Selected Archives of Volunteer Monitoring Listserv Discussions

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:14:46 -0800
From: Amie Frisch <amiefrisch@gmail.com>
Subject: [volmonitor] volunteer data - the bad side

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.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:30:34 -0500
From: Rita Jack <rita.jack@sierraclub.org>
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 <sgruber@frontiernet.net>
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 <LGreen@uri.edu>
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”

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 <abeckerkudelka@riversmn.org>
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

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.

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:26:13 -0600
From: Donna Menown <donna.menown@dnr.mo.gov>
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

================================================================================