A Comparative Analysis of Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Comparative Analysis of Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Southeast: Lessons for Tennessee

Principal Investigators Ruth Anne Hanahan, Sr. Research Associate & Caitlin Cottrill, Graduate Assistant Technical Advisors David Feldman, Political Science Dept., Professor & Head & Tim Gangaware, Associate Director, WRRC TN Water Resources Research Center Social Science Research Institute University of Tennessee

Funded by: Waste Management Research & Education Institute

Research Goals

• Provide relevant and

practical recommendations to Tennessee policy makers and other stakeholders regarding the potential establishment of a statewide volunteer monitoring program

• Use these recommendations

as a basis for an earnest dialogue among Tennessee stakeholders about the viability of initiating, structuring, and implementing such a program

Research Approach

• Literature review
• Compare & contrast three Southeastern statewide

volunteer monitoring programs

• Administrative & programmatic structure
• Evolution & lessons learned
• Volunteer perceptions of benefits & limitations of

volunteer monitoring

• Identify Tennessee stakeholders’ perceptions of

benefits & limitations of volunteer monitoring & potential for initiating statewide program

Research Methods

Program Case Studies

• Criteria for inclusion: Contiguous

to Tennessee, conducted statewide, operational for at least five years, & partially state supported

• Analysis of websites
• Face-to-face interviews with

Program Managers/Staff

• Review of program documents

Research Methods

Survey of AL, GA, & KY Volunteers

• Volunteer databases: adults, telephone #s & addresses
• Phone interview
• Sample size (response rate), confidence level
• AWW: 269 (82%); margin of error - +/- 5.2 at 95% confidence level
• GA AAS: 127 (73%); margin of error is +/- 5.7 at 95% confidence level
• KY Water Watch (Watershed Watch): 361 (83%); margin of error is +/-

2.7 @ 95% confidence level

Research Methods

Tennessee Stakeholder Survey Sample

• Intended to obtain an

indication of stakeholder perceptions, not statistically valid

• Written & on-line survey:

Targeted water resources conference attendees, watershed and advocacy groups

• Response: 159 surveys

completed

T e n n e s s e e W a t e r R e s

• u

r c e s R e s e a r c h C e n t e r V

• l

u n t e e r W a t e r M

• n

i t

• r

i n g S u r v e y f

• r

T e n n e s s e e S t a k e h

• l

d e r s

T N W a t e r R e s

• u

r c e s R e s e a r c h C e n t e r U n i v e r s i t y

• f

T e n n e s s e e 3 1 1 C

• n

f e r e n c e C e n t e r K n

• x

v i l l e , T N 3 7 9 9 6 ( 8 6 5 ) 9 7 4

• 2

1 5 1 , p h

• n

e ( 8 6 5 ) 9 7 4

• 1

8 3 8 , f a x

Overarching Recommendation

Initiate a Tennessee Volunteer Monitoring Program

Literature

• National trend – increasing credibility
• Benefits – state & local governments

Case Studies

• Programs’ long-term viability & positive
• utcomes

Surveys – Volunteer Perceptions

• Even in the face of major challenges…
• Benefits of volunteer monitoring
• utweigh its limitations

AL, GA, & KY Volunteer Perceptions Primary Barriers

Greatest Limitation

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Lack of community support Lack of sufficient funding Collected data have not been viewed as credible Insufficient QA/QC protocol

Alabama Georgia Kentucky

AL, GA, & KY Volunteer Perceptions Primary Benefits

Greatest Benefit

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Increased aw areness of w ater quality issues Increased community involvement in w ater quality issues Increased scientific know ledge of w ater quality issues Improved w ater quality Improved communication

Alabama Georgia Kentucky

AL, GA, & KY Volunteer Perceptions

Benefits outweigh Costs

Perceived Benefits (Mean)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Increased awareness of water quality issues Increased scientific knowledge of water quality issues Increased community involvem ent in water quality issues Im proved comm unication Improved water quality

Alabama Georgia Kentucky Perceived Limitations (Mean)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lack of sufficient funding Collected data have not been viewed as credible Lack of community support Insufficient QA/QC protocol

Alabama Georgia Kentucky

Tennessee Stakeholder Perceptions

Benefits outweigh Costs

Perceived Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Increased awareness of water quality issues Increased scientific knowledge of water quality issues Increased community involvement in water quality issues Improved comm unication Improved water quality

Average Tennessee

Perceived Limitations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lack of sufficient funding Collected data have not been viewed as credible Lack of community support Insufficient QA/QC protocol

Average Tennessee

Recommendations by Topic & Category

Structure Programmatic Elements Long-term Viability Delivery System Mission/Goals Funding Housing Volunteer Support System QA/QC Membership/ Recruitment Information Management Volunteer Retention Advisory Board Outreach Strategies

Recommendation: Structure

Administer by local organizations but also be able to serve volunteers directly when no local oversight

• rganization is in place.

Primary Basis: Tennessee Survey

Program Model Preference

Neither 1% Model 1 8% Unsure 10% Model 2 81%

Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer State Program

Volunteers Local Organization Volunteers Local Organization Volunteers Local Organization State Program

Structure: Related Survey Finding

Level of Satisfaction with Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Training sessions Availability of assistance when needed Quality of assistance when requested Alabama Georgia Kentucky

Case studies:

Each of the three programs – hybrid of two structures

Alabama – Direct support from state office Georgia – More locally administered

Differing structures did not appear to affect volunteer

level of satisfaction with support

Recommendation: Program Elements

Identify multiple program strategies for meeting volunteer training and technical needs as they expand across the state.

• Case studies demonstrate the

merits of using multiple strategies for meeting volunteer needs including the following approaches:

• Trained citizen volunteer monitors – all
• State college & university system

professors – GA AAS & KY

• Community/watershed program

coordinators – GA AAS

• Cooperative Extension agents –AWW,

GA AAS, & KY

Recommendation: Long-term viability

Seek and implement US EPA Region 4-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

Perceived Use of Monitoring Data 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Public education Identification

• f specific

water quality problems Supporting data for state water quality reports Remediation

• r restoration

work Other Expansion of treatment plants

Alabama Georgia Kentucky

Literature reveals that to broaden how data is used QA/QC is key.

Recommendation: Long-term viability

Seek and implement US EPA Region 4-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

AWW Case Study

• Approach
• Identify quality data as intended programmatic outcome
• Define potential data uses
• Develop QAPP to support these uses in conjunction with

state & EPA regional office

• Benefits of a comprehensive QAPP
• Long-term acquisition of data
• Increased data credibility with state environmental agency
• Use of data in watershed planning & in corroborating

agency-collected data (303d listing/ 305b report);

• Greater clout to volunteer advocates

Tennesseans’ Perceptions Primary Limitations

Greatest Perceived Limitation

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Lack of community support Lack of sufficient funding Collected data have not been viewed as credible Insufficient QA/QC protocol Average Tennessee

Recommendations by Topic & Category

Structure Programmatic Elements Long-term Viability Delivery System Mission/Goals Funding Housing Volunteer Support System QA/QC Membership/ Recruitment Information Management Volunteer Retention Advisory Board Outreach Strategies

Sounds good, so where does Tennessee go from here?

Potential Next Steps

• Convene stakeholder forum to consider viability of a TN

Volunteer Monitoring Program

• Forum objectives could include:
• Revisit recommendations
• Consider strategies for implementing recommendations
• Explore possible barriers to implementation & how to
• vercome them