last decade.

– Are there more programs? Since there hasn’t been a survey since 1998, I don’t think anyone knows the answer. My impression is that budget cuts have taken their toll on volunteer monitoring and that some groups have gone under. At the same time, though, new groups have also formed. But I don’t have a clear sense that there has been net growth. What do others think? – Speaking of budget cuts, for the last 15 years I’ve been hearing about the “slashing” of agency and volunteer funding, but my gut feeling is that it’s more serious now. I think volunteer groups are responding in various ways — looking for new sources of support, and at the same time tightening belts more than before. And while the “positive spin” might be that volunteer groups are finding new partners and that agencies are more open to volunteer
data (since they can’t afford to collect their own), my sense is that on the whole volunteer monitoring is suffering from a decline in funding — that programs are having to cut back their activities, reduce the number of volunteers, and in some cases close down operations altogether. I’m hoping that some of you can convince me that this view is overly bleak. – Is there more centralization and/or collaboration? I know that monitoring programs are always forming new partnerships, trying to coordinate with other groups in the watershed, etc. Is there more of that now than 10 years ago? I’m not sure. However, I think I would feel pretty safe in saying that there is more data sharing, partly because nowadays groups are posting their data on the Internet, which wasn’t happening 10 years ago.

– Are volunteer monitoring data being more accepted by agencies, researchers, etc.? Certainly we would all like to think so! Based on
”anecdotal evidence,” I would answer this question in the affirmative. But maybe that’s because I tend to hear the good news — people are more interested in telling the world about their success than about their frustration. What do others think — is there a genuine trend toward more acceptance of volunteer monitoring data?

– New developments in methodology and equipment? The writer who called me had glanced at the most recent VM and noticed the picture of the horizontal clarity tube, so he suggested that “horizontal monitoring” might be a hot new trend. No, I said (mentally picturing monitors lying down next to their water bodies), I didn’t think horizontal monitoring would be a good example of a new trend, but perhaps the clarity tube itself (vertical version) might qualify as an important new piece of equipment introduced in the past decade. Now I’m trying to think of other examples. What about the relatively new simplified methods for monitoring coliforms and E. coli, which are gaining more and more widespread use? Any other ideas?

– Another new trend, I think, is online data entry. Would anyone like to comment on the significance of this?

Thanks, everyone, for your patience in reading all this. I’m looking forward to receiving some interesting feedback, and perhaps publishing a summary of responses in the next issue of the newsletter. I think in this case it might be useful to post responses to the entire listserv. Maybe we can get a dialog going.

Ellie
Eleanor Ely
Editor, The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
50 Benton Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94112

Responses

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:17:14 -0800 (PST)
From: David J Wilson
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] ideas needed — volunteer monitoring “trends”

Dear Ellie,

(1) I agree with you that it is rather stupid for someone to attempt to throw together on short notice a picture of the current state of affairs in volunteer monitoring. Such an article is likely to be loaded with errors and may do more harm than good. Sorry.

(2) Given that sediment is a major water quality problem nationally, the appearance on the scene of cheap turbidity/transparency tubes is certainly significant. This is strongly reinforced by Tim Diehl’s (USGS, Nashville office) work showing the excellent correlation between transparencies and nephelometric turbidimeter measurements. The cost of a turbidity tube is sufficiently small that a volunteer group can pay for a few of these out of its own pockets, as was done by the Harpeth River Watershed Association in TN and as we are doing in the Huron River Watershed Council in MI. The horizontal tube is an interesting extension of the turbidity tube technique; we have not, however, needed it in any of our turbidity/TSS work on the Harpeth and the Huron Rivers, and I do not expect that it will be a major player.

(3) Most states are having extreme budgetary difficulties; the enormous federal government is piling up staggering budget deficits; and the present federal administration has shown itself to be extremely hostile to any and all environmental concerns. I therefore think that we shall see volunteer monitoring groups focussing on getting the most bang for their own bucks, rather than wasting time hustling for non-existent state and federal dollars. Sediment studies, studies that can be done with field test kits (DO, phosphate, nitrate, pH), visual assessments, bank erosion monitoring, and benthic macroinvertebrate studies are all examples of monitoring that can be done on a low budget–at a price a volunteer group can raise on its own without government assistance. I note that this was the way volunteer monitoring started out before it even had a name; concerned and outraged citizens’ groups raised their own money and did! their own thing with the governments dragging their feet at every level. See, for example, what was done by volunteer groups in Rochester, NY, and St. Louis back in the 60’s. Yes, it is nice to be able to get government money. It is very nice to be able to have the support and guidance of paid professional staff. But this is not necessary in order for us to do what needs to be done, as was established back in the 60’s.

(4) THE crucial, essential element in effective volunteer monitoring is not government money, but the presence of a small cadre, either professional staff or volunteer people, who are dedicated and who are knowledgeable about the techniques and procedures to be used and can train the other volunteers. If we cannot hire professional staff for this, then it will be necessary for people with professional training in chemistry, biology, etc., to come forward to do it, as we did back in the 60’s and 70’s. See, for example, Proc. Rochester Acad. Sci., Oct. 1982 special edition, Studies of Pollution Control in a Lakefront Community 1964-1981. Government money certainly makes things easier and faster by allowing the use of full-time professional staff (bless them!) and the running of high-ticket projects. But government money is not essential. Dedicated, concerned, angry people are essential.

With best regards,

Dave Wilson

 

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:53:24 -0500
From: Nancy Hadley
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] ideas needed — volunteer monitoring “trends”
To: Volunteer water monitoring

I think online data entry is one of the biggest advances. It not only gets the data into your database faster (although perhaps complicating the QA/QC) but it gives the volunteers an additional sense of responsibility and ownership. That is what keeps volunteers in the program. If you just monitor and the data goes away, you are disconnected. the connection is key.

As to new equipment, we are using a dissolved oxygen kit by Chemets which I think is awesome. However, I dont have the sense anybody else is using it. I know it is not yet EPA approved so tht may be why. I would be interested in hearing from anybody who has tried this kit and what they thought.

Nancy Hadley
hadleyn@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us
South Carolina Oyster Restoration and Enhancement Program
Marine Resources Research Institute
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 12559
217 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
(843) 953-9841
(843) 953-9820 (fax)
http://www3.csc.noaa.gov/scoysters

 

Categories
Listserv

Volunteer Wage Rates

Comment 1: The url of The Independent Sector site that lists the value of volunteer time, in dollars has been found.

Question 1: Volunteer Hourly Rate for FY05? Is this the volunteer rate we are all using this year?

Comment 1

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:36:37 -0400
From: Mayio.Alice@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: [volmonitor] volunteer wage rate

In case you didn’t bookmark this page, here is the url of The Independent Sector
site that lists the value of volunteer time, in dollars.
From the site:
 The value of volunteer time is based on the average hourly earnings of
 all production and nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls
 (as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics). INDEPENDENT SECTOR
 takes this figure and increases it by 12 percent to estimate for fringe
 benefits.
For 2003, the estimated value is $17.19 per hour.
HOWEVER, please scroll down the page and check out the state-by-staterates.  The dollar value of
volunteer labor varies considerably by State, according to this 2002chart (e.g., it’s much lower in
South Dakota than it is in New York).
Alice Mayio
USEPA (4503T)
(202) 566-1184
mayio.alice@epa.gov

Question 1

From: Tony Williams [mailto:Williams@savebuzzardsbay.org]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 2:06 PM
To: Volunteer water monitoring
Subject: RE:[volmonitor] [volmonitor]

Volunteer Hourly Rate for FY05?

The volunteer hourly rate for FY05 is $17.55. This rate will be used to
calculate value of service for all volunteers.

Is this the volunteer rate we are all using this year?

If so then I have 3660 vol/hr x $17.55= $64,233.00

Responses to Question 1

Linda Green wrote:

Hi Tony and all,
Here is the source for the $17.55 hourly rate for volunteering in the US in 2004:
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/volunteer_time.html

URI Watershed Watch uses it to calculate match for grants and/or for calculating the value of our volunteer water quality monitors. The RI Department of Environmental Management has accepted this, as has the University of Rhode Island.
I know that this is not the case everywhere. What have others found?
Linda Green

URI Cooperative Extension Water Quality
Department of Natural Resources Science
1 Greenhouse Road
Kingston, RI 02881-0804
401-874-2905
www.uri.edu/ce/wq/
www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

 

Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:31:33 -0500
From: Jane Brawerman
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] hourly rate for volunteering

Hi Linda and all –

For the past few years have been using a $25 hourly rate for our volunteers trained to conduct technical work, e.g. water quality sampling, field bioassessments, and invertebrate collection and id work, which is accepted by our CT DEP and others for grant match. When I learned from someone that she was distinguishing between technical/management type volunteers and others, and using the $25 rate successfully, I started doing the same. It makes sense, since volunteers perform a wide variety of work, some requiring more training and skill than others.

– Jane

—
Jane L. Brawerman, Executive Director
Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District
deKoven House Community Center – 27 Washington Street
Middletown, CT 06457
Phone (860) 346-3282
Fax (860) 346-3284
www.conservect.org/ctrivercoastal

 

Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:13:47 -0500
From: Chris Sullivan
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] hourly rate for volunteering

Here in CT I wrote a grant for the watershed group I volunteer with in Branford (Branford River Project) and the 17.55 hourly match was allowed for volunteer time. The proposal was through the CT Rivers Alliance for the State Watershed Assistance in Small Grants program.

peace
chris

Chris Sullivan
Project SEARCH Coordinator
(203) 734-2513
FAX 203-922-7833
Center for Environmental Research Education
Kellogg Environmental Center
500 Hawthorne Ave
Derby, CT 06418

 

Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:21:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: Michael Schenk
Subject: Re:[volmonitor] hourly rate for volunteering

What if the volunteered services are at a professional level, e.g. taxonomy training or GIS work?
Cheers,
Mike

 

Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:09:47 -0600
From: “Lizotte, Michael”
Subject: Re:[volmonitor] hourly rate for volunteering

While the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources rate for general volunteers is very low ($8/hr), they do allow for volunteer professional services to be charged at the going rate, properly documented.

Mike Lizotte

 

Categories
Listserv

Water Quality Test Kits

Question

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:30:47 -0500
From: Jerry Schoen
Subject: [volmonitor] Water testing kits

Hello all,
I am trying to put together a list of water testing kits for a variety of WQ indicators – with notation regarding whether kits have received EPA approval. I would appreciate hearing from you about any kits your volunteer monitoring group uses or is familiar with. Any addtional information about EPA approval, either as an approved SOP or by virtue of an approved QAPP wherein the kit is used for a particular WQ indicator, would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Jerry Schoen
MassWWP
Blaisdell House
UMass Amherst MA 01003

413-545-5532
545-2304 Fax

Responses

Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:04:00 -0500
From: Sidney Post
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Water testing kits

Jerry,

We utilize HACH and LaMotte kits and have done so for the past sixteen years. As far as EPA approval; I’m not sure? we use several of the HACH kits with our utility water quality sampling program (I’ll have to look into this). We have strict training in how to use both HACH and LaMotte kits along with strict QA and QC. Hope this helps in some way.

Sidney Post

Watershed Action Team Coordinator
Sidney Post
624 Filter Plant Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28301
(910)223-4760(voice)
(910)483-1952(fax)
profh2o@nc.rr.com

 

Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:28:11 -0500 (EST)
From: boram@wilkes.edu
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Water testing kits

I would suggest containing the manufacturer. TO my knowledge some methods have EPA Approval, but these methods tend to require higher end equipment. Also, even with “strict” QC it is still possible to see variation in the 10 to 20% range.

Brian Oram
Wilkes Univesity
Center for Environmental Quality
http://www.water-research.net

We tend to use field kits as a screening tool only. We also like to use water quality meters: such as YSI and others. The meters can be calibrated by one person and typically the meters have internal
diagnostics. It is also important to look at detection limit. For many tests, the detection limit is not low enough or it is necessary to digest a sample for matrix interference.

 

Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:49:29 -0500
From: Geoff Dates
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Water testing kits

Jerry,

It’s been a few years since I looked at this issue, so I hope someone from EPA can clarify. What I discovered is that “EPA-approved” is a term that was used rather loosely by kit manufacturers. Most often, the kits hadn’t gone through any formal review process, but simply were based on an EPA approved method. The most helpful response would address your last sentence by defining the various levels of approval and how one finds out the status of a particular kit.

A great resource is the National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI)web site ( http://www.nemi.gov/). Some verbage from the web site:
NEMI is being developed under the direction of the Methods and Data Comparability Board, a partnership of water-quality experts from Federal agencies, States, Tribes, municipalities, industry, and private organizations. The Methods Board is chartered under the National Water Quality Monitoring Council. NEMI makes finding approved methods a much easier task by allowing the user to simply select the pollutant and regulation of interest. A list of the approved methods, with all relevant modifications required by CFR footnotes will be quickly generated. Furthermore, you can download the approved version of publicly available methods with a single mouse click.

Another source is EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program develops testing protocols and verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the potential to improve protection of human health and the environment. http://www.epa.gov/etv/

Good luck!

Geoff

—
Geoff Dates
River Watch Program Director
River Network
Home Office:
231 24D Heritage Condos
Woodstock, VT 05091
802-457-9808 w & h
email: gdates@rivernetwork.org
River Network Web Site: www.rivernetwork.org

 

Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:00:07 -0500
From: Linda Green
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Water testing kits

Hi Jerry and vol mon folks,

SORRY THIS GOT SENT BEFORE I FINISHED THE MESSAGE!

This isn’t exactly what you are looking for, but may help. Athttp://www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer/Outreach/EquipmentList.pdf we have an annotated list of suppliers of water monitoring equipment used by vol mon groups.

URI Watershed Watch has a newly EPA-approved QAPP for our field monitoring program athttp://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/ww/resources/QAPPFinalRev905.pdf We use LaMotte kits for dissolved oxygen (#5860) and for salinity (#7459). The appendices for that QAPP with the specific procedures (SOP’s) haven’t been posted yet.

As Geoff says in his response to your posting, NEMI National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI)web site ( http://www.nemi.gov/) is a good resource for methods, but it isn’t comprehensive and doesn’t have a lot of of vol mon methods, particularly kits. The methods on the site were nominated by someone and then thoroughly reviewed by selected members of the Methods and Data Comparability Board, which is a very active and fairly autonomous work group of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council. (PS they would love to have some vol mon coordinator members)

Happy New Year to all!

Linda Green

URI Cooperative Extension Water Quality
Department of Natural Resources Science
1 Greenhouse Road
Kingston, RI 02881-0804
401-874-2905
www.uri.edu/ce/wq/
www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer

 

Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:09:23 -0500
From: “Picotte, Amy”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Water testing kits

Hi Jerry and other lovely volunteer monitoring people, I don’t have a lot of experience using kits, but through the Project WET program the HACH company has developed several kits for vol. monitors, which I have heard are fabulous. The Healthy Water, Healthy People (Project WET) site will have the info at http://www.healthywater.org/.

Also, in Appendix D of the “Vermont Volunteer Surface Water Monitoring Guide” there is a listing of water testing kit vendors.

http://www.vtwaterquality.org/lakes/htm/lp_volunteer.htm#lmp

Hope this helps some. Happy New Year.

Amy Picotte
Environmental Analyst
DEC-Water Quality Division
103 S. Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
Tel. 802-241-3789
fax. 802-241-4537
Amy.Picotte@state.vt.us

 

 

Categories
Listserv

Homemade Water Monitoring Equipment

Question 1: Would any of you have knowledge of how to make a homemade Kemmerer type sampler for lowering off of bridges and the like?

Question 2: We are looking to construct integrated water samplers for lakes, or if there are inexpensive commercially available integrated samplers.

Question 3: Do any of you have good or bad experience with basket samplers? Suggestions for design of the samplers, or anything we should watch out for? How have your volunteers reacted to them?

Question 4: Does anyone have good instructions for building a macroinvertebrate aquarium?

Question 1

Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:02:30 -0400
From: “Jan (Hosier) Sneddon”
Subject: [volmonitor] Fwd: seeking homemade water sampler

Greetings, handy water samplers!

Would any of you have knowledge of how to make a homemade Kemmerer type sampler for lowering off of bridges and the like?

Blueprints would be welcome! 🙂

jan

Responses to Question 1

Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:32:27 -0700
From: Eleanor Ely
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Fwd: seeking homemade water sampler

See “Low-Cost Van Dorn Water Sampler” on page 23 of the Fall 1994 issue (vol 6 no 2) of The Volunteer Monitor, and also the second sampler described under “Collecting an Integrated Sample” on page 17 of the Fall 2000 issue (vol 12 no 2). (Back issues are available electronically at www.epa.gov/owow/volunteer/vm_index.html. Online versions of issues before 2002 have a weird layout because they are not PDFs, but you should still be able to find the information.)

A request: Could anyone replying directly to Jan rather than the whole listserv please copy me on their message?

Thank you.

Ellie

Eleanor Ely
Editor, The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
50 Benton Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94112

 

Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 12:39:06 -0400
From: “Schenk, Ann”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Fwd: seeking homemade water sampler

With regard to skewing the DO measurement by using a bucket/ surface water sample, wouldn’t you aerate the sample as soon as you emptied the sampler into another container for DO measurement? Not knowing your DO measurement method (Clark cell, optical probe, Winkler titration), it is hard to say if the collection method would have an impact greater than the measuring method’s accuracy. You’d have to do a lot of splashing and sloshing to exceed the Clark cell accuracy of most meters (anywhere from 0.2 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L for the better cells). Don’t remember off the top of my head the Winkler accuracy and precision. What I do remember is that the quality of the reagents and lighting to see the color change is important to that method.

If you have to have non-surface DO, then, yes, a collection bottle is needed.
I just hope they rinse the bucket in stream water if they are also collecting nutrient chemistry samples.

Just my 2 cents. 🙂
Ann Schenk
Natural Resource Biologist III
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Ave., C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
phone: 410-260-8609

 

Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:19:12 -0400
From: Jeffrey Schloss
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Fwd: seeking homemade water sampler

With regard to collecting a proper DO sample for titration. If you carefully deploy a bucket that is fitted with a spout and tubing that allows you to fill a BOD bottle (specially designed not to trap air bubbles when closed) from the bottom up- and you count how long it takes to fill the bottle up and allow for 2 to 3 full volumes of water to flush through you should have a reasonably uninfluenced/disturbed sample to work with. Just remember that this sample only represents the surface water conditions if you are dealing with a system that has any temperature, current, or density (do to dissolved solids/salts) stratifications. So it would be fine for a mixed system.

Jeff Schloss
Director, NH Lakes Lay Monitoring Program
University of New Hampshire
Center for Freshwater Biology
and UNH Cooperative Extension

 

Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kimberly Rinard
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Fwd: seeking homemade water sampler

Here is a relatively inexpensive unit available thru Ben Meadows. There are a few others on their website also.
I would think that at $67 for the sampler it would actually be cheaper to buy the sampler until than to try to make one (unless
it does not suit your needs)

http://www.benmeadows.com/store/Water_Testing_and_Sampling/Water_Sampling/Water_Samplers_and_Accessories/2380/224195/?isredirect=true

Good luck
Kim Rinard
Granby,Mass

Question 2

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:37:04 -0700
From: “Williams, Gene”
Subject: [volmonitor] Integrated Water Sampler

We are looking for plans/designs for constructing integrated water samplers for lakes. Or, if there are commercially available integrated samplers that are inexpensive, we would also be interested in that.

Also, if you have used integrated samplers and have opinions on how well the instruments worked, I would appreciate that.

Thanks.

Gene Williams
Snohomish County Public Works
Surface Water Management
3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S 607
Everett, WA 98201-4046
(425) 388-3464 x4563
gene.williams@co.snohomish.wa.us or
gene.williams@snoco.org

Responses to Question 2

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:24:23 -0500
From: “Thorpe, Anthony Paul”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Integrated Water Sampler

Gene,

We participated in the EPA Lake Survey last year, and they (EPA) gave us these PVC samplers
that worked fairly well. I made a rough sketch, but you’ll need some PVC (I think it might have
been 3 inch…), a connector piece, a rubber stopper and a stopcock valve that can attach to the PVC
pipe you use. EPA gave us a 6 foot sampler, but we cut it in half and added threaded connectors in
the middle for easier transport and for sampling turbid water bodies.

http://www.lmvp.org/Misc/integratedsampler.gif

You lower it into the water with the valve open, cap the top when it’s in the water, then raise it
until the valve us just under the surface. Then close the valve and bring it on board your boat.

Open the valve and the water will trickle rapidly into your sample container. Remove the stopper and
the water falls out very quickly.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I can even take a couple of snapshots if you’d like.

Tony

 

PS: I also found this while searching Google Images: http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/CLMN/equipment.html
Tony Thorpe

Coordinator, Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program
302 ABNR University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
Phone: 1-800-895-2260
Fax: 573-884-5070
www.lmvp.org

 

Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:21:02 -0400
From: Jo Latimore
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Integrated Water Sampler

Gene,

Here in Michigan we developed an integrated sampler that we use for volunteer chlorophyll
monitoring in our statewide Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program. It can be built at reasonable
cost and is easy for volunteers to operate effectively. I will send you the plans separately as an
attachment (and would be happy to share with others who are interested – Editor’s note, these are included below).

CLMP_Chlrophyll_Equipment_Instructions (9 KB pdf file)

CLMP_Chlorophyll_Equipment_Assembly (205 KB pdf file)

CLMP Chlorophyll Sampler Image(33 KB pdf file)

Chlorophyll Procedures 2008 (53 KB pdf file)

(Editor’s note: You can also visit the CLMP site for more information: http://www.micorps.net/ and look at this section: lake monitoring/CLMP documents)

Cheers,

Jo

Jo A. Latimore, Ph.D.
Lake, Stream, & Watershed Outreach
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
13 Natural Resources
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222
(517) 432-1491
latimor1@msu.edu

Question 3

From: Charles River Watershed Assoc. [mailto:charles@crwa.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:33 AM
To: Volunteer water monitoring
Cc: ‘Julie Wood’
Subject: [volmonitor] Experiences with basket samplers?

Hello all,

Charles River Watershed Association has a seventy-person volunteer monthly river water quality monitoring program. We currently use buckets to take samples (mostly off bridges), which are transferred into sample bottles. However, we are in process of switching over to basket samplers so that the water can be collected directly, without the potential for contamination from the bucket.

We have some ideas about the design of these basket samplers, but are still determining exactly what they will look like and be made of – we will be constructing them ourselves. Do any of you have good or bad experience with basket samplers? Suggestions for design of the samplers, or anything we should watch out for? How have your volunteers reacted to them?

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Rebecca

Rebecca Scibek Wickham
Outreach Coordinator/Office Manager
Charles River Watershed Association
190 Park Road
Weston, MA 02493
Phone 781-788-0007 x200
Fax 781-788-0057
www.charlesriver.org

Responses to Question 3

From: Danielle Donkersloot [mailto:Danielle.Donkersloot@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:06 PM
To: charles@crwa.org
Cc: jwood@crwa.org; eburres@waterboards.ca.gov
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Experiences with basket samplers?

Hello: In 2006 at the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference
I saw this bucket that the CA SWAMP teams use for monitoring and I was
amazed. They are simple to make, easy to use and they work. I have cc’ed
Erick, Regional Citizen Montioring Coordinator, because he was kind enough
to bring his equipment to the conference and I attached some photos. Hope this helps.

Danielle

Bucket Sampler 2Bucket Sampler 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Erick Burres [mailto:eburres@waterboards.ca.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 4:41 PM
To: charles@crwa.org; Danielle Donkersloot
Cc: jwood@crwa.org
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Experiences with basket samplers?

The Clean Water Team drafted an article on how to make the bucket sampler
but the newsletter was never created. During lunch I put together this
draft SOP (196 KB pdf file). The bucket is out on loan so I had to use some old pictures I
found. If this is helpful please let me know. Perhaps it can be made
better and included on the CWT Website.

Erick Burres
Citizen Monitoring Coordinator
SWRCB-SWAMP-Clean Water Team

eburres@waterboards.ca.gov

Desk (213) 576-6788
Cell (213) 712-6862
Fax (213) 576-6686

Clean Water Team c/o LARWQCB
320 W 4th Street
Suite200
Los Angeles, CA 90013

 

From: Erick Burres [mailto:eburres@waterboards.ca.gov]
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:30 PM
To: charles@crwa.org; Danielle.Donkersloot@dep.state.nj.us
Cc: jwood@crwa.org
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] Experiences with basket samplers?

If you would like to view the entire SWAMP Field Methods Course or refer
people to a video, here is the Course’s link,
http://water101.waterboards.ca.gov/swamp/qapp_advisor/FieldMethods/start.htm
l.

We would like to update the CD but is has been of a low priority and there
just aren’t any funds to do so. It hasalso been a struggle to get the Course
online and advertised. Fortunately it was included in the SWAMP QA Advisor.
The Advisor can also help your group prepare QAPPs, its inclusion of the
Course has been kept quite.

Sincerely,

Erick Burres
Citizen Monitoring Coordinator
SWRCB- Clean Water Team

 

From: Charles River Watershed Assoc. [mailto:charles@crwa.org]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] Experiences with basket samplers?

We’ve created a different type of sampler using a metal basket, based on a MassDEP prototype. I’ve also
attached a photo of the sampler we are currently piloting.

Thanks,
Rebecca Scibek Wickham

Bucket Sampler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 4

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:32:24 -0600
From: VBojic@lc.edu
Subject: [volmonitor] stream aquarium

Does anyone have good instructions for building a macroinvertebrate aquarium? If so, please send them my way.

Thanks!

Vera Bojic, RiverWatch Program Coordinator
National Great Rivers Research & Education Center
Lewis and Clark Community College

Responses to Question 4

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:13:50 -0500
From: “Cooke, Ken (EPPC DEP DOW)”
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] stream aquarium

One product I have seen in place that creates an aquarium environment for benthic macroinvertebrates are Mike Strohm’s Creeklab.

http://www.teachwater.com/CreekLab.html

He has some educational materials that go with the product as well.

Thanks

Ken Cooke

KY Water Watch

 

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:53:04 -0500
From: Mayio.Alice@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] stream aquarium

There are some simple instructions from the IL Natural History Survey for setting up a classroom-type macroinvertebrate aquarium (including adding a submersible undergravel filter to simulate streamflow) at
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/downloads/Macroinvertebrate%20Aquarium.pdf

but I don’t think it says anything about keeping the water cold once you introduce the macros, so I wonder how long they’d last. Assuming they weren’t eating each other anyway.

Alice Mayio
USEPA (4503T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-1184

Street Address for visitors/deliveries:
EPA West, Room 7424B
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004

 

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:38:19 -0500
From: David Kirschtel
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] stream aquarium

I’ve been playing around for the past few years with an circular table-top stream (technical term: re-entrant flume) using an angled airlift tube to drive the current.

Basic design is a large clear acrylic ice bucket (straight-sided). The airlift tube is a section of flexible pvc tubing (to fit the curve of the outside wall), angle should be about 45deg., stick it onto the side of the tank with small suction cups.

In the center of the tank silicone a 2L soda bottle – top cut off and small holes in the bottom and top to allow water to flow through. This is to channelize the flow and keep the velocity up also, velocity would drop to zero at the center anyway.

In the warm weather you can place a 1L soda bottle filled with water and frozen in the center as “refrigeration” to keep the temp down.

Add slimy rocks in the bottom of the tank. Illuminate with desktop halogen lamp. You’re good to go.

Been able to keep a few mayflies to hatch. Also, in both tanks that I’ve set up, I’ve wound up with healthy populations of freshwater hydra.

I think that I’ve got some photos at home that I can post tomorrow, as well as some video of inverts (mostly mayflies) , if anyone is interested.

-David
======================================================================== ========
David Kirschtel, Ph.D.
National Ecological Observatory Network – National Project Office
1444 I St, NW, #200 – Washington, DC 20005
email: kirschte@msu.edu – tel: 202.628.1500×240

 

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:55:33 -0500
From: David Kirschtel
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] stream aquarium

Just tried to send a set of images to the list but the message was rejected by the listserv because it contained attachments. For the time being I’ll have to send them directly to individuals, until I can find some web space.

Send me an email message and I’ll send a set of images to you, zipped. I have image sets of both the tank and some closeups of some of some of the insect larvae. Also have a short QT movie of two
planaria attacking a first instar mayfly (1.6MB)

So far Karen Anderson and Chris Andersen have requested images — I’ll send those out right after this message.

 

– David

======================================================================== ========
David Kirschtel, Ph.D.
National Ecological Observatory Network – National Project Office
1444 I St, NW, #200 – Washington, DC 20005
email: kirschte@msu.edu – tel: 202.628.1500×240

 

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:50:55 -0600
From: Kris Stepenuck
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] stream aquarium

Hi

There’s one I am aware of called Carry Creek. Here’s a web link to it: http://www.carrycreek.com/

Cheers,

Kris Stepenuck