Survey of Wisconsin Volunteer Monitoring Programs: Results and Recommendations

1. Survey of Wisconsin Volunteer Monitoring Programs: Results and Recommendations Laura Felda-Marquardt Nancy Turyk Cory Counard MacNulty representing the Volunteer Monitoring Task Force Citizen-Based Monitoring Conference, August 2004

2. Volunteer Monitoring Task Force • Multidisciplinary/agency team initiated to address volunteer monitoring issues in Wisconsin. • Established May 2004 • UW-Extension initiated effort • Other Partners: • UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education • DNR • Lakes Partnership • Northland College • UW-Madison

3. Volunteer Monitoring Survey • Recognized opportunity & need for information • Prepared survey to find: • Scope of volunteer monitoring efforts • Shared concerns • Opinions regarding a statewide network • Survey • Sent to 25 programs initially • Later sent to 42 others who registered for conference • 21 Responses (31%)

4. Survey Respondents • Testing the Waters of the Sheboygan River • Best Management Practices for Water Quality • Wisconsin Rivers Educator Network • North American Butterfly Association • Adopt-A-Lake • Duncan Creek Monitoring Project • Water Quality Monitoring Project • Wisconsin Checklist Project • Volunteer Carnivore Tracking Program • Clean Boats, Clean Waters • LoonWatch Wisconsin Loon Population Survey • LoonWatch Annual Lake Monitoring Program • Annual Midwest Crane Count • Groundwater Guardian • Self-Help Lake Monitoring • Groundwater Observation Network of Wisconsin • Community Stewardship Program • Minnesota Worm Watch • Water Action Volunteers

5. Water-related: Lakes/Ponds 9* Rivers/Streams 9 Watersheds 8 Groundwater 3 Birds: 5 Exotics: 4 Insects: 3 Native Plants: 2 Prairies: 2 Amphibians: 1 Environments Monitored • *number of programs with volunteers that monitor this type of environment

6. When Programs Established

7. Geographic Scale of Programs

8. Programs’ Volunteers • Interested individuals (not related to a group) 12* • Teachers/Schools 11 • Conservation groups 10 • Agency staff 9 • Youth groups 7 • Civic groups (Rotarians, Trout Unlimited, etc.) 2 • Other 4 *Number of programs indicating volunteers in category

9. Impact of these efforts • 8,027 volunteers • 1,436,833 hours per year • Represents a contribution exceeding $9.3 million per year!

10. Support Provided to Volunteers Most common responses: • Annual training for new volunteers (14) • Program website (11) • Data analysis and reporting (10) • Staff consultation with volunteers (9)

11. Average of 2 full time staff per program Annual budget most often <$1000 Program Budgets and Staff

12. Funding Sources • State 6* • Federal 4 • Donations 3 • Foundations 2 • Corporate 2 • Dues 1 • Other 2 *Number of responses indicating as a source of funding

13. Uses of Volunteer Monitoring Data

14. Who uses volunteer monitoring data? • Your Group 11* • State government 11 • Non-profit organizations 10 • K-12 public schools 9 • University scientists 9 • Local governments 7 • Federal government 5 • Others 4 *Number of programs responding

15. Program Concerns

16. Program Concerns Most common concerns: • Data quality (52%) • Stability & quantity of funding (37%) • Use or acceptance of data (37%) • Loss of volunteer motivation (37%) • Lack of support staff (37%) *Percent indicates the number responding quite or a significant concern

17. Program Concerns Other concerns: • Liability (55% somewhat concerned) • Lack of equipment (45% somewhat concerned) • Excessive number of volunteers (70% not a concern) *Percent indicates the number responding quite or a significant concern

18. What About a Statewide Network? • Goal: Work together to support and strengthen volunteer monitoring in Wisconsin. • 80% of those responding think that a statewide volunteer monitoring network is a good idea.

19. Benefits of Network Most commonly identified benefits: • Data Management (63%)* • Obtain grant/funding information (62%) • Technical Support (58%) *Percent indicates the number responding quite or a significant benefit

20. Benefits of Network Split opinions: • Website (50%) • Organizational support (50%) • Volunteer recruitment (50%) • List-serve (50%) • Conferences (50%) • Equipment sharing (55%) *Percent indicates the number responding not a benefit or somewhat of a benefit

21. Drawbacks of Network Most commonly noted significant drawbacks: • No funding to support the network (58%)* • Additional time commitment for coordinators (42%) *Percent indicates the number responding quite or a significant drawback

22. Recommendations Continue to explore the feasibility of a state-wide volunteer monitoring network! • Identify possible functions, structure, and pitfalls • Re-survey potential participants to obtain their input • Rework function, structure, pitfalls based on survey results • Identify which organizations will be involved in hosting websites, housing databases, providing support staff, etc. • Pursue necessary funding for support staff

23. Thinking Towards the Future • Obtain more input from existing programs • paper copies of survey available today • http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/lakes/selfhelp/volteam/survey.asp Update list of existing volunteer monitoring programs

24. Nancy Turyk Jennifer Filbert Cory Counard MacNulty Steve Galarneau Kevin Masarik Laura Felda-Marquardt Laura Herman Shannon Fenner David Eagan Ken Schreiber Kris Stepenuck Jim Vennie Jeff Bode Carol Holden Task Force Members