The survey assessed the need for and structure of a proposed New York State Master Watershed Steward program. Most respondents were involved in watershed management as volunteers or staff of watershed organizations. They identified important training needs like acquiring funds, working with political structures, and watershed assessment and planning. Over three-quarters of respondents thought there was a need for the program. When asked about program structure, respondents were split in their preference for potential names but slightly favored "Watershed Steward Academy."

1. Assessment of Need for a
New York State Master
Watershed Steward Program
April 2012
Elizabeth Keller, Shorna Allred,
Allison Chatrchyan, Carolyn
Klocker

2. Author Information
Elizabeth Keller Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D.
Watershed Community Education Intern Associate Professor
Department of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University Cornell University
B20 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 209 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853
emk234@cornell.edu (607) 255-2149
srb237@cornell.edu
www.human-dimensions.org
Allison Morrill Chatrchyan, Ph.D. Carolyn Ann Klocker
Environment & Energy Program Leader Senior Water Resource Educator
CCE Energy & Climate Change Team Cornell University Cooperative Extension
Dutchess County
Cornell University Cooperative Extension
2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545
Dutchess County (845) 677-8223 ext. 135
2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 cak97@cornell.edu
(845) 677-8223 ext. 136 http://ccedutchess.org
amc256@cornell.edu www.dutchesswatersheds.org
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the planning committee for their help in designing the survey
instrument and working to plan the New York Master Watershed Steward program thus far. In
addition to the authors, the planning committee is comprised of Elizabeth LoGuidice, Elizabeth
Higgins, Michael Courtney, Scott Cuppett, Emilie Hauser, Margaret Kurth, and Carolyn Klocker. We
are also appreciative of the assistance Deb Grantham in helping to distribute the survey to CCE
water resources staff.
This work was supported, in part, by an integrated research and extension grant through the
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch funds) and Cornell Cooperative
Extension (Smith-Lever funds) received from the National Institutes for Food and Agriculture
(NIFA,) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This project was also supported by a grant from the New York
State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program/New York State Water
Resources Institute.
2|Page

3. Table of Contents
Author Information and Acknowledgements.………………………………………………………………… 2
List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction and Methods................................................................................................................................... 6
I. Respondent Involvement in Watershed Management…………………………………………………... 7
II. Watershed Management Training Needs……………………………………………………………….…. 10
III. Recommendations for Program Structure and Implementation….………………………….…. 14
IV. Watershed Management and Planning…………..…………………………..…………….…………….... 26
V. Barriers to Watershed Management and Planning.……………………………………….....……..…. 27
VI. Respondent Demographics……………………………………………………………………...…………..…. 29
Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………... 31
Appendix A: Additional Responses…………………………………………………………………………….…. 33
Appendix B: Analysis of Time Spent Completing Survey………..……………………….……………… 40
Appendix C: Complete Survey……………………………………………………………………………….……… 41
3|Page

4. List of Figures
Figure 1. In what capacity are you involved in watershed management?…………………………. 7
Figure 2. Which best describes your involvement in water conservation and stewardship?
…………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………...… 8
Figure 3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are
involved..………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 9
Figure 4. Training Needs - Organizational and Community Capacity……………………...………. 10
Figure 5. Training Needs - Internal Organizational Capacity…………………………………….……. 12
Figure 6.1 Training Needs - Technical Skills – Background and Planning..……………...………. 13
Figure 6.2 Training Needs - Technical Skills – Assessment and Monitoring.……………………. 13
Figure 7. Do you think there is a need for this type of program?..................................................... 14
Figure 8. Do you have any preferences for the name of a watershed steward program?..... 15
Figure 9. What is your preference for the structure or format of a master watershed
steward program? …………………………………………………………………………………....... 16
Figure 10. Do you think program participants should be required to complete a hands-on
watershed project?........................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 11. How much do you think volunteers would be willing to pay to participate in a
watershed steward training program?................................................................................. 18
Figure 12. How do you think a master watershed steward program should be
implemented?.................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 13. Are you aware of any non-profit organizations, agencies, or groups that might be
good partners to help develop and implement this program?................................... 20
Figure 14.1 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please
give the name of the program..……………………………………………...…………………….. 21
Figure 14.2 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please
give its length…………………………………………………………………………………………..… 22
4|Page

5. Figure 14.3 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please
give the registration fee…………………………………………………………………………........ 23
Figure 14.4 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please
give the distance travelled…………………………………………………………………….…….. 23
Figure 15. What types of people do you think are likely to participate in a master watershed
steward program?......................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 16. Would you be interested in helping pilot/implement a Master Watershed
Steward program?......................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 17. How many people are actively involved in the watershed group(s) that you work
with?.................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 18. In terms of a written watershed plan, please indicate the stage your group is
currently in……………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 26
Figure 19. What factors are barriers to accomplishing watershed management goals in your
organization or community?..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 20. What is your gender?..................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 21. What is your age?............................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 22. What is the highest level of education you have completed?....................................... 30
Figure 23. Survey Completion times………………………………………………………………………...…… 40
Figure 24. Time Spent Answering Questions………………………………………………………………… 40
5|Page

6. Introduction and Methods
The goal of the New York Master Watershed Steward Program is to strengthen local capacity for
successful watershed management across the state and address non-point source pollution. This
program will extend the capacity of many watershed organizations and Cornell Cooperative
Extension (CCE) staff by providing a trained and knowledgeable cadre of enrolled CCE watershed
volunteers and a regional network for delivering CCE educational programming. This program can
increase the impact and scope of research-based information dissemination by creating informed
leaders. It also will help increase community ability to solve their own problems and communicate
with local government about water priorities. The training will likely include face-to-face
workshops, and possibly distance learning and hands-on project components. The program would
reach out to citizens, agency staff, municipal officials, non-profit organization staff, organization
leaders, university students, watershed activists, and landowners. Training will potentially include
modules on subjects such as working with political structures, acquiring funds for watershed
management, setting group goals, assessing and inventorying watersheds, and implementing
watershed projects.
The purpose of the needs assessment was to determine the need for a NY Master Watershed
Steward program, how it should be implemented and other particulars important to piloting such a
program. The study was implemented through a 13-page, 24-question online survey of watershed
organizations 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 and
determined the most useful structure and training modules for the program. The survey included
sections on respondents’ demographics and current watershed management involvement, training
needs, program structure, watershed management planning, and barriers to success. The survey
was sent to 208 leaders of watershed organizations and was also sent to the CCE water resources
list serve via unique survey link and 4 reminder emails. There were 30 undeliverables and 107
respondents to the survey for an overall response rate of 49.4% (for unique web survey link). Of
the 107 respondents, there were 19 respondents from the CEE water resources list serve and 88
watershed organization leader respondents.
6|Page

7. I. Respondent Involvement in Watershed Management
This 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 one
response.
Respondents are involved in watershed management in several different capacities. As shown in
Figure 1, 28% of respondents are watershed organization staff, while 35% are watershed
organization volunteers (of those, 23% are leaders, while 12% are just members), and 16% were
associated with Cornell Cooperative Extension. Only 5% of respondents are not involved in
watershed management. Responses to the “other” category included Soil and Water Conservation
District (n=12), local government (n=2), and Trout Unlimited (n=2). Please see Appendix A for a
full listing of “other” responses.
7|Page

8. More than two thirds of survey participants are “very involved” in watershed conservation and
stewardship, and only 6% are “not involved,” indicating that most survey respondents are, already
involved in watershed-related work.
Respondents are involved in or work with over 150 different watershed organizations and
agencies. The organization in which the most respondents were involved is the NYS Federation of
Lake Associations (n=12). Other organizations repeatedly mentioned by respondents include the
Hudson River Watershed Alliance (n=8), County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (n=7), Soil
and Water Conservation Districts (n=6), the Upper Susquehanna Coalition (n=6), and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (n=5). Organizations in which more than one
respondent is involved are shown in Figure 3, while a full list of all responses to this open-ended
question can be found in Appendix A.
8|Page

9. 9|Page

10. II. Watershed Management Training Needs
A portion of the survey asked respondents to rate a variety of skills and topics that might be
important to a successful watershed training program. The questions are separated into three
categories: Organization and Community Capacity, Internal organizational Capacity, and Technical
Skills. The rating of these training needs indicates what potential participants in the program would
need to learn and what modules are needed to teach those skills.
For questions about training needs related to watershed management, respondents were asked to
rate the importance of certain training needs on a scale of 1-4 (1 = Not at all useful, 2 = Moderately
Useful, 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 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
organization's members or audiences” are below in Figures 4, 5, 6.1, and 6.2.
10 | P a g e

11. The most important organizational and community training needs are acquiring funds for
watershed management (mean=3.62), followed by working with political structures (3.51), and
coordinating 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,
SWCD's 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 functions
The most important internal watershed organization training needs (see Figure 5) are setting
group 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. In terms of technical skills, the highest rated training needs (see Figure 6.1 and 6.2) are assessing
and 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, it's all about getting more revenue and taxes.
It is unfortunate the WRC - Cornell - and other water testing org's 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- "un's" 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 | P a g e

14. III. Recommendations Program Structure and Implementation
This section investigates the necessity of, preferred name, ideal structure, and potential
participants for the watershed steward program. The survey also explored the characteristics of
previous 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 as
organizations and agencies that might be helpful partners in implementing the program. The
section also indicates the level of interest respondents have about the program, and can be used to
extrapolate 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 only
3% (3 respondents) do not feel there is a need (Figure 7). The remainder (20%) believe that there
may 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 isn't enough money to IMPLEMENT anything once the plans are written!
14 | P a g e

15. Preference for the name options was split nearly evenly between Master Watershed Steward,
Watershed Steward Academy, and Watershed Leadership Academy, though slightly favoring
Watershed Steward Academy; 11.4% of respondents had no preference, and 5.7% of respondents
commented 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 online
education combined with face-to-face workshops, and would like to see a hands-on project as part
of the curriculum, with a slight preference for a long-term program (9-12 months).
15 | P a g e

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. Response as to whether the program should include a hands-on watershed project favored
inclusion 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 significant
time commitment from volunteers; another requirement option could be provided for those
participants who could not complete a project. Another alternative is for the project to be
integrated into the class. It must also be determined if students would be able to earn college credit
for participation in the program.
About 49% of respondents indicated that participants would not be willing to pay over $50 to
attend a watershed stewardship training (Figure 11). This seems to be consistent with what they
paid for previously attended workshops; the majority were under $50, and many were free. About
68% believe participants would pay $100 or less.
17 | P a g e

18. A vast majority of respondents (93%) would prefer for the program to occur in many regions
throughout the state rather than a single centralized location (Figure 12). Comments again indicate
that travel can be a burden and should be minimized as best as possible. Another argument for
holding the program in multiple regions is due to the varying water resources across the state and
the need for that to be reflected in the training—particularly any field training. In the open-ended
written responses, respondents also suggest having an annual statewide conference, or if there is
only one site, rotating it to different locations annually.
18 | P a g e

19. Respondents listed over 50 organizations (see Figure 13 and Appendix A) that may be helpful in
implementing the watershed steward program. The most frequently listed were Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (n=14), Cornell Cooperative Extension (n=8), the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (n=6), and the Finger Lakes Lake Ontario Water
Protection Alliance (n=5).
19 | P a g e

20. 20 | P a g e

21. The survey asked respondents to provide the name, length, any fees, and the length traveled of
other workshops and short courses they have already attended. This data provides information on
what people are already participating in, as well as gives an idea of what types of programs and
commitments participants were willing to make which could help define the Watershed Steward
Program.
Forty-five people answered concerning participation in previous programs, most having
participated in several to many (Figure 14.1). Eight respondents attended programs hosted by
Cornell Cooperative Extension, while six attended the NYS Association of Conservation Districts
21 | P a g e

22. Water Quality Symposium, and four attended each the Pace Land Use Leadership Alliance Training
and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation programs (Figure 14.1). A full list of
watershed 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 spread
over weeks rather than consecutively). Comments indicated that the time commitment for
educational programs needs to be feasible and easily fit into people’s schedules. Accommodating
participants 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. This
suggests that costs should be kept low, ideally below $50 (Figure 14.3).
22 | P a g e

23. Generally, respondents tended to participate in workshops that did not require great travel
distances (25 miles or less); however, some people are willing to travel long distances to participate
in educational programs (Figure 14.4).
23 | P a g e

24. Respondents predicted that the most likely participants in the watershed steward program would
be 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 dependent
species 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. Fifty-two respondents, 48.6%, left contact information indicating they were interested in learning
more about this program or would like to become actively involved with the implementation and
development of the program. Thirty-three percent of respondents said they would be interested in
helping pilot the Master Watershed Steward Program, while another 41% said they might be
interested (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, we'd be open to learning about it.
There are already municipalities in place to do this.
Don’t have the time (n=3)
But I'm going to be somewhat critical--just warning you--I don't think it's necessary, and I
think funds could be better spent on technical assistance to watershed groups.
25 | P a g e

26. IV. Watershed Management and Planning
This section provides information about respondents experience with watershed planning and
management.
The size of watershed groups’ respondents work with varies from under 10 to over 100, while 41
respondents (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. Approximately 1 out of 5 groups have no formal watershed planning process while 41% of
watershed organizations have either completed a watersehd plan or are in the process of writing
one (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 was
not 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 plans
V. Barriers to Watershed Planning and Management
Respondents were asked to rate and explain the possible barriers watershed groups face in trying
to accomplish watershed protection goals. These barriers give readers an idea of what problems
exist and offer a starting point from which to determine how certain training modules can be
implemented in the Master Watershed Steward program to alleviate such problems.
Respondents were asked to rate certain problems that could be barriers to accomplishing
watershed management goals on a scale of 1-4 (1=Not a Barrier, 2=Minor Barrier, 3=Moderate
Barrier, 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 awareness
about watershed problems (mean=3.01).
27 | P a g e

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 - we'd 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. 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 SWCD's "voluntary" assistance with BMPs
simply isn't working.
VI. Respondent Demographics
This section provides socio-demographic information about the respondents, detailing their
gender, age, race, and level an education. Gender was split fairly evenly between male and female
respondents (Figure 20).
29 | P a g e

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. Summary and Conclusions
Watershed 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. 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. Appendix A: Additional Responses
For questions that prompted respondents to fill in their answer, only responses listed more than
once were included in graphical displays of the data. For questions with several choices, but also
the option to fill in a different answer, only the choices listed in the survey were generally included
in the graphs. Listed here are complete lists of all the responses that correspond to figures in the
report.
Figure 1. In what capacity, if any, are you involved in watershed management (check all that
apply) n=87
Cornell 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 President
Land trust
County employee staff - Division of Environmental Resources
County Water Quality Coordinating Committee Contact
Land Conservation NGO partner
Conservation Board Member of Trout Unlimited
Watershed coordinator/manager for agency/academia
Inspections/enforcement
Grant writer for watershed organization and to LCBP
County Water Quality Committee Chair
Watershed planner/ group organizer
Planning Consultant
Researcher
Public education; and awareness
Manager of NYS Federation of Lake Associations, Inc.
Federal agency representative
Land trust NGOs
Figure 3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are involved.
(n=98)
Adirondack Watershed Institute at Paul Smiths
Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program
33 | P a g e

34. Ausable River Association, Inc. (n=2)
Basha Kill Area Association, Inc.
Battenkill Conservancy Hudson River
Black Creek Watershed Coalition (n=2)
Black River Watershed
Boquet River Association, Inc. (BRASS) (n=2)
Bronx River Coalition.
Butternut Valley Alliance
Canandaigua Lake Watershed Council
Casperkill Watershed Alliance (n=2)
Catskill Creek Watershed Awareness Project
Catskill Watershed Corporation
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (n=3)
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network to the new Finger Lakes Regional Watershed Alliance
Cazenovia Conservation Advisory Council
Champlain Watershed Improvement Coalition (n=3)
Chautauqua Lake Management Association
Chenango County Water Coordinating Committee (n=2)
Citizens for Catatonk Creek
Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) (n=2)
Coalition of Watershed Towns
Columbia County Lakes Coalition
Community Science Institute and their Fall Creek and Direct Streams water monitoring groups
Conesus Lake Watershed Council
Conewango Watershed Association
Cornell Cooperative Extension (n=4)
Cortland Wellhead protection subcommittee
Cortland-Onondaga Federation of Kettle Lakes Association
County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (n=7)
Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition (n=2)
Delaware Watershed Affairs Office Greene County Asst. Program Delaware, Greene
DRAC (Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition)
Dutchess Watershed Awareness Month
Dutchess Watershed Coalition (n=2)
East Sidney Watershed Group
ECOS: The Environmental Clearinghouse-Executive Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Fall Creek Watershed committee
Fall Kill Creek Watershed Committee (n=2)
Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (n=4)
Finger Lakes Institute
Finger Lakes Land Trust
Finger Lakes Regional Watershed Alliance
Finger Lakes Resource Conservation & Development
Fishkill Creek Watershed Association
Friends of Brook Park
Friends of Gateway
Friends of the Kayaderosseras
Fund for Lake George
34 | P a g e

35. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Greater Stockport Creek Watershed Alliance (n=3)
Harlem River Working Group
Hudson Basin River Watch (n=2)
Hudson River Estuary Management Advisory Council
Hudson River Fish Advisory Project
Hudson River Watershed Alliance (n=8)
Irondequoit Watershed Collaborative
Ithaca Six Mile Creek Drinking Water Processing Plant
Izaak Walton League of America
Jamaica Bay Watershed Alliance
Keuka Watershed Improvement Cooperative
Lake Champlain Basin Program Advisory Committee
Lake George Watershed Coalition
Lincoln Pond Association (n=2)
Little York Lake Improvement Society
Lower Esopus Watershed Partnership
Lower Esopus, Hudson River Alliance
Meads Creek Watershed Citizens' Committee
Melody Lake Homeowners Association
Mohawk River Watershed Advisory Committee
Mohawk Watershed Coalition (n=2)
Neighborhood Open Spaces Coalition
Neversink Live in Cannonsville Watershed
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance
NYC Department of Environmental Protection (n=4)
NYC Watertrail Association
NYS Agriculture and Markets Agriculture Abatement Program for National Park Service
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (n=5)
NYS Department of Health
NYS Federation of Lake Associations (n=12)
NYS Master Watershed Steward Program
Oak Orchard Watershed Protection Alliance
Oatka Creek Watershed Committee
Oatka Creek Watershed Council
Onondaga County Health Department, Environmental Division
Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA)
Operation SPLASH (Stop Polluting Littering And Save Harbors)
Otsego County Conservation Association
Otsego Lake Watershed Supervisory Committee
Otsego Land Trust
Paradox Lake Association Adirondack Lake Alliance
Peconic Estuary Program LI South Shore Estuary Reserve
Quassaick Creek Estuary and Trail Coalition
Quassaick Creek Planning Committee
Quassaick Creek Watershed Alliance
Ramapo River Watershed Intermunicipal Council
Riverkeeper (n=2)
Rockland County Volunteer Stream Monitoring Program
35 | P a g e

36. Rondout Creek Watershed Council
Rondout Neversink Stream Program
Saratoga County Intermunicipal Stormwater Program
Saratoga PLAN (Preserving Land & Nature)
Sawkill Watershed Alliance
Schoharie Reservoir Advisory Committee Schoharie River Center, Inc.
Schoharie Watershed Advisory Committee
Seneca Lake Area Partners in 5 Counties (SLAP-5) (n=4)
Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association (n=3)
Silver Lake Watershed Commission
Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program
Skidmore College Water Resources Initiative
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (n=6)
Sparkill Creek Watershed Committee
St. Lawrence River Watershed
Stream Alliance of Northern Dutchess
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Project
Tompkins County Farm Bureau
Tonawanda Creek Watershed Commission
Town of Caroline Watershed Committee
Trout Unlimited (n=4)
Tully lake Homeowners Association
Upper Susquehanna Coalition (n=6)
Urban Divers
Wappingers Watershed Intermunicipal Council (WIC) (n=2)
Water Management Advisory Committee
Water Resource Council - Tompkins County
Watershed Agricultural Council (n=2)
Watershed Council Environmental Health Staff
Watershed Protection Alliance
Watershed research at Willsboro Research Farm
Figure 9.1 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences that focused on
watershed management, land-use planning, or other local environmental issues? If so,
please give the name of the program. (n=45)
Advanced Stakeholders Involvement
America's Great Outdoors Listening Session
Ashokan Watershed Conference
Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Certified Floodplain Manager
Beyond Pipe and Pond stormwater workshop
Bio Engineering short course
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies Road Salt Information Session
Catskill Research Symposium
Champlain Watershed Improvement Coalition of New York (CWICNY) Stormwater Conference and Tradeshow (n=2
Community Rating System facilitator course
Conservation Skills Workshop
Cornell Cooperative Extension Programs (n=8)
36 | P a g e

37. Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) Tools Webinars
Emerald Ash Borer- Webinar (n=2)
Environmental Monitoring Evaluation Project (EMEP) Conference 2009
Finger Lakes - Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Agency Training (n=2)
Finger Lakes Institute (n=2)
Forest of Faucet GIS workshop
Grant Writing
Great Swamp Watershed Association Stream Assessment Training
Hudson Basin River Watch (HBRW) Biomonitoring Training
Hudson River Estuary Program Workshops (n=2)
Hudson River Watertrail Association (HRWA)
Hudsonia Biodiversity Short Course
Introduction to Fluvial Geomorphology
Keuka Land Use Leadership Alliance
Lake Placid Invasive Species Conference
Local Government Days (n=3)
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on Ocean stakeholder meeting
Mohawk Watershed Symposium (n=3)
NOAA Public Issues and Conflict Management Training
North 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 conference
One hour training on construction site water runoff
Orange County Follow the Water
PACE Land Use Leadership Alliance Training (n=4)
River Network Conferences
Seminar on the new DEC Stormwater Regulations, Scott Cook
Southern Adirondack Lake Conference-warren Co.
Sustainable Development Training
Understanding Your Audience
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Management Training (n=2)
Upper Susquehanna Coalition meetings
Watershed Protection Training - Simon Gruber, New Windsor
Figure 16. Are you aware of any non-profit organizations, agencies, or groups that might
good partners to help develop and implement this program? (n=53)
Audubon Chapters
Basha Kill Area Association, Inc.
Catskill Watershed Corporation (n=2)
37 | P a g e

38. Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (n=2)
Center for Environmental Information, Rochester
Champlain Statewide Lake Assessment Protection (n=2)
Community Science Institute
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Awareness Network
Conservation Advisory Committees
Cornell Cooperative Extension (n=8)
County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (n=3)
DEC Education Centers (Roger Center, Sherburne)
Ducks Unlimited
ECOS: The Environmental Clearinghouse
Environmental 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 Consortium
Freshwater Future Inc.
Friends of Brook Park
Friends of Kayaderosseras Creek
Great Swamp Watershed Association Stream Management Program (n=2)
Hudson Basin River Watch
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc. (n=2)
Hudson River Watershed Alliance (n=3)
Izaak Walton League of America
Jamaica Bay Ecowatchers
Jamaica Bay Task Force
Leadership Greater Syracuse
Leadership Mohawk Valley
Local Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES)
Local land trusts
Mohawk R. Watershed Coalition Ballston
Mohawk River Research Center
National Institute of Health
Natural 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 Association
NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program (n=3)
38 | P a g e

39. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (n=6)
NYS Department of State Waterfront Unit Local Conservation Districts
NYS Environmental Education Foundation
NYS Finger Lakes Alliances (n=2)
Owasco Watershed Lake Association
Project Watershed
Regional Planning and Development Boards (RPDBs)
River Network Inc.
Riverkeeper (n=2)
Saratoga and Galway Lake Associations
Save our Sodus
Shore Owners Association - Lake Placid
Sodus Bay Business Association
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) (n=14)
The Nature Conservancy
The 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. Appendix B: Analysis of Time Spent Completing Survey
If taking into account all data values, the mean survey completion time was 18.8 minutes, the
median 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 excluding
times above 100 minutes, the mean completion time was 15.6 minutes, the median was 13, and the
times ranged from 1 to 63.
40 | P a g e

41. Appendix C: Complete Survey
41 | P a g e

42. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment
Master 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. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment
Participation
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. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment
Training 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 organization's 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. New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment
Training 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