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

Assessment of Need for a New York State Master

Watershed Steward Program

April 2012

Elizabeth Keller, Shorna Allred,

Allison Chatrchyan, Carolyn

Klocker

2 | P a g e

Author Information

Elizabeth Keller

Watershed Community Education Intern

Department of Natural Resources

Cornell University

B20 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853

[email protected]

Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Natural Resources

Cornell University

209 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853

(607) 255-2149

[email protected]

www.human-dimensions.org

Allison Morrill Chatrchyan, Ph.D.

Environment & Energy Program Leader

CCE Energy & Climate Change Team

Cornell University Cooperative Extension

Dutchess County

2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545

(845) 677-8223 ext. 136

[email protected]

Carolyn Ann Klocker Senior Water Resource Educator Cornell University Cooperative Extension Dutchess County 2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 (845) 677-8223 ext. 135 [email protected] http://ccedutchess.org 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.

3 | P a g e

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

4 | P a g e

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


give its length…………………………………………………………………………………………..… 22

5 | P a g e


give the registration fee…………………………………………………………………………........ 23


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

6 | P a g e

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.

7 | P a g e

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.

8 | P a g e

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.

9 | P a g e

10 | P a g e

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.

11 | P a g e

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

12 | P a g e

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.

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e

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!

15 | P a g e

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).

16 | P a g e

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)

17 | P a g e

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.

18 | P a g e

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.

19 | P a g e

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).

20 | P a g e

21 | P a g e

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

22 | P a g e

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).

23 | P a g e

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).

24 | P a g e

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.

25 | P a g e

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.

26 | P a g e

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.

27 | P a g e

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).

N=89

28 | P a g e

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

29 | P a g e

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).

30 | P a g e

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).

31 | P a g e

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.

32 | P a g e

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.

33 | P a g e

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

34 | P a g e

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

35 | P a g e

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

36 | P a g e

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)

37 | P a g e

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)

38 | P a g e

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)

39 | P a g e

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)

40 | P a g e

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.

41 | P a g e

Appendix C: Complete Survey

Page 1

New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentNew York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentNew York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentNew York State 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).

2. Which best describes your involvement in water conservation and stewardship?

3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are involved.

Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

55

66

Cornell Cooperative Extension Staff

gfedc

Watershed Organization Staff

gfedc

Local Elected/Appointed Official

gfedc

Watershed Organization Volunteer Leader

gfedc

Watershed Organization Volunteer Member

gfedc

Financial contributor

gfedc

None, I am not involved in watershed management.

gfedc

Other (please specify)

Not involved

gfedc

Only occasionally involved

gfedc

Somewhat involved

gfedc

Very involved

gfedc

Page 2


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?

5. Do you have any preferences for the name of a watershed steward program?

Participation

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Maybe

nmlkj

Comments:

Master Watershed Steward

gfedc

Watershed Steward Academy

gfedc

Watershed Leadership Academy

gfedc


Page 3


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

Training Needs

Not at all Useful Moderatley Useful Useful Very Useful

Building community trust nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Working with political structures nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Evaluation of project efforts and impacts nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Acquiring funds for watershed management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Planning long-term projects nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjWorking across multi-county or multi-state political

boundaries that make up a watershednmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Coordinating with agencies and organizations to

implement necessary land-use changesnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Building community networking around watershed

managementnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Recruiting volunteers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Page 4


7. Internal Organizational Capacity

Training Needs Continued

Not at all Useful Moderately Useful Useful Very Useful

Setting group goals nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Resolving group conflicts/conflict management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Building trust among group members nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Leadership training nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Group facilitation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Page 5


8. Technical Skills

Training Needs Continued

Not at all Useful Moderately Useful Useful Very Useful

Assessing and inventorying a watershed nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Understanding the Clean Water Act nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjIdentifying possible restoration/treatment alternatives to

address watershed problemsnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Calculating load reductions for possible treatment Best

Management Practice (BMP) alternativesnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Using watershed modules to estimate run-off nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Using GIS to analyze your watershed nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Watershed deliniation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Stream hydrology/morphology nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Riparian buffer zone management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Barriers and dams nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Citizen science species monitoring nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Rapid site assessment of fields and streams nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Photo monitoring nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Wetland training/vernal pool assessment nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Invasive species, plants, and insects nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Biodiversity and habitats nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Floodplain management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Stormwater management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Septic and sewer maintenance nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Agriculture nutrient management and tillage nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Regulatory requirements nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjInter-municipal agreements and watershed

managementnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Pond/lake management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Watershed planning/watershed management plans nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Land-use planning nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Best Management Practices for water quality nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Page 6


9. What types of people do you think are likely to participate in a master watersehd

steward program? Please check all that apply.

10. Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences (full day or

longer) that focused on watershed management, land-use planning, or other local

environmental issues? If so, please give the name of the program, its length, registration

fee, and mode (in person, webinar, etc.), and distance travelled (approximations are

fine).

Program Structure and Implementation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Citizens

gfedc

Agency staff

gfedc

Municipal officials

gfedc

Non-profit organization staff

gfedc

Organization leaders

gfedc

University students

gfedc

Watershed activists

gfedc

Landowners

gfedc


55

66

Page 7

New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentNew York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentNew York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs AssessmentNew York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment11. What is your preference for the structure or format of a master watershed steward

program? (please select one)

12. Do you think program participants should be required to complete a hands-on

watershed project as part of the watershed steward training and long-term program?

(select one)

A series of face-to-face workshops (several 2-3 day workshops held over 3 months)

nmlkj

A series of face-to-face workshops (several 2-3 day workshops held over several months) combined with on-line/distance education

(total program would be 6-9 months)

nmlkj

A series of face-to-face workshops (several 2-3 day workshops over several months) combined with on-line/distance education and a

hands-on project (total program would be 9-12 months)

nmlkj

Comments:

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Maybe

nmlkj

Comments

Page 8


13. How much do you think volunteers would be willing to pay to participate in a

watershed steward training program?

14. How do you think a master watershed steward program should be implemented?

(select one)

15. Are you aware of any non-profit organizations, agencies, or groups that might be

good partners to help develop and implement this program? If so, please list these

groups below.

Implementation of Watershed Steward Program

55

66

$0

nmlkj

$25-$50

nmlkj

$51-$100

nmlkj

$101-$200

nmlkj

$201-$300

nmlkj

$301-$400

nmlkj

$401-$500

nmlkj

One central location in the state, annually

nmlkj

Multiple regional locations throughout the state, annually

nmlkj

Comments

Page 9


16. How many people are actively involved in the watershed group(s) that you work

with? Please indicate that you work with more than one watershed group by checking

the box at the end of the response list.

17. In terms of a written watershed plan, please indicate the stage your group is

currently in.

Watershed Management Planning

Less then 10

gfedc

11-20

gfedc

21-40

gfedc

41-60

gfedc

61-80

gfedc

81-100

gfedc

More then 100

gfedc

Not Applicable

gfedc

I work with more than one watershed group

gfedc

No formal watershed planning process

nmlkj

A watershed plan is currently in the process of being written

nmlkj

A watershed plan has been completed

nmlkj

A watershed plan is being implemented

nmlkj

Not applicable

nmlkj


Page 10


18. What factors are barriers to accomplishing watershed management goals in your

organization or community?

Barriers

Not a Barrier Minor BarrierModerate

BarrierMajor Barrier

Not

Applicable

Lack of financial resources nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of human resources nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of public awareness about watershed problems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of diverse stakeholder involvement in planning process nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Local agency priorities conflict with watershed group goals nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Federal, state, or local laws nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of technical resources nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Opposition from public organizations and/or offices nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Opposition from citizens nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of agreed upon goals nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of ability to interpret data and incorporate it into decision making nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Conflicting interpretations of data nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Low homeowner or farmer interest in adopting recommended practices nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Low interest from public officials in adopting recommended practices nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjLow interest from public officials in adopting proactive/preventative

policiesnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Page 11


19. What is your gender?

20. What is your age?

Demographics

Male

nmlkj

Female

nmlkj

Less then 18 years

nmlkj

18-24 years

nmlkj

25-34 years

nmlkj

35-44 years

nmlkj

45-54 years

nmlkj

55-64 years

nmlkj

65-74 years

nmlkj

75+ years

nmlkj

Page 12


21. What is your race?

22. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Demographics

White

nmlkj

Black or African-American

nmlkj

American Indian or Alaska

nmlkj

Native Hawaiian or Other

nmlkj

Pacific Islander

nmlkj

Hispanic or Latino

nmlkj


Less than high school graduate

nmlkj

High school graduate/G.E.D.

nmlkj

Some college/post high school

nmlkj

4 year college degree

nmlkj

Graduate or professional degree (M.S., Ph.D., M.B.A., etc.)

nmlkj

Page 13


23. Would you be interested in helping pilot/implement a Master Watershed Steward

program?

24. If you are interested in learning more about this program or would like to become

actively involved with the implementation and development of the program please leave

you name, address, and email below. Providing this information does not impact the

confidentiality of your survey responses.

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your opinion is extremely important to the development of a new Master Watershed Steward

program in New York State.

Thank You!

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Maybe

nmlkj

Comments:

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

Education

watershed groups

program structure

type of program

program participants

handson watershed project

planning committee

short courses

new yorkstate