Assessment of Need for a State Master Watershed Steward Program

April 2012

Elizabeth Keller, Shorna Allred, Allison Chatrchyan, Carolyn Klocker

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 [email protected] (607) 255-2149 [email protected] 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 Cornell University Cooperative Extension 2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 Dutchess County (845) 677-8223 ext. 135 2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 [email protected] (845) 677-8223 ext. 136 http://ccedutchess.org [email protected] 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, Program/New York State Water Resources Institute.

2 | 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

3 | 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

Figure 14.2 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give its length…………………………………………………………………………………………..… 22

4 | P a g e

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 | 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.

6 | 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.

7 | 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.

8 | P a g e

9 | 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.

10 | 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

11 | 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.

12 | P a g e

13 | 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!

14 | 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).

15 | 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)

16 | 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.

17 | 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.

18 | 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).

19 | P a g e

20 | 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

21 | 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).

22 | 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).

23 | 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.

24 | 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.

25 | 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.

26 | 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. N=89 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ausable River Association, Inc. (n=2) Basha Area Association, Inc. Battenkill Conservancy Hudson River Black Creek Watershed Coalition (n=2) Black River Watershed Boquet River Association, Inc. (BRASS) (n=2) Coalition. Butternut Valley Alliance Canandaigua Lake Watershed Council Watershed Alliance (n=2) 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) 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 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 Watershed Association Friends of Brook Park Friends of Gateway Friends of the Fund for Lake George

34 | P a g e

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Greater Watershed Alliance (n=3) 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 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 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 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

Rondout Creek Watershed Council Rondout Neversink Stream Program Saratoga County Intermunicipal Stormwater Program Saratoga PLAN (Preserving Land & Nature) 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) 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

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

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

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

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

Appendix C: Complete Survey

41 | P a g e

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).

gfedc 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.

Other (please specify)

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

gfedc Not involved

gfedc Only occasionally involved

gfedc Somewhat involved

gfedc Very involved

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

n

Page 1 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?

nmlkj Yes

nmlkj No

nmlkj Maybe

Comments:

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

gfedc Master Watershed Steward

gfedc Watershed Steward Academy

gfedc Watershed Leadership Academy

Other (please specify)

Page 2 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 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 nmlkj Working across multi-county or multi-state political nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj boundaries that make up a watershed Coordinating with agencies and organizations to nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj implement necessary land-use changes Building community networking around watershed nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj management Recruiting volunteers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Other (please specify)

Page 3 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 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

Other (please specify)

Page 4 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Training Needs Continued

8. Technical Skills Not at all Useful Moderately Useful Useful Very Useful Assessing and inventorying a watershed nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Understanding the nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Identifying possible restoration/treatment alternatives to nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj address watershed problems Calculating load reductions for possible treatment Best nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Management Practice (BMP) alternatives 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 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 nmlkj Inter-municipal agreements and watershed nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj management 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

Other (please specify)

Page 5 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Program Structure and Implementation

9. What types of people do you think are likely to participate in a master watersehd steward program? Please check all that apply.

gfedc Citizens

gfedc Agency staff

gfedc Municipal officials

gfedc Non-profit organization staff

gfedc Organization leaders

gfedc University students

gfedc Watershed activists

gfedc Landowners

Other (please specify) m

n

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).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Page 6 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment 11. What is your preference for the structure or format of a master watershed steward program? (please select one)

nmlkj 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)

Comments:

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)

nmlkj Yes

nmlkj No

nmlkj Maybe

Comments

Page 7 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Implementation of Watershed Steward Program

13. How much do you think volunteers would be willing to pay to participate in a watershed steward training program?

nmlkj $0

nmlkj $25-$50

nmlkj $51-$100

nmlkj $101-$200

nmlkj $201-$300

nmlkj $301-$400

nmlkj $401-$500

14. How do you think a master watershed steward program should be implemented? (select one)

nmlkj One central location in the state, annually

nmlkj Multiple regional locations throughout the state, annually

Comments

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. m

n

Page 8 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Watershed Management Planning

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.

gfedc 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

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

nmlkj 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

Other (please specify)

Page 9 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Barriers

18. What factors are barriers to accomplishing watershed management goals in your organization or community? Moderate Not Not a Barrier Minor Barrier Major Barrier Barrier 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 nmlkj Low interest from public officials in adopting proactive/preventative nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj policies

Other (please specify)

Page 10 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Demographics

19. What is your gender?

nmlkj Male

nmlkj Female

20. What is your age?

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

Page 11 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Demographics

21. What is your race?

nmlkj White

nmlkj Black or African-American

nmlkj American Indian or Alaska

nmlkj Native Hawaiian or Other

nmlkj Pacific Islander

nmlkj Hispanic or Latino

Other (please specify)

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

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.)

Page 12 New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Needs Assessment

Thank You!

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

nmlkj Yes

nmlkj No

nmlkj Maybe

Comments:

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. m

n

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.

Page 13