Assessment of Need for a   New York State Master Watershed Steward ProgramApril 2012Elizabeth Keller, Shorna Allred,Alliso...
Author InformationElizabeth Keller                                    Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D.Watershed Community Ed...
Table of ContentsAuthor Information and Acknowledgements.………………………………………………………………… 2List of Figures..........................
List of FiguresFigure 1. In what capacity are you involved in watershed management?…………………………. 7Figure 2. Which best descr...
Figure 14.3 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please           give the registration ...
Introduction and MethodsThe goal of the New York Master Watershed Steward Program is to strengthen local capacity forsucce...
I. Respondent Involvement in Watershed ManagementThis section includes questions that assessed respondent’s involvement in...
More than two thirds of survey participants are “very involved” in watershed conservation andstewardship, and only 6% are ...
9|Page
II. Watershed Management Training NeedsA portion of the survey asked respondents to rate a variety of skills and topics th...
The most important organizational and community training needs are acquiring funds forwatershed management (mean=3.62), fo...
In terms of technical skills, the highest rated training needs (see Figure 6.1 and 6.2) are assessingand inventorying a wa...
13 | P a g e
III. Recommendations Program Structure and ImplementationThis section investigates the necessity of, preferred name, ideal...
Preference for the name options was split nearly evenly between Master Watershed Steward,Watershed Steward Academy, and Wa...
Open-Ended Comments about Program Structure:      One day workshops or night programs – too expensive to travel/stay overn...
Response as to whether the program should include a hands-on watershed project favoredinclusion of a project: 43% responde...
A vast majority of respondents (93%) would prefer for the program to occur in many regionsthroughout the state rather than...
Respondents listed over 50 organizations (see Figure 13 and Appendix A) that may be helpful inimplementing the watershed s...
20 | P a g e
The survey asked respondents to provide the name, length, any fees, and the length traveled ofother workshops and short co...
Water Quality Symposium, and four attended each the Pace Land Use Leadership Alliance Trainingand NYS Department of Enviro...
Generally, respondents tended to participate in workshops that did not require great traveldistances (25 miles or less); h...
Respondents predicted that the most likely participants in the watershed steward program wouldbe watershed activists follo...
Fifty-two respondents, 48.6%, left contact information indicating they were interested in learningmore about this program ...
IV. Watershed Management and PlanningThis section provides information about respondents experience with watershed plannin...
Approximately 1 out of 5 groups have no formal watershed planning process while 41% ofwatershed organizations have either ...
Open-ended Comments:   Statewide template for watershed management plan and state legislation for developing and   impleme...
General lack of knowledge on the issues & remediation   Financial, human and technical resources to be the major barriers ...
Over 50% of respondents were between 45 and 64 indicating a mostly middle-aged population(Figure 21).       Of the 80 who ...
Summary and ConclusionsWatershed Management and Planning     Respondents work with over 150 different watershed organizati...
Watershed Steward Program     77% responded that there is a need for the Watershed Steward Program.     A large variety of...
Appendix A: Additional ResponsesFor questions that prompted respondents to fill in their answer, only responses listed mor...
Ausable River Association, Inc. (n=2)Basha Kill Area Association, Inc.Battenkill Conservancy Hudson RiverBlack Creek Water...
Great Lakes Restoration InitiativeGreater Stockport Creek Watershed Alliance (n=3)Harlem River Working GroupHudson Basin R...
Rondout Creek Watershed CouncilRondout Neversink Stream ProgramSaratoga County Intermunicipal Stormwater ProgramSaratoga P...
Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) Tools WebinarsEmerald Ash Borer- Webinar (n=2)Environmental Monitoring Evaluation Project...
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (n=2)Center for Environmental Information, RochesterChamplain Statewide Lake Assessment Prot...
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (n=6)NYS Department of State Waterfront Unit Local Conservation DistrictsNYS ...
Appendix B: Analysis of Time Spent Completing SurveyIf taking into account all data values, the mean survey completion tim...
Appendix C: Complete Survey                              41 | P a g e
New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentMaster Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment    Thank...
New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentParticipation   4. The watershed steward program in New Yo...
New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentTraining Needs   The following skills and topics may be im...
New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentTraining Needs Continued   7. Internal Organizational Capa...
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program

348 views
301 views

Published on

Results of a statewide survey of watershed organization leaders in New York State.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
348
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program

  1. 1. Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward ProgramApril 2012Elizabeth Keller, Shorna Allred,Allison Chatrchyan, CarolynKlocker
  2. 2. Author InformationElizabeth Keller Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D.Watershed Community Education Intern Associate ProfessorDepartment of Natural Resources Department of Natural ResourcesCornell University Cornell UniversityB20 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 209 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853emk234@cornell.edu (607) 255-2149 srb237@cornell.edu www.human-dimensions.orgAllison Morrill Chatrchyan, Ph.D. Carolyn Ann KlockerEnvironment & Energy Program Leader Senior Water Resource EducatorCCE Energy & Climate Change Team Cornell University Cooperative Extension Dutchess CountyCornell University Cooperative Extension 2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545Dutchess County (845) 677-8223 ext. 1352715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 cak97@cornell.edu(845) 677-8223 ext. 136 http://ccedutchess.orgamc256@cornell.edu www.dutchesswatersheds.org AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the planning committee for their help in designing the surveyinstrument and working to plan the New York Master Watershed Steward program thus far. Inaddition to the authors, the planning committee is comprised of Elizabeth LoGuidice, ElizabethHiggins, Michael Courtney, Scott Cuppett, Emilie Hauser, Margaret Kurth, and Carolyn Klocker. Weare also appreciative of the assistance Deb Grantham in helping to distribute the survey to CCEwater resources staff.This work was supported, in part, by an integrated research and extension grant through theCornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch funds) and Cornell CooperativeExtension (Smith-Lever funds) received from the National Institutes for Food and Agriculture(NIFA,) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationsexpressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture. This project was also supported by a grant from the New YorkState Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program/New York State WaterResources Institute. 2|Page
  3. 3. Table of ContentsAuthor Information and Acknowledgements.………………………………………………………………… 2List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................ 4Introduction and Methods................................................................................................................................... 6I. Respondent Involvement in Watershed Management…………………………………………………... 7II. Watershed Management Training Needs……………………………………………………………….…. 10III. Recommendations for Program Structure and Implementation….………………………….…. 14IV. Watershed Management and Planning…………..…………………………..…………….…………….... 26V. Barriers to Watershed Management and Planning.……………………………………….....……..…. 27VI. Respondent Demographics……………………………………………………………………...…………..…. 29Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………... 31Appendix A: Additional Responses…………………………………………………………………………….…. 33Appendix B: Analysis of Time Spent Completing Survey………..……………………….……………… 40Appendix C: Complete Survey……………………………………………………………………………….……… 41 3|Page
  4. 4. List of FiguresFigure 1. In what capacity are you involved in watershed management?…………………………. 7Figure 2. Which best describes your involvement in water conservation and stewardship? …………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………...… 8Figure 3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are involved..………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 9Figure 4. Training Needs - Organizational and Community Capacity……………………...………. 10Figure 5. Training Needs - Internal Organizational Capacity…………………………………….……. 12Figure 6.1 Training Needs - Technical Skills – Background and Planning..……………...………. 13Figure 6.2 Training Needs - Technical Skills – Assessment and Monitoring.……………………. 13Figure 7. Do you think there is a need for this type of program?..................................................... 14Figure 8. Do you have any preferences for the name of a watershed steward program?..... 15Figure 9. What is your preference for the structure or format of a master watershed steward program? …………………………………………………………………………………....... 16Figure 10. Do you think program participants should be required to complete a hands-on watershed project?........................................................................................................................ 17Figure 11. How much do you think volunteers would be willing to pay to participate in a watershed steward training program?................................................................................. 18Figure 12. How do you think a master watershed steward program should be implemented?.................................................................................................................................. 18Figure 13. Are you aware of any non-profit organizations, agencies, or groups that might be good partners to help develop and implement this program?................................... 20Figure 14.1 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give the name of the program..……………………………………………...…………………….. 21Figure 14.2 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give its length…………………………………………………………………………………………..… 22 4|Page
  5. 5. Figure 14.3 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give the registration fee…………………………………………………………………………........ 23Figure 14.4 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give the distance travelled…………………………………………………………………….…….. 23Figure 15. What types of people do you think are likely to participate in a master watershed steward program?......................................................................................................................... 24Figure 16. Would you be interested in helping pilot/implement a Master Watershed Steward program?......................................................................................................................... 25Figure 17. How many people are actively involved in the watershed group(s) that you work with?.................................................................................................................................................... 26Figure 18. In terms of a written watershed plan, please indicate the stage your group is currently in……………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 26Figure 19. What factors are barriers to accomplishing watershed management goals in your organization or community?..................................................................................................... 28Figure 20. What is your gender?..................................................................................................................... 29Figure 21. What is your age?............................................................................................................................ 30Figure 22. What is the highest level of education you have completed?....................................... 30Figure 23. Survey Completion times………………………………………………………………………...…… 40Figure 24. Time Spent Answering Questions………………………………………………………………… 40 5|Page
  6. 6. Introduction and MethodsThe goal of the New York Master Watershed Steward Program is to strengthen local capacity forsuccessful watershed management across the state and address non-point source pollution. Thisprogram will extend the capacity of many watershed organizations and Cornell CooperativeExtension (CCE) staff by providing a trained and knowledgeable cadre of enrolled CCE watershedvolunteers and a regional network for delivering CCE educational programming. This program canincrease the impact and scope of research-based information dissemination by creating informedleaders. It also will help increase community ability to solve their own problems and communicatewith local government about water priorities. The training will likely include face-to-faceworkshops, and possibly distance learning and hands-on project components. The program wouldreach out to citizens, agency staff, municipal officials, non-profit organization staff, organizationleaders, university students, watershed activists, and landowners. Training will potentially includemodules on subjects such as working with political structures, acquiring funds for watershedmanagement, setting group goals, assessing and inventorying watersheds, and implementingwatershed projects.The purpose of the needs assessment was to determine the need for a NY Master WatershedSteward program, how it should be implemented and other particulars important to piloting such aprogram. The study was implemented through a 13-page, 24-question online survey of watershedorganizations and CCE educators involved in watershed management in New York. The survey,conducted from April to May 2011, investigated the need for a watershed steward program anddetermined the most useful structure and training modules for the program. The survey includedsections on respondents’ demographics and current watershed management involvement, trainingneeds, program structure, watershed management planning, and barriers to success. The surveywas sent to 208 leaders of watershed organizations and was also sent to the CCE water resourceslist serve via unique survey link and 4 reminder emails. There were 30 undeliverables and 107respondents to the survey for an overall response rate of 49.4% (for unique web survey link). Ofthe 107 respondents, there were 19 respondents from the CEE water resources list serve and 88watershed organization leader respondents. 6|Page
  7. 7. I. Respondent Involvement in Watershed ManagementThis section includes questions that assessed respondent’s involvement in watershed management,including in what capacity and to which groups they are affiliated.Note: Percentages are of responses, not respondents, because respondents could choose more than oneresponse.Respondents are involved in watershed management in several different capacities. As shown inFigure 1, 28% of respondents are watershed organization staff, while 35% are watershedorganization volunteers (of those, 23% are leaders, while 12% are just members), and 16% wereassociated with Cornell Cooperative Extension. Only 5% of respondents are not involved inwatershed management. Responses to the “other” category included Soil and Water ConservationDistrict (n=12), local government (n=2), and Trout Unlimited (n=2). Please see Appendix A for afull listing of “other” responses. 7|Page
  8. 8. More than two thirds of survey participants are “very involved” in watershed conservation andstewardship, and only 6% are “not involved,” indicating that most survey respondents are, alreadyinvolved in watershed-related work.Respondents are involved in or work with over 150 different watershed organizations andagencies. The organization in which the most respondents were involved is the NYS Federation ofLake Associations (n=12). Other organizations repeatedly mentioned by respondents include theHudson River Watershed Alliance (n=8), County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (n=7), Soiland Water Conservation Districts (n=6), the Upper Susquehanna Coalition (n=6), and the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation (n=5). Organizations in which more than onerespondent is involved are shown in Figure 3, while a full list of all responses to this open-endedquestion can be found in Appendix A. 8|Page
  9. 9. 9|Page
  10. 10. II. Watershed Management Training NeedsA portion of the survey asked respondents to rate a variety of skills and topics that might beimportant to a successful watershed training program. The questions are separated into threecategories: Organization and Community Capacity, Internal organizational Capacity, and TechnicalSkills. The rating of these training needs indicates what potential participants in the program wouldneed to learn and what modules are needed to teach those skills.For questions about training needs related to watershed management, respondents were asked torate the importance of certain training needs on a scale of 1-4 (1 = Not at all useful, 2 = ModeratelyUseful, 3 = Useful, 4 = Very useful). The bar graphs represent the mean response on this 1-4 scale.Responses to the question “The following skills and topics may be important for successfulwatershed planning, restoration, and protection and could be included in a master watershedsteward program. Please indicate how useful the following skill sets and topics would be for yourorganizations members or audiences” are below in Figures 4, 5, 6.1, and 6.2. 10 | P a g e
  11. 11. The most important organizational and community training needs are acquiring funds forwatershed management (mean=3.62), followed by working with political structures (3.51), andcoordinating with agencies and organizations to implement necessary land-use changes (3.41).Organizational and Community Training Needs Comments and Suggestions: Direct communication with other watershed groups Working across political boundaries Transparency and explanation between planning boards and landowners (i.e.: Tompkins County Planning wants 50ft tributary buffers to increase to 100ft but they have not been able to explain why; doubling the buffer needs to make sense to landowners for their support) Best Practices from those who have gone before! Engaging youth; Engaging schools (teachers & administration; Education: Community and Youth At least some of these tasks should be being handled by Agency staff, including DEC, NRCS, SWCDs etc. Community engagement Board management Financial sustainability Legal training to know the laws Working with research community and higher education institutions Dealing with volunteer burnout Support of organizations with scientific backgrounds Implementation is the problem Understanding watershed functionsThe most important internal watershed organization training needs (see Figure 5) are settinggroup goals (3.17) and group facilitation (3.12).Internal Organization Training Needs Comments and Suggestions: Getting volunteers (n=2; many people are too busy, stretched thin; need volunteers of all ages and ethnicities) Grant writing, such that projects for the greatest good can produce well-written enough grants Need money Learning more about watershed management plans Outreach and interfacing Money is needed for implementation, not for watershed planning Having a point person 11 | P a g e
  12. 12. In terms of technical skills, the highest rated training needs (see Figure 6.1 and 6.2) are assessingand inventorying a watershed (3.52), watershed planning (3.45), and stormwater management(3.41). The least important technical skill training needs were related to barriers and dams (2.80).All means for Technical Skills Training needs can be seen in Figures 6.1 and 6.2.Technical Training Needs Comments and Suggestions: Land use planning is a big one here, the towns and villages allow so much development with little regard for the environment, its all about getting more revenue and taxes. It is unfortunate the WRC - Cornell - and other water testing orgs in 2009 were not able to consolidate & enhance lake testing; I believe Walter Hang was responsible for killing this plan. In Caroline we have both confined & unconfined aquifers- "uns" are very difficult to map/quantify. Training in how to access the data would be more helpful than in reinventing the wheel. A lot of this would be being accomplished if there is good communication between DEC, USFWS, USGS, NRCS, Regional Planning agencies, etc. As stated above - computer modeling for water drainage issues-need to understand basic concepts. Recreational use analysis (fishing, hunting, etc.) Many of the above are best left to experts. Basic understanding is helpful, but some of the more technical aspects should not be left in the hands of those with only a personal interest. 12 | P a g e
  13. 13. 13 | P a g e
  14. 14. III. Recommendations Program Structure and ImplementationThis section investigates the necessity of, preferred name, ideal structure, and potentialparticipants for the watershed steward program. The survey also explored the characteristics ofprevious programs and workshops respondents have attended related to watershed management.The data includes details of how the program should be implemented—cost, location—as well asorganizations and agencies that might be helpful partners in implementing the program. Thesection also indicates the level of interest respondents have about the program, and can be used toextrapolate what the potential interest might be in a larger population.Well over a majority, 77% (79 respondents) think there is need for this type of program, while only3% (3 respondents) do not feel there is a need (Figure 7). The remainder (20%) believe that theremay be (or may not be) need for this program. These data confirm the need for such a program.Open-Ended Comments from Respondents: We need to train the public to fully understand what will occur/is occurring when nothing is done. Be careful about duplicative efforts; coordinate between other groups doing this type of work to limit redundancy. There is a LOT of education and training. There really is NOT a lack of education for watershed management in NYS. (Has anyone at Cornell read "Diet for a Small Lake"? There simply isnt enough money to IMPLEMENT anything once the plans are written! 14 | P a g e
  15. 15. Preference for the name options was split nearly evenly between Master Watershed Steward,Watershed Steward Academy, and Watershed Leadership Academy, though slightly favoringWatershed Steward Academy; 11.4% of respondents had no preference, and 5.7% of respondentscommented they would choose none of these (Figure 8).Other Suggestions Related to Program Name: Training Academy for Watershed Leaders and Stewards NYS Watershed Stewardship Program Waterkeepers “master” and “academy” sound elitist Watershed Management Institute Watershed Monitoring Academy Water Resources Academy Something mentioning Cornell University or mentioning NYS watershed training program Watershed Stewardship Program (n=2)Responses concerning the structure of the program were fairly evenly split between short, medium,and long-term options for program structure (see options in Figure 9). Respondents prefer onlineeducation combined with face-to-face workshops, and would like to see a hands-on project as partof the curriculum, with a slight preference for a long-term program (9-12 months). 15 | P a g e
  16. 16. Open-Ended Comments about Program Structure: One day workshops or night programs – too expensive to travel/stay overnight, people have responsibilities/jobs/commitments – maybe weekends if consecutive days (n=7) Ideally, face-to-face workshops over summer, when summer residents present; distance education can follow Might lose people in a longer than 6 month program, asks a lot of volunteers; A shorter more intense program may keep the participants focused (n=3) Face-face, hands-on, no online Only online keeps costs down and people available (n=2) Shorter list of topics, focus on group/personal goals Hands-on project is crucial (n=2) 16 | P a g e
  17. 17. Response as to whether the program should include a hands-on watershed project favoredinclusion of a project: 43% responded yes and 41% responded maybe, while only 16% said no.Respondents suggest that the project could be made optional because it can require a significanttime commitment from volunteers; another requirement option could be provided for thoseparticipants who could not complete a project. Another alternative is for the project to beintegrated into the class. It must also be determined if students would be able to earn college creditfor participation in the program.About 49% of respondents indicated that participants would not be willing to pay over $50 toattend a watershed stewardship training (Figure 11). This seems to be consistent with what theypaid for previously attended workshops; the majority were under $50, and many were free. About68% believe participants would pay $100 or less. 17 | P a g e
  18. 18. A vast majority of respondents (93%) would prefer for the program to occur in many regionsthroughout the state rather than a single centralized location (Figure 12). Comments again indicatethat travel can be a burden and should be minimized as best as possible. Another argument forholding the program in multiple regions is due to the varying water resources across the state andthe need for that to be reflected in the training—particularly any field training. In the open-endedwritten responses, respondents also suggest having an annual statewide conference, or if there isonly one site, rotating it to different locations annually. 18 | P a g e
  19. 19. Respondents listed over 50 organizations (see Figure 13 and Appendix A) that may be helpful inimplementing the watershed steward program. The most frequently listed were Soil and WaterConservation Districts (n=14), Cornell Cooperative Extension (n=8), the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation (n=6), and the Finger Lakes Lake Ontario WaterProtection Alliance (n=5). 19 | P a g e
  20. 20. 20 | P a g e
  21. 21. The survey asked respondents to provide the name, length, any fees, and the length traveled ofother workshops and short courses they have already attended. This data provides information onwhat people are already participating in, as well as gives an idea of what types of programs andcommitments participants were willing to make which could help define the Watershed StewardProgram.Forty-five people answered concerning participation in previous programs, most havingparticipated in several to many (Figure 14.1). Eight respondents attended programs hosted byCornell Cooperative Extension, while six attended the NYS Association of Conservation Districts 21 | P a g e
  22. 22. Water Quality Symposium, and four attended each the Pace Land Use Leadership Alliance Trainingand NYS Department of Environmental Conservation programs (Figure 14.1). A full list ofwatershed related education that respondents attended can be found in Appendix A.In terms of length, about half the programs people participated in were only one day in length(Figure 14.2). None were more than five days in total (however some were several days spreadover weeks rather than consecutively). Comments indicated that the time commitment foreducational programs needs to be feasible and easily fit into people’s schedules. Accommodatingparticipants other commitments could help encourage participation in the proposed program.Respondents also suggested weekend or night events for those with regular jobs.Over 79% of workshops previously attended cost $50 or less, while over 45% were free. Thissuggests that costs should be kept low, ideally below $50 (Figure 14.3). 22 | P a g e
  23. 23. Generally, respondents tended to participate in workshops that did not require great traveldistances (25 miles or less); however, some people are willing to travel long distances to participatein educational programs (Figure 14.4). 23 | P a g e
  24. 24. Respondents predicted that the most likely participants in the watershed steward program wouldbe watershed activists followed by non-profit organization staff and then citizens (Figure 15). Fill-in comments suggested that farmers, high school students, sportsmen, water quality dependentspecies activists, and consultants may also participate.Recommendations: It should be determined what sort of requirements there would be to participate in the program (i.e.: age or education requirements). We must determine how this diverse participation affects the curriculum. What outside knowledge and understanding would each group have? What is each group hoping to get out of the experience? The program should accommodate these needs as well as possible. 24 | P a g e
  25. 25. Fifty-two respondents, 48.6%, left contact information indicating they were interested in learningmore about this program or would like to become actively involved with the implementation anddevelopment of the program. Thirty-three percent of respondents said they would be interested inhelping pilot the Master Watershed Steward Program, while another 41% said they might beinterested (see Figure 16).Comments on respondents interest in helping implement the program: We are currently working with OCHD implementing one for Otisco Lake This sounds like a GREAT opportunity. Public outreach and participation is something I feel very strongly about. Count me in!! As a means of furthering our present project Depending on time and availability, if the model here can be enhanced through a state model, wed be open to learning about it. There are already municipalities in place to do this. Don’t have the time (n=3) But Im going to be somewhat critical--just warning you--I dont think its necessary, and I think funds could be better spent on technical assistance to watershed groups. 25 | P a g e
  26. 26. IV. Watershed Management and PlanningThis section provides information about respondents experience with watershed planning andmanagement.The size of watershed groups’ respondents work with varies from under 10 to over 100, while 41respondents (46%) indicated they work with more than one watershed group (Figure 17).These watershed groups’ progress on written watershed plans is also quite varied. 26 | P a g e
  27. 27. Approximately 1 out of 5 groups have no formal watershed planning process while 41% ofwatershed organizations have either completed a watersehd plan or are in the process of writingone (Figure 18). Over 25% of watershed organizations are in the implementation stage and 21%are in the process of writing a plan. The question about watershed planning and implemtation wasnot applicable to 10% of respondents.Comments and Suggestions Concerning Watershed Plans: Implementation is slow, and goals seems to change over time It depends on the definition of a watershed plan -- there should be a statewide, standardized plan template It varies (n=4) Caroline is a MS4 Township, we have written planning. The Cayuga Lake plan is being updated. 4 have plans, total of 19 districts The watershed management planning process has begun (to update an existing watershed management plan). We are in the data gathering stage/characterizing the watershed. We are currently updating our plans (n=2) Have NYS DOS grant to prepare watershed plan As needed, have hired a hydrogeologist to assist us Most, but not all, of the lake associations have a plan, are developing a plan, or are well into implementation. We have several types of plansV. Barriers to Watershed Planning and ManagementRespondents were asked to rate and explain the possible barriers watershed groups face in tryingto accomplish watershed protection goals. These barriers give readers an idea of what problemsexist and offer a starting point from which to determine how certain training modules can beimplemented in the Master Watershed Steward program to alleviate such problems.Respondents were asked to rate certain problems that could be barriers to accomplishingwatershed management goals on a scale of 1-4 (1=Not a Barrier, 2=Minor Barrier, 3=ModerateBarrier, 4=Major Barrier). The graph represents the mean response on this 1-4 scale (Figure 19).The greatest barrier to accomplishing watershed goals was Lack of financial resources(mean=3.49), followed by Lack of human resources (mean=3.11), and Lack of public awarenessabout watershed problems (mean=3.01). 27 | P a g e
  28. 28. Open-ended Comments: Statewide template for watershed management plan and state legislation for developing and implementing watershed management plans would resolve many difficulties Budgets are tight The EPA TMDL goals have us concerned - wed have to remove every animal & human from upstate and we would not be able to meet some of the EPA proposed thresholds. It may not be interest of owner/farmer to adopt but financial resource availability-groceries come before land management practices and tree plantings 28 | P a g e
  29. 29. General lack of knowledge on the issues & remediation Financial, human and technical resources to be the major barriers Lack of time Technical resources are available but not all groups are aware of what s out there or where Have not yet defined "recommended practices" The "agriculture-exempt" (from just about every regulation) issue is HUGE--especially with regard to manure spreading & soil erosion. The SWCDs "voluntary" assistance with BMPs simply isnt working.VI. Respondent DemographicsThis section provides socio-demographic information about the respondents, detailing theirgender, age, race, and level an education. Gender was split fairly evenly between male and femalerespondents (Figure 20). 29 | P a g e
  30. 30. Over 50% of respondents were between 45 and 64 indicating a mostly middle-aged population(Figure 21). Of the 80 who responded to the race question, all are White except for one, who is Hispanic/Latino. This was a highly educated pool of respondents. Fourteen percent completed at least some of college; 40% have completed a 4 year degree, and 46% have graduate or professional degrees (Figure 22). 30 | P a g e
  31. 31. Summary and ConclusionsWatershed Management and Planning Respondents work with over 150 different watershed organizations and are generally quite involved in watershed management. The number one general problem is lack of money: the highest rated training need was “acquiring funds for watershed management” and the highest ranked barrier to accomplishing watershed goals was “lack of financial resources.” The highest rated organizational and community capacity training needs are acquiring funds for watershed management, working with political structures, and coordinating with agencies and organizations to implement necessary land-use changes. The highest rated internal organizational capacity training needs are setting group goals, group facilitation, and leadership training. The highest rated technical field skills training needs are assessing and inventorying a watershed, stormwater management, and identifying possible restoration/treatment alternatives to solve watershed problems. The highest rated technical planning skills training needs are watershed planning/watershed management plans, best management practices for water quality, and using GIS to analyze your watershed. The highest rated barriers to successful achievement of watershed goals are lack of financial resources, lack of human resources, and lack of public awareness about watershed problems 1 in 5 watershed organizations have no formal watershed planning process in place while 28% are implementing a watershed plan, 17% have completed a watershed plan, and 24% are in the process of writing a plan. Most watershed organizations involve approximately 10-60 people. Survey respondents were predominantly white, educated, middle-aged people, both men and women. 31 | P a g e
  32. 32. Watershed Steward Program 77% responded that there is a need for the Watershed Steward Program. A large variety of types of people are predicted to participate in the program—citizens, agency staff, municipal officials, non-profit organization staff, organization leaders, university students, watershed activists, and landowners. Based on workshops respondents have previously attended, as well as their predictions on how much participants would be willing to pay, costs for participants should be kept below $50 and be held within a 50 mile distance radius. Time commitment should be minimized, keeping in mind that participants may have regular weekday jobs as well as other commitments. Weekend or night workshops could be helpful in working around jobs. Responses lead toward inclusion of a hands-on project as part of the program, but again, this must be coordinated with those who have jobs and other commitments. The program could be included as part of the class or made one option, while there could be another option for fulfilling program requirements if one is too busy to participate in the project. The program should occur at multiple regions through the state. 32 | P a g e
  33. 33. Appendix A: Additional ResponsesFor questions that prompted respondents to fill in their answer, only responses listed more thanonce were included in graphical displays of the data. For questions with several choices, but alsothe option to fill in a different answer, only the choices listed in the survey were generally includedin the graphs. Listed here are complete lists of all the responses that correspond to figures in thereport.Figure 1. In what capacity, if any, are you involved in watershed management (check all thatapply) n=87Cornell Cooperative Extension Staff (n=21)Watershed Organization Staff (n=37)Local Elected/Appointed Official (n=10)Watershed Organization Volunteer Leader (n=31)Watershed Organization Volunteer Member (n=16)Financial Contributor (n=11)None; not involved in watershed management (n=6)Soil and Water Conservation District (n=12)Local government (n=2)Position in chapter of Trout Unlimited (n=2)Lake Association PresidentLand trustCounty employee staff - Division of Environmental ResourcesCounty Water Quality Coordinating Committee ContactLand Conservation NGO partnerConservation Board Member of Trout UnlimitedWatershed coordinator/manager for agency/academiaInspections/enforcementGrant writer for watershed organization and to LCBPCounty Water Quality Committee ChairWatershed planner/ group organizerPlanning ConsultantResearcherPublic education; and awarenessManager of NYS Federation of Lake Associations, Inc.Federal agency representativeLand trust NGOsFigure 3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are involved.(n=98)Adirondack Watershed Institute at Paul SmithsAshokan Watershed Stream Management Program 33 | P a g e
  34. 34. Ausable River Association, Inc. (n=2)Basha Kill Area Association, Inc.Battenkill Conservancy Hudson RiverBlack Creek Watershed Coalition (n=2)Black River WatershedBoquet River Association, Inc. (BRASS) (n=2)Bronx River Coalition.Butternut Valley AllianceCanandaigua Lake Watershed CouncilCasperkill Watershed Alliance (n=2)Catskill Creek Watershed Awareness ProjectCatskill Watershed CorporationCayuga Lake Watershed Network (n=3)Cayuga Lake Watershed Network to the new Finger Lakes Regional Watershed AllianceCazenovia Conservation Advisory CouncilChamplain Watershed Improvement Coalition (n=3)Chautauqua Lake Management AssociationChenango County Water Coordinating Committee (n=2)Citizens for Catatonk CreekCitizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) (n=2)Coalition of Watershed TownsColumbia County Lakes CoalitionCommunity Science Institute and their Fall Creek and Direct Streams water monitoring groupsConesus Lake Watershed CouncilConewango Watershed AssociationCornell Cooperative Extension (n=4)Cortland Wellhead protection subcommitteeCortland-Onondaga Federation of Kettle Lakes AssociationCounty Water Quality Coordinating Committees (n=7)Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition (n=2)Delaware Watershed Affairs Office Greene County Asst. Program Delaware, GreeneDRAC (Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition)Dutchess Watershed Awareness MonthDutchess Watershed Coalition (n=2)East Sidney Watershed GroupECOS: The Environmental Clearinghouse-Executive DirectorEnvironmental Protection AgencyFall Creek Watershed committeeFall Kill Creek Watershed Committee (n=2)Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (n=4)Finger Lakes InstituteFinger Lakes Land TrustFinger Lakes Regional Watershed AllianceFinger Lakes Resource Conservation & DevelopmentFishkill Creek Watershed AssociationFriends of Brook ParkFriends of GatewayFriends of the KayaderosserasFund for Lake George 34 | P a g e
  35. 35. Great Lakes Restoration InitiativeGreater Stockport Creek Watershed Alliance (n=3)Harlem River Working GroupHudson Basin River Watch (n=2)Hudson River Estuary Management Advisory CouncilHudson River Fish Advisory ProjectHudson River Watershed Alliance (n=8)Irondequoit Watershed CollaborativeIthaca Six Mile Creek Drinking Water Processing PlantIzaak Walton League of AmericaJamaica Bay Watershed AllianceKeuka Watershed Improvement CooperativeLake Champlain Basin Program Advisory CommitteeLake George Watershed CoalitionLincoln Pond Association (n=2)Little York Lake Improvement SocietyLower Esopus Watershed PartnershipLower Esopus, Hudson River AllianceMeads Creek Watershed Citizens CommitteeMelody Lake Homeowners AssociationMohawk River Watershed Advisory CommitteeMohawk Watershed Coalition (n=2)Neighborhood Open Spaces CoalitionNeversink Live in Cannonsville WatershedNorthwest Ecosystem AllianceNYC Department of Environmental Protection (n=4)NYC Watertrail AssociationNYS Agriculture and Markets Agriculture Abatement Program for National Park ServiceNYS Department of Environmental Conservation (n=5)NYS Department of HealthNYS Federation of Lake Associations (n=12)NYS Master Watershed Steward ProgramOak Orchard Watershed Protection AllianceOatka Creek Watershed CommitteeOatka Creek Watershed CouncilOnondaga County Health Department, Environmental DivisionOntario Clean Water Agency (OCWA)Operation SPLASH (Stop Polluting Littering And Save Harbors)Otsego County Conservation AssociationOtsego Lake Watershed Supervisory CommitteeOtsego Land TrustParadox Lake Association Adirondack Lake AlliancePeconic Estuary Program LI South Shore Estuary ReserveQuassaick Creek Estuary and Trail CoalitionQuassaick Creek Planning CommitteeQuassaick Creek Watershed AllianceRamapo River Watershed Intermunicipal CouncilRiverkeeper (n=2)Rockland County Volunteer Stream Monitoring Program 35 | P a g e
  36. 36. Rondout Creek Watershed CouncilRondout Neversink Stream ProgramSaratoga County Intermunicipal Stormwater ProgramSaratoga PLAN (Preserving Land & Nature)Sawkill Watershed AllianceSchoharie Reservoir Advisory Committee Schoharie River Center, Inc.Schoharie Watershed Advisory CommitteeSeneca Lake Area Partners in 5 Counties (SLAP-5) (n=4)Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association (n=3)Silver Lake Watershed CommissionSkaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural ProgramSkidmore College Water Resources InitiativeSoil and Water Conservation Districts (n=6)Sparkill Creek Watershed CommitteeSt. Lawrence River WatershedStream Alliance of Northern DutchessSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation ProjectTompkins County Farm BureauTonawanda Creek Watershed CommissionTown of Caroline Watershed CommitteeTrout Unlimited (n=4)Tully lake Homeowners AssociationUpper Susquehanna Coalition (n=6)Urban DiversWappingers Watershed Intermunicipal Council (WIC) (n=2)Water Management Advisory CommitteeWater Resource Council - Tompkins CountyWatershed Agricultural Council (n=2)Watershed Council Environmental Health StaffWatershed Protection AllianceWatershed research at Willsboro Research FarmFigure 9.1 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences that focused onwatershed management, land-use planning, or other local environmental issues? If so,please give the name of the program. (n=45)Advanced Stakeholders InvolvementAmericas Great Outdoors Listening SessionAshokan Watershed ConferenceAssociation of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Certified Floodplain ManagerBeyond Pipe and Pond stormwater workshopBio Engineering short courseCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies Road Salt Information SessionCatskill Research SymposiumChamplain Watershed Improvement Coalition of New York (CWICNY) Stormwater Conference and Tradeshow (n=2Community Rating System facilitator courseConservation Skills WorkshopCornell Cooperative Extension Programs (n=8) 36 | P a g e
  37. 37. Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) Tools WebinarsEmerald Ash Borer- Webinar (n=2)Environmental Monitoring Evaluation Project (EMEP) Conference 2009Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Agency Training (n=2)Finger Lakes Institute (n=2)Forest of Faucet GIS workshopGrant WritingGreat Swamp Watershed Association Stream Assessment TrainingHudson Basin River Watch (HBRW) Biomonitoring TrainingHudson River Estuary Program Workshops (n=2)Hudson River Watertrail Association (HRWA)Hudsonia Biodiversity Short CourseIntroduction to Fluvial GeomorphologyKeuka Land Use Leadership AllianceLake Placid Invasive Species ConferenceLocal Government Days (n=3)Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on Ocean stakeholder meetingMohawk Watershed Symposium (n=3)NOAA Public Issues and Conflict Management TrainingNorth Country Stormwater Conference and Tradeshow (n=2)NYC Watershed Conference (n=2)NYS Association of Conservation Districts Annual Water Quality Symposium (n=6)NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Programs (n=4)NYS Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)NYS Federation of Lake Associations annual conferenceOne hour training on construction site water runoffOrange County Follow the WaterPACE Land Use Leadership Alliance Training (n=4)River Network ConferencesSeminar on the new DEC Stormwater Regulations, Scott CookSouthern Adirondack Lake Conference-warren Co.Sustainable Development TrainingUnderstanding Your AudienceUniversity of New Hampshire Stormwater Management Training (n=2)Upper Susquehanna Coalition meetingsWatershed Protection Training - Simon Gruber, New WindsorFigure 16. Are you aware of any non-profit organizations, agencies, or groups that mightgood partners to help develop and implement this program? (n=53)Audubon ChaptersBasha Kill Area Association, Inc.Catskill Watershed Corporation (n=2) 37 | P a g e
  38. 38. Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (n=2)Center for Environmental Information, RochesterChamplain Statewide Lake Assessment Protection (n=2)Community Science InstituteConcentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Awareness NetworkConservation Advisory CommitteesCornell Cooperative Extension (n=8)County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (n=3)DEC Education Centers (Roger Center, Sherburne)Ducks UnlimitedECOS: The Environmental ClearinghouseEnvironmental Leaders Learning Alliance (ELLA - Teatown in Westchester County)Environmental Management Councils (n=2)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Farm Service Agency (FSA)Finger Lakes Institute at Hobart and William Smith Colleges (n=3)Finger Lakes Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FLLOWPA) (n=5)Finger Lakes Watersheds ConsortiumFreshwater Future Inc.Friends of Brook ParkFriends of Kayaderosseras CreekGreat Swamp Watershed Association Stream Management Program (n=2)Hudson Basin River WatchHudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc. (n=2)Hudson River Watershed Alliance (n=3)Izaak Walton League of AmericaJamaica Bay EcowatchersJamaica Bay Task ForceLeadership Greater SyracuseLeadership Mohawk ValleyLocal Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES)Local land trustsMohawk R. Watershed Coalition BallstonMohawk River Research CenterNational Institute of HealthNatural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (n=3)Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)New York State Federation of Lake Associations (n=4)NYC Department of Environmental Protection (n=3)NYS Conservation District Employees AssociationNYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program (n=3) 38 | P a g e
  39. 39. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (n=6)NYS Department of State Waterfront Unit Local Conservation DistrictsNYS Environmental Education FoundationNYS Finger Lakes Alliances (n=2)Owasco Watershed Lake AssociationProject WatershedRegional Planning and Development Boards (RPDBs)River Network Inc.Riverkeeper (n=2)Saratoga and Galway Lake AssociationsSave our SodusShore Owners Association - Lake PlacidSodus Bay Business AssociationSoil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) (n=14)The Nature ConservancyThe Schoharie River Center, Inc. (n=2)Trout Unlimited (n=2)Upper Susquehanna Coalition (n=4)Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) (n=4)Watershed Associates (n=2) 39 | P a g e
  40. 40. Appendix B: Analysis of Time Spent Completing SurveyIf taking into account all data values, the mean survey completion time was 18.8 minutes, themedian was 14, and the range was 1 to 258 minutes.As expected, the greater time spent on the survey, generally the more questions were answered;however, the linear correlation between the two is relatively small, R2 is only 0.1359. If excludingtimes above 100 minutes, the mean completion time was 15.6 minutes, the median was 13, and thetimes ranged from 1 to 63. 40 | P a g e
  41. 41. Appendix C: Complete Survey 41 | P a g e
  42. 42. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentMaster Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment Thank you for participating in this survey. Cornell University Department of Natural Resources and Cornell Cooperative Extension are working together to develop a new Master Watershed Steward program for New York State. The program will provide interested individuals with watershed-related training to strengthen local capacities for successful watershed management. We are implementing this survey to better understand what needs exist among watershed groups and extension educators in the State and would like your perspectives. As you respond to the questions below, please consider the needs of the watershed group(s) with whom you work. This survey should only take you 10-15 minutes to complete. Your response to this survey is completely voluntary, however it is extremely important. Responding to this survey will ensure that we receive valid results which portray the perspectives of the respondents. Your response will be kept completely confidential. Thank you in advance for your response, it is greatly appreciated. 1. In what capacity, if any, are you involved in watershed management? (Check all that apply). c d e f g Cornell Cooperative Extension Staff c d e f g Watershed Organization Staff c d e f g Local Elected/Appointed Official c d e f g Watershed Organization Volunteer Leader c d e f g Watershed Organization Volunteer Member c d e f g Financial contributor c d e f g None, I am not involved in watershed management. Other (please specify) 2. Which best describes your involvement in water conservation and stewardship? c d e f g Not involved c d e f g Only occasionally involved c d e f g Somewhat involved c d e f g Very involved 3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are involved. 5 6 Page 1
  43. 43. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentParticipation 4. The watershed steward program in New York State will include training on different watershed-related topics and will help establish a trained volunteer base in your community. Do you think there is a need for this type of program? j k l m n Yes j k l m n No j k l m n Maybe Comments: 5. Do you have any preferences for the name of a watershed steward program? c d e f g Master Watershed Steward c d e f g Watershed Steward Academy c d e f g Watershed Leadership Academy Other (please specify) Page 2
  44. 44. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentTraining Needs The following skills and topics may be important for successful watershed planning, restoration, and protection and could be included in a master watershed steward program. Please indicate how useful the following skill sets and topics would be for your organizations members or audiences. 6. Organizational and Community Capacity Not at all Useful Moderatley Useful Useful Very Useful Building community trust j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Working with political structures j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Evaluation of project efforts and impacts j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Acquiring funds for watershed management j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Planning long-term projects j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Working across multi-county or multi-state political j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n boundaries that make up a watershed Coordinating with agencies and organizations to j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n implement necessary land-use changes Building community networking around watershed j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n management Recruiting volunteers j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Other (please specify) Page 3
  45. 45. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentTraining Needs Continued 7. Internal Organizational Capacity Not at all Useful Moderately Useful Useful Very Useful Setting group goals j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Resolving group conflicts/conflict management j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Building trust among group members j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Leadership training j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Group facilitation j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n j k l m n Other (please specify) Page 4

×