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.Multidisciplinary/agency team initiated to address volunteer monitoring issues in Wisconsin. Established May 2004Established May 2004 UW-Extension initiated effortUW-Extension initiated effort –Other Partners: UWSP Center for Watershed Science and EducationUWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education DNRDNR Lakes PartnershipLakes Partnership Northland CollegeNorthland College UW-MadisonUW-Madison

3. Volunteer Monitoring Survey Recognized opportunity & need for informationRecognized opportunity & need for information Prepared survey to find:Prepared survey to find: –Scope of volunteer monitoring efforts –Shared concerns –Opinions regarding a statewide network SurveySurvey –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 RiverTesting the Waters of the Sheboygan River Best Management Practices for Water QualityBest Management Practices for Water Quality Wisconsin Rivers Educator NetworkWisconsin Rivers Educator Network North American Butterfly AssociationNorth American Butterfly Association Adopt-A-LakeAdopt-A-Lake Duncan Creek Monitoring ProjectDuncan Creek Monitoring Project Water Quality Monitoring ProjectWater Quality Monitoring Project Wisconsin Checklist ProjectWisconsin Checklist Project Volunteer Carnivore Tracking ProgramVolunteer Carnivore Tracking Program Clean Boats, Clean WatersClean Boats, Clean Waters LoonWatch Wisconsin Loon Population SurveyLoonWatch Wisconsin Loon Population Survey LoonWatch Annual Lake Monitoring ProgramLoonWatch Annual Lake Monitoring Program Annual Midwest Crane CountAnnual Midwest Crane Count Groundwater GuardianGroundwater Guardian Self-Help Lake MonitoringSelf-Help Lake Monitoring Groundwater Observation Network of WisconsinGroundwater Observation Network of Wisconsin Community Stewardship ProgramCommunity Stewardship Program Minnesota Worm WatchMinnesota Worm Watch Water Action VolunteersWater Action Volunteers

5. Environments Monitored Water-related:Water-related: –Lakes/Ponds 9* –Rivers/Streams 9 –Watersheds 8 –Groundwater 3 Birds: 5Birds: 5 Exotics: 4Exotics: 4 Insects: 3Insects: 3 Native Plants: 2Native Plants: 2 Prairies: 2Prairies: 2 Amphibians: 1Amphibians: 1 *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*Interested individuals (not related to a group) 12* Teachers/Schools 11Teachers/Schools 11 Conservation groups 10Conservation groups 10 Agency staff 9Agency staff 9 Youth groups 7Youth groups 7 Civic groups (Rotarians, Trout Unlimited, etc.) 2Civic groups (Rotarians, Trout Unlimited, etc.) 2 Other 4Other 4 *Number of programs indicating volunteers in category

9. Impact of these efforts 8,027 volunteers8,027 volunteers 1,436,833 hours per year1,436,833 hours per year Represents a contribution exceeding $9.3 million 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)Annual training for new volunteers (14) Program website (11)Program website (11) Data analysis and reporting (10)Data analysis and reporting (10) Staff consultation with volunteers (9)Staff consultation with volunteers (9)

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

12. Funding Sources State6* Federal4 Donations3 Foundations2 Corporate2 Dues1 Other2 *Number of responses indicating as a source of funding

13. Uses of Volunteer Monitoring Data

14. Who uses volunteer monitoring data? Your Group11*Your Group11* State government 11State government 11 Non-profit organizations 10Non-profit organizations 10 K-12 public schools 9K-12 public schools 9 University scientists 9University scientists 9 Local governments 7Local governments 7 Federal government 5Federal government 5 Others4Others4 *Number of programs responding

15. Program Concerns

16. Most common concerns: Data quality (52%)Data quality (52%) Stability & quantity of funding (37%)Stability & quantity of funding (37%) Use or acceptance of data (37%)Use or acceptance of data (37%) Loss of volunteer motivation (37%)Loss of volunteer motivation (37%) Lack of support staff (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)Liability (55% somewhat concerned) Lack of equipment (45% somewhat concerned)Lack of equipment (45% somewhat concerned) Excessive number of volunteers (70% not a concern)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: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.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%)*Data Management (63%)* Obtain grant/funding information (62%)Obtain grant/funding information (62%) Technical Support (58%)Technical Support (58%) *Percent indicates the number responding quite or a significant benefit

20. Benefits of Network Split opinions: Website (50%)Website (50%) Organizational support (50%)Organizational support (50%) Volunteer recruitment (50%)Volunteer recruitment (50%) List-serve (50%)List-serve (50%) Conferences (50%)Conferences (50%) Equipment sharing (55%)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%)*No funding to support the network (58%)* Additional time commitment for coordinators (42%)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 programsObtain more input from existing programs –paper copies of survey available today –http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/lakes/selfhelp/volteam/survey.asp http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/lakes/selfhelp/volteam/survey.asp Update list of existing volunteer monitoring programs

24. Task Force Members Nancy TurykNancy Turyk Jennifer FilbertJennifer Filbert Cory Counard MacNultyCory Counard MacNulty Steve GalarneauSteve Galarneau Kevin MasarikKevin Masarik Laura Felda-MarquardtLaura Felda-Marquardt Laura HermanLaura Herman Shannon FennerShannon Fenner David EaganDavid Eagan Ken SchreiberKen Schreiber Kris StepenuckKris Stepenuck Jim VennieJim Vennie Jeff BodeJeff Bode Carol HoldenCarol Holden